Israel Strikes Qatar; Jobs in Crisis; Murdoch's Exit; US Military Decline | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Fundamental principles I've readom rational, self interest, and individual ones.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
This is the ran Brook Show.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Oh right, everybody walk up to your own book.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
Show on this What is it?

Speaker 1 (00:24):
It's Tuesday, It's Seplember ninth. Thanks for joining me. I
hope everybody's having a good week so far. Alright? What
am I missing here? Oh? Yeah, I got a press start.
All right, there we go.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
That's better.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
All right, So very echoy today we echo you right now,
I mean echoe during the music, Echo you with me
speaking echo echo eqoi. I don't know it was echoe
early on because there were some issues, but hopefully those
will be resolved. Yes now, echo y now. I don't

(01:05):
know now Uh all right, So.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
Is the sound reasonable? Unreasonable? Impossible? Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:22):
Not real? Bad? You sound like you're in a small
tiled room. That's not good. It's the same room I've
been in every day, Like you're in a bathroom.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
All right.

Speaker 3 (01:37):
It's the same room I've always been in and nothing
has changed, nothing is different.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
It is what it is.

Speaker 3 (01:44):
I'm trying to see. I'm speaking through the right microphone.

Speaker 1 (01:50):
We're going through, yes, the right mic Everything is everything
is the right bathroom acoustics we'll body gone to water.
All right, what do I do about this? Let's see,

(02:13):
I can.

Speaker 3 (02:15):
Let me just see if I can play with with
any of the audio settings here. Nothing allows it to
get any better there apollo plate reverb to my eyes,
What the hell is that it's doable? We can listen
better than six feet under. But at least we have you,

(02:37):
So let's go.

Speaker 1 (02:40):
All right, anyway, let's let's just let's just go. I
don't know that I can change the acoustics of the
room right now, and I don't have a mixer to
adapt a sound. It is curious that it's exactly a
thing set up as every day, and yet here we are,
so is weel It continues.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
It's the surprise, I guess.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
This government continues to surprise its willingness to do bold
and bold and couragious actions. This one in particular, not
so much a big surprise in terms of capabilities, but
a big surprise in terms of willingness to do it.

(03:23):
So is all today bombed the Hamas a gathering of
the Hamas leadership in Qatar, And basically this was the
entire leadership of Haramas, including the people engaged the leadership
of Hamas engaged in negotiating with Israel and with the
United States with the mediation of Katal over the ceasefire,

(03:46):
and Israel bombed the assembly with the hope of killing
the entire leadership of Ramas. And what's bold and I
think ambitious and brave about is the visual had to know.

Speaker 2 (04:02):
That nobody would support it in doing so.

Speaker 1 (04:05):
That is, kataw Is pretends and plays the game, and
everybody plays with Katara the game that Katar is an
ally and the ally of the United States and the
ally of the West. Remember, the United States has its
largest military base in the Middle East, the largest air
field in the Middle East, in Qatar. When Iran was

(04:26):
retaliating against the bombing of the nucletive facilities, they targeted
the air based American Air base in Qatar. So Qatar
is a friend of the US. That is how the
US sees it. That's how the US presents it to
the world. That's how Kataba sees it, how Katara presents
it to the world at least, and Katara is also

(04:48):
part of the Gulf States. It has a rocky relationship
with Saudi Arabia and with the United alabem Merates, but overall,
it is part of that community, it is part of
that world. So Israel had to know that by doing
this they would be condemned by everybody.

Speaker 2 (05:06):
Indeed, as we will see, they have.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
Been condemned by everybody. In addition, this is the team
that they're negotiating with, and yet that were they to
kill them, that suggests that Israel no longer cares about
the negotiation now that in and of itself is a
bold statement given two years now of Israel negotiating with

(05:31):
Hamas in Qatar. I mean, indeed, the head of the
Israeli Mossad and the head of the Israeli Shinbad, the
toil of security of Israel, have traveled to Qatar and
negotiated their wid cough is often in negotiating, and Israel
has been committed to negotiating for the last two years.
And yet this strike clearly sends the indication that, okay,

(05:54):
negotiations are over.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
This is it, and you all will pay.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
The The immediate justification for this attack that was given
was the terrorist attack yesterday in Jerusalem where a gun,
you know, a couple of terrorists just shut up a
bus killing killing I think it was six Israelis and
injuring many others, which Ramas took credit for. So Hamas

(06:25):
took credit for the attack, and as All said, Okay,
if you're gonna take credit for it, you're gonna pay
for it. And uh this was in retaliation, uh for
for that, so Hamas to credit for it. They praised it.
They they called it heroic and uh add all that

(06:46):
up is well had to respond and they were you know,
and this was the response. But again a response that
they knew would be incredibly unpopular and probably felling unpopular
within Israel itself, given that we're talking about negotiating for
the hostages, and given that people believe now that the
hostages are more danger now than they if I have been,

(07:09):
and many of them might be killed as a response
of this attack anyway, So that is that is you know,
the kind of the background of this attack. While the
attack was going on, so it was involved ten Israeli
aircraft my guess is F thirty five's and which flew

(07:34):
over Syria and into Iraq and launched an attack I
believe from southern Iraqi airspace. They had refueling both on
the way they run on the way back. These are
very vast distances. In Israel is not flying direct because
it is avoiding Jordanian airspace, and it is avoiding Saudi
airspace so as not to antagonize the Jordanians in the Saudis.

Speaker 2 (07:58):
So it's flying.

Speaker 1 (07:59):
Around through Syria and then down through Iraq in order
to get to the Gulf. So it had to refuel
their planes on the way there, and I understand on
the way back as well, when their planes were starting
to cross Syria and so on, American radars detected them.

Speaker 2 (08:19):
Satellites detected Israeli movement.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
American command immediately contacted Israeli command and asked what the
hell was going on?

Speaker 2 (08:28):
What was this deal about?

Speaker 1 (08:30):
I guess the Israelis told the Americans that they were
on their way to attack Qatara, to attack the Hamas
meeting in Katara. The American forces let the Trump administration
know that this was happening. From what I understand, Trump
called WHITCOF and told WHITKOF to let the Kataris know

(08:53):
that this was happening. At least this is the official story, right,
but I believe it. I don't think Trump would have
ever agreed to this. I mean Trump, Trump is friendly
with the Qataris. He's his buddies with them. He likes
to you know. Anyway, I do not think that Trump

(09:16):
would have authorized this this strike if he had known
about it in advance. And indeed it sounds like they
told the Kataris about it. Now the question really is
going to be did they let the Qataris know before
so that the Qutaris could warn Ramas or did some
news report saying they only let them know once the

(09:39):
missiles were in the air.

Speaker 2 (09:41):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (09:42):
But the reality is this that in spite of the
fact that at this building the entire Kama's leadership was meeting,
all of them. I mean, we've got we've got the
We've got Khalil al Haya, who is who is their
leader of Ramas, but also included Muhammad da Wish, Musa Musak, Mussam,

(10:04):
Badana Nuna. These are basically the entire remaining leadership Ramas,
the ones that are still alive, including those who flew
in to Katara from.

Speaker 2 (10:14):
Turkey, right. And the idea was that they were there to.

Speaker 1 (10:19):
Discuss uh the ceasefire agreement, the last one that were
submitted by Witkov. The reality is that it appears that
all the senior all the senior Ramas leaders survived the attack,
in spite of the fact that the building, the entire

(10:39):
first floor is devastated. The entire inside of the building
looks like it is completely devastated.

Speaker 2 (10:47):
So one wonder is how they survived.

Speaker 1 (10:49):
It, right? And I don't know, and we don't know.
I don't know that anybody knows except the people actually
do know. Did the US let them know in advance
so as shield them from it. Five Haramas operatives did
die in the attack, including the son of Ramas's leader

(11:09):
and some other prominent people within Hamas, but none of
the senior leadership actually.

Speaker 2 (11:15):
Died in this attack, So how to tell?

Speaker 1 (11:20):
At least again, these these are the reports that are
coming out of Katau, and Haramas is usually pretty good
about admitting when the people are killed, particularly in an
open place like Katawe, can be checked. So it looks
like the attack failed to kill the Ramas leadership in
spite of the fact that it was should have been

(11:41):
a surprise, and they were all in this building, and
this building was indeed struck, and you can see photos
of it with the entire inside of it destroyed. So again,
I don't know. I don't know whether the who let

(12:02):
them know, if this was announced in advance and just
the bombs didn't, you know, didn't do the job. It
could be that they weren't on that floor, they weren't
in that building, they weren't in that room. It could
be that that it just it just wasn't enough that
Israel needed to launch more bombs in order to destroy.

Speaker 2 (12:19):
The building completely.

Speaker 1 (12:20):
The building is not collapsed, the building is not completely destroyed.
So it's possibly that it is true. In the meantime
that the United States has condemned the attack. White House
Press Secretary Carolyn Livett has said, quote unilaterally, bombing inside
Katao does not advance Israel America's goals. The president's view,

(12:43):
the President of views Katawa as a strong ally and
friend of the United States and feels very badly about
the location of this attack. Now, I just want to
give you a sense of a sense of kata Katarwa
is well known to be the main funder of ISIS,

(13:06):
and was the main funder of ISIS throughout the twenty teens.
At the same time as the United States was launching airplanes,
a farmer Katarwi air base to attack to attack ISIS.

Speaker 2 (13:16):
ISIS was funding them at the same time.

Speaker 1 (13:19):
KATAI is also the largest funder of Middle East programs
and other programs in American universities that undermine America, undermine Israel,
undermine Western civilization at American universities.

Speaker 2 (13:31):
Qatar is by far the largest funder of that.

Speaker 1 (13:35):
Katari is also the only really ally iran Has iran
Has in.

Speaker 2 (13:39):
The Gulf and in the kind of the Arab world.

Speaker 1 (13:44):
Katawa has stayed friendly with the Iranians and be supportive
of the Iranians in spite of all the in spite
of the Iranians, all the Iranians terrorist activities and development
of nuclear weapons. To make it very clear, and I've
been talking about this for years, decades, but years really

(14:07):
at least ten years, fifteen years, Kataw is an enemy
of the United States.

Speaker 2 (14:12):
KATAI is an.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
Antagonist, is an undermine of American interest in the in
the Middle East, It's an undermine of American interest in
the United States. Again, it funds in the US. It
is the one funding the demonstrations at the universities. It
funds leftist causes, it funds anti American, anti Western civilization,
causes in the United States. If you look at external

(14:36):
funders of American universities, you'll find Katari foundations at the
top of the list, over and over and over again.

Speaker 2 (14:44):
Middle Least programs which.

Speaker 1 (14:45):
Are anti Israel, anti West, all funded by Katawa. It
used to be Saudi, It used to be a mix
of money. Today it is dominantly the Katari's Katawa is
a force of ill in the Middle East. It is
the one place in which the Muslim Brotherhood feels safe.

(15:08):
The Muslim Brotherhood, which is kicked out of Egypt, kicked
out of Saudi Arabia, has found a home in Katao
and uses Katar as its base to spread its militant
Islamist jihadist ideology throughout the Middle East and throughout the world.
It also is the place in which they use their
propaganda or Jazeira is a Katari news organization and news

(15:34):
organization that does everything that it can to undermine Israel,
to undermine the US, to undermine US interests in the
Middle East. It is to some extent at least, a
Muslim Brotherhood media outlet, and of course Hamas is of
course i've spin off of the Muslim Brotherhood Hamas was

(15:55):
the Muslim brotherhood of Palestine in its origination, also facilitated
huge amounts of money to Hamas and houses Kamas leadership
and has house Kamas leadership for years and years and years.

Speaker 2 (16:09):
So it has placed.

Speaker 1 (16:10):
Host to some of the world's most brutal, horrific, murderous terrorists,
and yet unilaterally bombing inside Katau does not advance Israel
in America's interest. President views Katau as a strong ally. Indeed,
according to the White House, President Trump was only notified

(16:31):
about the Israeli strike, you know, once it was happening,
and that the President quote feels very badly about the
location of the strike and was and has asshured Qatau.
He immediately spoke to Bibi. I'm sure he yelled at Nitanielle.
And he then immediately spoke to the Emir, the dictator

(16:51):
of Qatau, and assured Katu that there will be no
further attacks against its territory and basically gave the Riot
Act to Nataniello.

Speaker 2 (17:05):
Explaining that that was now the rule.

Speaker 1 (17:09):
So this administration continues to cat all dictators, to appease evil,
to negotiate with evil, and it continues to.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
You know, hamper Israel's efforts to defend itself.

Speaker 1 (17:30):
The United States years ago, suddenly after September, after October
nineth seventh should have.

Speaker 2 (17:37):
Withdrawn its support for katau.

Speaker 1 (17:41):
And and denounce any attempt to negotiate with Ramas. Ramas
has played Israel. It's played the Americans. It plays the
negotiations for time. It never gives direct answers, it never
gives definitive answers, because it is playing for time, because

(18:02):
it knows time is us on its side. Why, because
it's funding all these protests, and it knows that the
longer this takes, the more Ghazans die, the more they
can pretend this famine, the more pressure the world community
will place on Israel, the more isolated Israel.

Speaker 2 (18:21):
Becomes, the more Hamas wins. And that has been that
has been the strategy from the beginning. Trump.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
While Trump is doing what Trump does, one day hot,
one day cold. He supports Bib on some things and
he restricts Bib on other things, and he is friendly.
His primary elite alliance in the beliefs is not to Israel.
It's not to Bib. It's the Saudis and it's the Cataris.
The Saudis already, of course, denounced this, the Jordanians have

(18:56):
denounced this, pretty much all European countries have then action,
and the United States will not stand by Israel on
this one because because of its commitment to the Katais
and its friendship to the Katais, and again the fact
that the United States continues to try to negotiate with

(19:16):
Hamas is weakness. I think Israel finally is figured out
the right attitude. The right attitude is to kill Rama's
leadership wherever it happens to be, find them and kill them.
If they failed this time, it is sad, it is
maybe even a tragedy, but they should keep at it

(19:36):
no matter where they are in Turkey and Katau, no
matter where they hide, they should know that they will
never be safe, that Israel will hunt them down and
kill them, and no matter what America thinks, Israel will
destroy every less remnant of Hamas. At the same time
Israel is trying to kill Rama's leadership, it is also

(19:57):
issued a sweeping evacuation order this morning, calling on all
Gaza City residents to immediately leave by designated corridors while
Israel intends to strike and enter Gaza City and basically
take control over the entire into the most populated region

(20:18):
in Gaza. The notice that was issued today states that
quote the IDF is resolute in defeating Hamas and while
operating Gaza City with overwhelming force, as it has done
throughout the strip. It instructed residents to quote evacuate immediately.
Supposedly more than one hundred thousand have already evacuated the city,

(20:41):
with between one hundred and three hundred thousand remaining in
the city and quoting, you know, a foreign minister, Gironsao
has said that Israel's committed now to ending the war
based on Trump's proposal and accordance with the principle's ablished
by a security Cabinet, which means the defeat of Hamas

(21:03):
and the destruction of the Gaza Strip. So yeah, Israel
will will take Gaza City now. You know, it can't
kill every Ramas member. Many of the Ramas members are

(21:24):
evacuating with the rest of the civilian population. They dress
up as civilians and they evacuate, but.

Speaker 2 (21:31):
Taking control over the city.

Speaker 1 (21:34):
You know, the one place where Hamas has operated over
the last few months fairly freely, the one place where
there are still many tunnels from which they keep attacking
Israeli forces and in which they're holding the hostages. I
do believe that the chances of recovering the hostages and
getting the hostages out of Gaza alive is very low

(21:58):
at this point. As Israel advances UH, it is likely
that Hamas will kill the hostages. It is done in
in in the past. But this is the only path
available to Israel. The only path availament to Israel is
the complete occupation of Gaza and UH and and the
complete destruction of Gaza. Because every building, every tunnel is

(22:26):
a place in which Hamas can establish itself. It's a
place in which Hamas can UH try to ambush this
with these soldiers. It's a place in which Hamas can
hide its own troops and the hide hostages. Israel has
to control the space it has. It has to control UH,

(22:46):
to control Gaza, take it over and and and determine
its long term fate itself. It cannot trust anybody else
to do it, to do it for you, you know,
I'll just take this question because it's relevant to what
we're talking about right now. David says, what if Hamas
is hiding in Turkey, should is will attack them there,

(23:10):
I'll just say that if Hamas is in Turkey, then no,
I wouldn't say that Israel should launch aircraft and bomber
building in Turkey. But its all has done. You can
do it in other ways. Israel could send assassins in
and kill them, kill them there. It's done. It's assassinated
terrorist leaders in Western countries, so there should be no

(23:33):
restriction on trying to do it in Tokey as well.
But yes, absolutely they should try to kill them in Turkey.
They should kill them in America if they're in America,
they should kill them wherever they happen to be. Wherever
they are, they should worry about their phone exploding. They
should worry about their car exploding. They should worry about
somebody putting a bullet in their head, or somebody in them,

(23:55):
pricking them with a poisonous needle. They should live in
fear for the rest of their life, under the fear
of being assassinated. Assassination death is the only thing these
monsters deserve, and I think his Roel has now made
it clear that they're willing to do that. Sadly, instead

(24:16):
of supporting that the United States is is condemning the
attack and giving Hamas breathing room. It's giving Kamas space
to survive until for another day. And that is the tragedy.
But that is you know, again, this is completely and

(24:38):
utterly expected of an unprincipled, unprincipled administration that cozies up
to dictators and then has shown over.

Speaker 2 (24:50):
And over again it's sympathies to cut out.

Speaker 1 (24:53):
So you know, it's it's sad, it's sad that this
is the trumpet ministryation's position, but it's not that surprising.
It's not such surprising at all that it is that.
So what's really said is that Israel failed to kill.

Speaker 2 (25:11):
The people that needed killing.

Speaker 1 (25:13):
Uh so, which were the leaders of Hamash. So it
does it does seem like well, five of Hamath's members,
you know, fairly well.

Speaker 2 (25:23):
Known people were killed.

Speaker 1 (25:25):
The main target, particularly the excelled Godza chief Khalili Haya
was not was not killed. And yeah, I'll try again,
hopefully next time. But uh there's a missed, uh missed opportunity.
I hope, I hope it doesn't turn out because this

(25:46):
would be really tragic that it is the United States
that tipped the hand and saved the lives of these
Hamas leaders, and you know in Israel they're very worried
now about what happens to hostages and whether the hostages
will pay the price for this attempted uh, this attempt

(26:09):
to this attempted assassination. Right, yeah, And how am I
sself to use this, I'm altual to use this.

Speaker 2 (26:28):
To try to.

Speaker 1 (26:30):
Tell Israel a part by by blaming Israel for whatever
happens to the h you know, to the hostages. Let's see,
I'm just checking out if there's anything anything, uh, anything

(26:59):
new that has happened, anything live that's happened. Yeah. I
mean here, the son of Ramas, you know, Masuba Hassan Yosef,
who is the son of a Rama's leader, who has
been in the West, has become very poor Israel and
very pro West and very anti Ramas. The son of Ramas,

(27:22):
has come out and said the striking Katau should have
been done two years ago. And I agree completely too late,
too late. I mean, he is so good, he is
so uncompromising and and and principles, you know, so so yes,

(27:44):
let me see if I can get you to direct
quote from him here it is this should have been
done almost two years ago, has Yosef, known as the
Green Prince, told the Post kata funded Hamas for many
years Hamastak Sanctuary Katau. They thought they could not be reached,
and they thought they were immune, you know. To remind you,

(28:07):
yusef As father was Shikas and Yusuf who is the
founding member of Ramas. He says, is Tho's actions send
an unequivocal message. Quote, there is no immunity to those
who kill innocent civilians, who butcher civilians and take hostages,
then blackmail a nation in an attempt to bring the
Jewish people, and Israel is a nation onto its knees,

(28:29):
so uh uh, you know. And then and then he says,
I don't think it's in their interest to harm the hostages.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
I think Andrews.

Speaker 1 (28:36):
Wil did well by cutting this chain of brokers over
the hostage situation. So he said, used to believes Isel
has a better chance of negotiating directly with Hamas's military
wing in Gaza, with the guy directly responsible for the hostages.

(29:02):
So and and they need to stop negotiating with the
people in Katao at all at all. So you know, Hadad,
he says, Now haw Dad knows that if he's not
going to see it and deal with Israel, he is
going to be dead as well. So I think that
the chances, in my opinion, are better.

Speaker 2 (29:21):
We will see, we will see.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
Remember Kata is a tiny little country, but it has
a lot of money, and it has a lot of
influence as a consequence of.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
Having a lot of money.

Speaker 1 (29:35):
All right, So put that aside, Israel will be entering
because the city in the days to come scary times,
I think for many israelis certainly scary times. For if
you have any relatives in the Israeli military, this is
not going to be easy. It's this is going to
be again street street building, to building, combat, urban combat.

(30:00):
This is why Israel's trying to evacuate as many people
as possible so it can come in, but everything.

Speaker 2 (30:05):
Will be booby trapped.

Speaker 1 (30:07):
Israel's done really well in minimum minimizing its own casualties
relatively speaking, u in its entry into Gaza in the past.
Let's hope you to continue to do this. I have
a my my nephew is is I don't know if
he's in Gaza, but he probably will be in Gaza.
So I should I should I should call my sister

(30:30):
and find out because.

Speaker 2 (30:33):
Not good. Oh anyway, uh, that.

Speaker 1 (30:36):
Is the story in Israel. We will see where this develops.
I fear that the world turning against Israel will only
intensify with this attack on Qatar because of Kataw's massive influence.

Speaker 2 (30:51):
Massive.

Speaker 1 (30:51):
I mean, can you imagine Teka calson right now. I
mean they just they just Israel just attacked the sponsor
uh so uh and and many people and the American
right who are sponsored by Catala. There's a lot of
Katari money flowing into the United States, as I said,
not just to the left, but to the right as well.
And so there's going to be a lot of people

(31:11):
flipping out over this on the left and on the right.
I mean, interesting numbers came out today. So you know
how jobs numbers, GDP numbers. Ultimately every number that they
basically the the government releases is every month they look

(31:33):
backwards and they revise it and then.

Speaker 2 (31:37):
Twice a year they do a big revision.

Speaker 1 (31:40):
So right now, for example, today they revise the numbers
from April twenty four to March twenty five in terms
of employment, and then those numbers are not really final.
The only final numbers for April twenty four to March
twenty five, will be released in February twenty six, so

(32:00):
they're constantly revising based on new information. There is no
real time info. We don't live luckily. Luckily, we do
not live in a surveillance society, so we don't have
real time American companies are not required to let the
government know every time they hire and fire and employee.

(32:22):
So the government statisticians, I don't know why they exist
at all, but the government statisticians are constantly trying to
figure out how many jobs are created, how many jobs
are lost, what's unemployment and what is job creation and
the economy and it's a noisy messy and it turns

(32:44):
out very very inaccurate thing they're trying to do, and
it seems like it's only getting more inaccurate. Now the
Trump administration is telling us that the reason it's getting
more inaccurate is because of politics. Maybe maybe it is
politics driving, but it's not obvious that it's politics.

Speaker 2 (33:03):
It could very well be that the data is just
more difficult to.

Speaker 1 (33:08):
Track for a variety of technological and a variety of
just business reasons. We have reasons in the reality of
the world out there. So here's the bottom line. So,
as of earlier today, it had been believed that between
April twenty twenty four and March twenty twenty five, so

(33:32):
mostly under Biden, but last couple of months under Trump
February in March, that the United States had created in
the United States, they had been created one point eight.

Speaker 2 (33:43):
Million jobs during that period.

Speaker 1 (33:48):
It turns out, at least according to the latest numbers
and the latest evaluations, that only eight hundred and forty
seven thousand jobs had been created during that period. That is,
it turns out that the job market during the latter
part of the Biden administration and the early part of
the Trump administration has been much worse than.

Speaker 2 (34:10):
Previously believed to have been. This is a Huger vision,
a Huger vision.

Speaker 1 (34:18):
Negative nine hundred and eleven thousand jobs, and a lot
of people are going to be look at this and
figure out how, how why they messed up by such
a big number. Average job gains before their revision one
hundred and forty seven a month, one hundred forty seven
thousand a month. Average john gains after a revision seventy
one thousand a month.

Speaker 2 (34:40):
Now, that means that.

Speaker 1 (34:43):
You know if in a normal time you need more
than seventy one thousand jobs a month to hire everybody
who is joining the workplace. But what's weird about it
is that unemployment has not changed the The unemployment number
has stayed constant. There's a lot of messiness in these numbers.

(35:08):
Last August, for example, the BLS were ported eight hundred
and eighteen thousand fewer jobs, so big DOWNDAD revisions over
the last two years. And by the way, last August
was just before the election, and they were basically announcing

(35:29):
that during Biden's administration they had been eighteen eight hundred
and eighteen thousand fewer jobs than the Biden administration were
reported previously. So this was negative news for the Biden
administration in terms of jobs just before the election. So
it's hard to believe that this is all political. Maybe
it is, but it's just hard to believe that it is.

(35:51):
It just seems like their systems are broken, and maybe
the systems broke, maybe the mechanisms by which they measured
these things broke during COVID.

Speaker 2 (36:02):
And they have not managed to fix them.

Speaker 1 (36:03):
Then. I don't know what's going on, but it's clear
that government data is you know, is is really broken,
and so many employment numbers are really broken. We don't
have any other data on the economy. So can we

(36:23):
trust government data on the economy. I don't know it's
but so any data we really have. You don't have
much other data. You have a stock market, your bond
market versus markets that are trading. You have earning reports
of corporations and businesses. You have private hiring numbers which

(36:48):
are very messy and very noisy and only partial.

Speaker 2 (36:52):
We don't have aggregate statistics in the economy.

Speaker 1 (36:56):
And the fact that you know the government is incompetent
and not very good at getting the numbers you shouldn't
be surprising to anybody. It's the governor after all. So
even if they're not biased, then they're not trying to
manipulate it. Can we trust them in terms of just
competence questionable? And of course Trump is now appointed to

(37:20):
the Statistics Agency, the agency that will be producing future reports.

Speaker 2 (37:24):
He is appointing or you know, the.

Speaker 1 (37:29):
This will go in front of Congress soon to be approved.
Appointing somebody who's very part is it, who is likely
to try at least to manipulate the numbers in favor
of Trump. So I'm not sure we could have trusted
the numbers ever, and I certainly don't think we can
trust the numbers into the future. Now, numbers produced by

(37:50):
the FED, I think are much more at least independent. Again,
are they right is a different question, but at least
independent of politics. This is one of the problems of
making the FED none independent. That is reducing its independence
is the fact that it will it will lose even that.

Speaker 2 (38:09):
Ability that at least its numbers are somewhat true.

Speaker 1 (38:14):
Yeah, the labor departments view of labor statistics, this a BLS,
which is where all these revisions are happening. Is this
is a this is a really big deal. Now, economis
expected estimated revisions to be between four hundred thousand and
a million jobs negative.

Speaker 2 (38:33):
But you know, so this was this was pretty big.
This is pretty big. All right, let's see.

Speaker 1 (38:44):
I mean what this really means from an economic perspective.
And one of the reasons the markets have now responded
very negative to this because you would expect this again
suggests that the economy is not doing well. The economy
wasn't as good as people thought it was, as we
we all thought it was well. I thought it was
last year and everybody else based on the numbers that

(39:04):
it wasn't as good. Again, it wasn't recession, but it
wasn't as good. The numbers this year suggest that this
year is even worse. And yet the market is still
up in record territory. And the reason for that is
that as negative numbers get released, the FED likely that
the Fed will reduce interest rates increases and interstates going

(39:27):
down actually increases the value of assets. So you'd expect
stock prices to go up as interstates go down, and
that's the reason why the stock market is not.

Speaker 2 (39:41):
Is not moving. So the Fed is.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
Looking at these numbers, is using these numbers, and there's
no doubt the next week the Federal lower interest rates.
Now the question is going to be will they lower
it by twenty five basis points and fifty basis points?
And of course the other question is will lowering interest
rates affect inflation? That is, what is the relation between
interestrates and inflation short term interstrates, which is what the

(40:05):
FED controls.

Speaker 2 (40:06):
It's not clear is the.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
Lowering of interestrates by the Fed and acknowledgment that they
cannot get inflation. Inflation meaning in this context, price inflation,
consumer price inflation.

Speaker 2 (40:18):
The prices we pay for the stuff that we buy
is a is them lowering.

Speaker 1 (40:27):
Interest rates or recognition that they cannot and are not
going to work to get inflation, that kind of inflation
down below three percent? And are they going to have
you know, the FED target for inflation.

Speaker 2 (40:38):
Is two percent, which is absurd, but it is. It's
two percent.

Speaker 1 (40:43):
Maybe the FED target really now if they lower interestate
next week is two percent, it's two percent, sorry, threw
percent because they don't seem to be making an effort
to lower it below three percent. So part of the
problem with the FED is they've got this dual mand
aid full employment, so they look at the employment numbers

(41:04):
and low inflation. They should have one mandate if they
should exist at all, they shouldn't, they should not be
a FED. But if the Fed's going to exist, it
should have one mandate. That mandate should be basically, you know,
stable monetary policy. How you measure stable monetary policy? It's

(41:30):
very difficult. It's not two percent inflation. It's not setting
in inflation target at all because, as we said, CPI
or PCE or however you want to measure price inflation
is not capturing the full effect of monetary inflation.

Speaker 2 (41:46):
So you want to eliminate monetary inflation, you have to
find other ways to do it. The variety of suggestions out.

Speaker 1 (41:53):
There, but a tailor rule, other rules, but nominal gd
targeting nominals and GDP. But of course the best solution
would be to get rid of the FED and had
a free banking. But you know, monetary policy set by banks,
by independent free banks, unregulated banks. But that is not

(42:14):
going to happen in my lifetime. So I'd rather see
a FED that is better than the existing FED than
hold on, than a FED that is destroying money and
destroying the economy. So anything is better than the kind
of rule they have right now, which is no good.

(42:34):
But the only alternative right now to Powell is Trump.
And Trump wants basically low interest rates no matter what.
He doesn't want a rule, he doesn't want a principle,
he doesn't want guidance, he doesn't want to limit the FED.
He wants an unlimited FED who lowers interest rate just
like go on in tokey in system the low low

(42:58):
low interest rates and in spite of inflation and draw
inflation into high double digits as a consequence and would
not listen because his whole idea is in Islam, you
have low interestrates, you have to push interestrates down. And yeah,
I mean Trump is like any other AUTHORITARIANO wants a

(43:18):
short term fix and low interestrates. Lowering interest rates by
one and after three basis three percent, which is what
Trumps talked about, very quickly, would generate a real pop economically,
and then real, real bad stuff would happen. But that's
farther away. And pragmatism basically says you can't you can't

(43:44):
think into the long Who knows what will happen in
the distance. All you have to do is do what
works right now. All right, Okay, a number of other issues.
Let's say Murdoch. Yes, there's been a lot of humors
and a lot of suspense around the fate of the
Rupert Murdoch empire. This has been litigated, it's been in courts.

(44:09):
You know, Murdoch that owns Fox and it owns owns
it was a news corp basically is the owner of
Fox News, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal,
but also news assets all over the West, certainly in
the UK and in Australia. It is a conservative basically

(44:34):
media empire, and Rupert Murdoch, who is ninety four years old,
wants to make sure that it stays conservative. And he
has wanted Lachlan Murdoch, who is his son, his youngest son,
to inhabit the empire and to keep it conservative because
Lachlan is a conservative. His other three children, there's five

(44:57):
other children, there's other three who are contending for this
are much more moderate.

Speaker 2 (45:04):
Or liberal than Lachlan is.

Speaker 1 (45:06):
And yet they were promised control over the media empire.
And this has been and Murderer has tried to change
his will to change basically the state. And this has
been a massive fight and has gone to court, suing
each other, and they sat down and they ultimately the
negotiated and the family has ultimately created a structure now

(45:30):
that settles all the disputes. And it looks like Lachlan
will in need maintain control over Fox News and News Quote.
He will pay his siblings. His three other siblings will
each get I think a billion and a half dollars
for their shares in the media enterprise.

Speaker 2 (45:54):
He will control.

Speaker 1 (45:58):
Something called the Murdoch Family Trust Us, which will control
the media enterprise.

Speaker 2 (46:02):
He will control that with.

Speaker 1 (46:03):
His two younger sisters, Grace and Chloe. I don't know
anything about their politics, but basically he will be able
to determine the fate of it. This trust will stay
in existence until twenty fifty. Therefore, his control will stay
in existence till twenty fifty, at which point I guess
the trust will be dissolved and Grace and Chloe will

(46:24):
get their share or something like that. But anyway, don't
feel bad for the three older siblings. They each get
I was wrong, not one point five billion for them.
They only get one point one billion each. This is,
of course, on top of the several billion they already
have that they've already inhibited.

Speaker 2 (46:41):
From their father from Rupert Murdoch. Super Murdoch can now
die in peace knowing that his right wing that is, a.

Speaker 1 (46:50):
Right wing conservative media empire is secure in the hands
of Lachlan and we'll st So, you know, it's you know,
there's been a lot of fighting, a lot of disputes,
a lot of intrigue, a lot of backstabbing. It's a

(47:10):
real family drama. They'll probably make a mini series out
of this. Number of books will be written from this,
but it does look like at this point. It has
ended and it has been resolved, and it's it's done.
It's done for now. I mentioned yesterday that the US

(47:31):
has beefed up its presence in Puerto Rico, the US
military indeed by sending F thirty fives to Puerto Rican airports.
Well today, Defense secret Day Pete Hackseth and the Joint
Chief of Staff General Dan Kine visited Puerto Rico. I
guess that was yesterday on Monday, and in order to

(47:55):
send a clear message that Puerto Rico is not going
to be kind of a forward staging ground for the
US military's operations in the Caribbean and vis a vis
Venezuela that they are going to and hexceth I stated
this that they're going to be vigilant about stopping or

(48:16):
doing everything they can to stop the infiltration of drugs
into the United States through the Caribbean, and particularly those drugs.

Speaker 2 (48:24):
Coming from Venezuela.

Speaker 1 (48:28):
You know, the.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
You know, we know that last week they blow up
a vessel.

Speaker 1 (48:36):
I supposedly eleven people died on it, even though they've
produced no evidence verifying that it was gang members, that
they were CATEL members who were on it. It was
blown up I don't under what authority the President of
the United States is blowing up ships in the Caribbean
in international waters, but he is, and he's not asking

(48:59):
for anybody, so authority.

Speaker 2 (49:01):
Uh and uh, there's a big big you know, he
did exchange between Jade Vance and I guess Rand Paul.

Speaker 1 (49:12):
Ran Paul very much opposed this attack. But even if
it's justified, Rand Paul would oppose. It's Rand Paul just
as a is way too much of a pacifist.

Speaker 2 (49:20):
For my liking.

Speaker 1 (49:22):
Anyway, you know, they are out to get this trend.
De Urugua, which is a criminal group the Demonistration is connected,
claims to connect to Venezuela and President Nicholas Manduo.

Speaker 2 (49:38):
You could argue that what they really want is to
overthrow my duo.

Speaker 1 (49:42):
Uh. There are also there, of course, to protect uh interests,
the US interests in Guyana. Guyana is south of Venezuela.
It's a small little country that has massive oil reserves.
It is now on a GDP per capita basis the
richest country Latin America now because it's particularly productive, now
because it's particularly anything, but just because it.

Speaker 2 (50:04):
Has so much oil right now.

Speaker 1 (50:06):
It's such a small country Venezuela has its eye on Guiana.
It has disputed territory. It would like those oil resources.
It needs to replenish its coffers. It's going into the
drug trade in order to do that. They would like
to and they have threatened Guiana with military action. I
think part of the US's presence in the Caribbean and

(50:26):
close to the Venezuela and shore is basically to signal to.

Speaker 2 (50:29):
Maduro, don't you dare go to Guyana. The United States.

Speaker 1 (50:35):
Basically it's American oil companies that are working in Guiana
to retrieve the oil there. The Hegseth spoke in front
of sailors and marines in Puerto Rico. He told them
that they are on the front lines of defending the
American homeland. He said, no, making no mistake what you're

(50:56):
doing right now, it's not training.

Speaker 2 (50:59):
This is the real world.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
The exercise on behalf of vital national interests of the
United States. He added, Puerto Rico is most obvious and
nearest place to Venezuela. And this administration has signaled for
a while that there would be a paradigm shift in
how we do security operations in the Western Hemisphere. And yeah,

(51:22):
so it's clear that the Trumpet administration, once the resurrect
the Monroe doctrine, the Western hemisphere is ours. We dictate
what happens here, and we will not let We will
not let Maduro do what he wants to do. Is
anti American, and we might get rid of him if
we so choose, And the excuse that will be given

(51:44):
will be the One Drugs. The One Drugs has been
a massive success, as you all know. Since it was
launched in the early nineteen seventies. It has done nothing
but reduced the amount of drugs flowing into the United
States and reduced the death rates fromg Oh, maybe it's
not true. The drug go indid has had has been
a massive failure, as you would expect when you have

(52:05):
a war on an inanimate object. Certainly the United States
were placing Madua in Venezuela would be a good thing.
I wouldn't be opposed to doing that, but I also
don't think it's something worth risking the lives of American troops,
for America has no vital national interest in Venezuela as
long as Venezuela is not a real, actual security threat

(52:28):
to the US. If Venezuela does not house, as far
as we know, Russian troops. It does not house Chinese troops.
More likely Cuba does house at least Chinese troops, so
that that might be that may be more of a
reason to go after Cuba than to go off to Venezuela.
But anyway, if Venezuela gets toppled, then if no American

(52:51):
troops get hurt in the process, I'm all for it.
If the United States is willing to bomb the presidential
Palace and get rid of Madua that way, and and
and transition Venezuela peacefully into peacefully after Madua has gone
into a free year country and a country that has

(53:13):
even a semblance of respect for its own people, that
would be Goody would also reduced the number of people
leaving Venezuela and heading towards the United States and becoming illegal,
illegal immigrants in the United States.

Speaker 2 (53:25):
So so yeah, it's going to be. It's going to be.

Speaker 1 (53:31):
It's going to be interesting to see what the next
few months saw. As I told you, the Trump Administration's
national Defense policy.

Speaker 2 (53:41):
Hasn't been officially came out.

Speaker 1 (53:43):
At least the draft of it suggests a pivot away
from Europe which was expected, a pivot away from China which.

Speaker 2 (53:51):
Is a surprise, and a pivot towards Latin.

Speaker 1 (53:54):
America towards home towards America's borders in Latin America, which
is not surprising. But the pivot away from China is
a surprise. And if you take away resources from the
Chinese fund and you bring them into the Latin American fund, yeah,
you can deploy a lot of resources into going after

(54:16):
Venezuela and into trying to stop the drug trade. But
stopping the flow of drugs, it has not been successfully
done really ever anyway, as far as I know.

Speaker 2 (54:31):
They tried it with put Bridge and with alcohol. Didn't
work there either.

Speaker 1 (54:35):
All Right, I got a question yesterday or the day before,
I think for Michael about Mamdani, so I thought I
would update you. There's now a new poll out about
the New York election, and it seems that mcdanni has
has this really wrapped up. He has a solid lead
with the common field of three opponents, the Republican, Como

(55:01):
and the current Mayor of New York. Mamdanni leads by
a huge margin, so he would actually get forty six percent. Como,
who would come in second would get twenty four percent Adams,
Adams and Sliwa would get something less than twenty four percent,
but Mamdanni would be a shoeing in a three verses

(55:22):
one if Trump gets his weight, I suppose he Trump
is putting pressure on Adams to drop out, and on
CIVILA is the Republican to drop out. And if it's
just Mamdanni versus Como, Mam Donny still wins forty eight
to forty four. Now it's stunning to me, and it
should be stunning to you that there are.

Speaker 4 (55:47):
Forty eight percent of New Yorkers, forty eight percent of
New Yorkers would vote for an anti Semitic, anti Israel bleeding.

Speaker 2 (55:59):
Hearts so.

Speaker 1 (56:02):
To be who wants who wants to reduce the amount
of policing in New York to be the next mayor
of the city. I mean, it is really amazing that
there are that many idiots, crazy is nuts in New
York City.

Speaker 2 (56:21):
Now, I know Como is not a very attractive alternative.

Speaker 1 (56:26):
I think Adams is actually more attractive than Como, but
New Yorkers don't think that way. So I get that
Como is not very attractive. But at this point, you
got to go with. You got to go with not
voting for mum daddy. If you do Adams versus Mumdani,

(56:47):
just Adams, Mum Danny wins fifty five to thirty six.
So New Yoka's I mean, New York is so bad
right now, it's not at all. Adams is corrupt, There's
no question about that. But Adam's corruption is better than
mamdanni socialism. Como's corruption is sleaziness, generally is better than

(57:11):
Mam donny socialism.

Speaker 2 (57:15):
But this is what we are.

Speaker 1 (57:16):
This is the complete implosion of the Democratic Party. And
by the way, this is gonna this is gonna be
really bad for the Democratic Party. Not that I worry
about them too much, but this is awful for.

Speaker 2 (57:26):
Them because.

Speaker 1 (57:28):
The base of the Democratic Party is gonna say, if
m Donny wins, you see, we need to go more socialists,
we need to go further to the left. If they
do that, then the right will win every single election.
I mean, Momnetty can win. A socialist can win in
New York, and maybe in San Francisco, although San Francisco's
gone significantly moderate, even La has gone pretty moderate. But

(57:54):
you know, New York, you can win in New York,
and you get in a few other places Porto, Landauigan,
you know, Chicago more about corrupt leftists than socialists. But yeah,
they can win in some of these cities. They can't
win in the country. They can't win in a general election.
They can't even win enough districts in Congress. But if

(58:17):
this is the tilt the Democratic Party takes, instead of
going in the abundance direction, they go in the oh no,
let's socialize everything direction, then Democratic Party is finished.

Speaker 2 (58:30):
On a national scale. It is finished.

Speaker 1 (58:32):
It might be successful for a while in New York,
and it won't be successful in New York.

Speaker 2 (58:36):
For very long because Mumdaney will fail. But it is finished.

Speaker 1 (58:41):
My guess is the most New Yorkers who are voting
for Mamdani, my guess, half the people, half of the
forty eight percent who are voting for Mamdani a voting
for him under the assumption that he won't be as
bad as he sounds. He won't actually do any bad
thing he says you will do. It's the same logic

(59:03):
that led people to support Trump. Oh no, he won't
be as bad as he said. He won't really do
the tariffs, he won't really do. You won't really round
up immigrants and put them in camps. No, that won't happen.
He's better than the other guys that will go with him,
but he won't do their radical crazy stuff.

Speaker 2 (59:19):
And then they do, and then what do you do?

Speaker 1 (59:22):
It's too late and it's your fault. Americans want fascism.
They don't want socialism. Americans want governing involvement in the economy,
but they don't want the kind of Mumdani socialism. They
don't want the woke they don't want the PC, they

(59:42):
don't want the no policing, the defund the police. They
don't want criminals to get off with life sentences. They
don't want the social stuff that socialism beings with it.
And they also don't want the governor to own grossi stores.
They want they got into control. They want fascism, they

(01:00:06):
don't want Mamdani socialism.

Speaker 2 (01:00:12):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:00:15):
The majority of Maria says the majority of Democrats voted
favorite socialism over capitalism.

Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
In recent pole.

Speaker 1 (01:00:21):
They had a more favorable view of socialism than of capitalism.
I'm not sure that is even true in the in
the latest PEU survey, but they didn't They didn't have
a very favorable reviews. That is, the view of socialism
was not.

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
A majority. What they support is the mixed economy.

Speaker 1 (01:00:46):
Uh, let's see. Let me get you the uh latest
views about Yeah. Okay, so here's the actual numbers. It
looks like it looks like I was wrong, that Marius

(01:01:09):
was right. The Dumb and New Galipol finds the US
adults overall overall, I'm more likely to have a positive
view of capitalism and socialism. Democrats feel differently. According to
the survey, only forty two percent of Democrats view capitalism
favorably well sixty six have a positive view of socialism. Now,
remember they think socialism is Denmark. They think socialism in Denmark,

(01:01:33):
and let me tell you, I'm pretty sure groci stills
in Denmark are not owned by the government. Capitalism's image
and has slipped in the United States with US adults
overall since twenty twenty one, The survey finds. A results
shows a graduate persistence shift in democrats support for the
two ideologies over the past fifteen years, with socialism rising

(01:01:55):
as capitalism falls. The shift underscores deep divisions within the
party about whether open support of socialism willhook Democrats' ability
to reach moderates or galvanize greatest support from people who
are concerned about issues like cost of living. Anyway, this
is gonna kure the Democratic Party. That's my prediction that

(01:02:16):
even though even though the sub ways say, you know,
people support socialism, they don't really. And at the end
of the day, Bernie Sanders cannot win, and Bernie Sander's
and the but that Donald Trump, who's a socialist of

(01:02:37):
the right, if you will can win. That is I
still think that you will see you will see the
Democratic Party if it goes in the direction of AOC
shrink shrink uh, and that the right will exploit that
and exploit it quite dramatically to become bigger and more substantial. Anyway,

(01:03:01):
just random.

Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
News out out of Norway. Ethiopia.

Speaker 1 (01:03:06):
Ethiopia is a country with the second largest population in Africa,
and Africa will be I think within a few decades
will be the most populoust continents.

Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
It will be more populated than than than than Asia.

Speaker 1 (01:03:25):
So Ethiopia has got the second largest population in Africa
after Nigeria. Ethiopia is just inaugurated Africa's biggest hydroelectric dam.
It's a massive dam, a huge engineering feed feed that
is gonna you know, power homes and industries across much

(01:03:46):
of East Africa. Now it's also a very it's there's
a mess of dispute between Ethiopia, which sits high up
on the Nile, and Sudan and Egypt, that said, lower
on the Nile. And this dam is on one of
the main tributary tributaries of the Nile.

Speaker 2 (01:04:04):
But this is going to provide energy.

Speaker 1 (01:04:08):
Cheap energy, cheap clean energy to East Africa. Ethiopia's economies
already one of the better performing economies in the world
and certainly one of the better economies in Africa. This
is this is an opportunity for them now to you know,

(01:04:29):
to enhance the economy even more dramatically. And you know this,
this dam took fourteen years to complete. It costs four
point eight billion dollars. Fifteen thousand people died during the
construction of this dam. You have a sense of what

(01:04:50):
it's like to build a massive dam in Africa. Anyway,
it's it's a done deal. And now now we're talking
about maybe the beginning of East Africa becoming more industrialized

(01:05:12):
and and.

Speaker 2 (01:05:15):
Starting to compete with Asia.

Speaker 1 (01:05:16):
For some of those industrializations, some of those industry jobs,
some of those jobs that Donald Trump and the right
would like to bring back to the United States. I
think Africa is not going to be competing with Asia
for those jobs. I don't think the United States is
in the running for the next textile mill, of the
next assembly planned.

Speaker 2 (01:05:37):
I think Ethiopia might be. I don't think. I don't think.
I don't think the United States is.

Speaker 1 (01:05:48):
So yeah, I mean, good news to Ethiopia, good news
for Africa, good news for other countries that can buy
oil from UH. You know, from Ethiopia. You know, a
big problem for Ethiopia is that it has it doesn't
have a.

Speaker 2 (01:06:11):
A port.

Speaker 1 (01:06:16):
It doesn't have a port, and you know, it's it's
it's landlocked, which creates real problems. It's dependent for that
on Somalia. And of course Somalia is a complete basket case.
It's a it's it's not a country. It's just a
place where warlords a compete, UH compete for territory with it.

(01:06:38):
Therefore has therefore then a Kenya or Jibouti, or a
Trea or Sudan. It depends on all of those for
for accessing a port. It could and and it's constantly
in dispute with Djibouti and a Trea over territory.

Speaker 2 (01:06:57):
It would love to conquer.

Speaker 1 (01:06:59):
Pieces of a Tree and Jibouti, and you'll probably see significant,
significant war in this region, partially in order to access
access a port for Ethiopia. The other thing you might see, though,
on a positive note, is trade. You could see Ethiopia

(01:07:20):
providing electricity through this dam to a country like Kenya, Djibouti,
and Eritrea in exchange for a much easier passage into
their port cities.

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
Now, Ethiopia used to.

Speaker 1 (01:07:37):
Used to have it with declared independence and there was
a civil war and it was declared independent state at
some point. But but you know this, this dam now
gives them something to trade for access into the sea.
I finally this I think this was last week a

(01:07:59):
while ago, but today the American Institute of Architects has
announced that it opposes a Trump executive order that would
make federal architecture beautiful again. You know.

Speaker 2 (01:08:17):
The new order.

Speaker 1 (01:08:19):
Establishes classical and traditional styles as the preferred approach nationwide,
with Washington, d C. Facing the strictest rules, Classical design
becomes the mandatory default. Any alternative would require presidential approval. Now,

(01:08:43):
oh my god, this is straight out of the fountain Head,
straight out of el Zertui. And I think, yeah, I
mean this is I mean Elser TUIs philosophy is so
well adjusted, so perfect for Donald Trump. This is pure
els With Tui in the White House. So from now on,

(01:09:04):
all federal buildings, all buildings built by the federal government,
must adhere to classical designs, must have Greek columns or
Roman columns, I guess, And they.

Speaker 2 (01:09:18):
Have strict proportions.

Speaker 1 (01:09:22):
And again this is pure, pure Elser TUOI. This is pure.

Speaker 2 (01:09:28):
Everything that found Head is against. The American Institute of Architecture.

Speaker 1 (01:09:37):
Points out that the federal projects in the past were
based on the principles of functionality, economic, and appropriate to
their surrounding while maintaining design excellence. That's a good criteria, flexible. Yeah,
elsw With is much smarter than Trump. But now you

(01:09:57):
get the sense that it's Elsworth Tui running things from
the background. Right, So yeah, let's kill modern architecture. Let's
destroy innovation, let's destroy functionality, let's destroy excellent. Let's worship
the past, let's worship tradition, Let's worship the Greeks. I mean,

(01:10:21):
there's other reasons source of the Greeks, not this. And
now let's make the president, who is the only one
who can approve deviation from classical designs, make the president
the chief architect of the United States government. It really

(01:10:48):
is despicable, really is disgusting. Really is consistent with the
new Conservative the national Conservatives. This is a national Conservative
type policy. This is the kind of stuff they like.
This is part of his first term agenda. He has
resurrected it now with more teeth this time. And sad

(01:11:13):
pathetic an American, I mean, we are the America that
stands for progress, for innovation, for future, for functionality, for excellence.
And now.

Speaker 2 (01:11:27):
Let's worship columns, let's worship whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:11:31):
Right, So.

Speaker 2 (01:11:36):
Really, really really disgusting.

Speaker 1 (01:11:38):
And as for modern architecture, there is amazing modern architecture today.
There's really really good modern architecture. It's mostly in China
and maybe in Dubai, but there's phenomenal modern architecture. You
can find it in some American cities in spite of

(01:11:59):
American zone laws, but you can find plenty of it
in Hong Kong and Shanghai and all over Hongzhu and
all over China, and again in Dubai, and and and
some in other Arab countries who are bringing the most
talented Western architects in there. There's there's amazing modern architecture
all over the United States.

Speaker 2 (01:12:21):
There really is.

Speaker 1 (01:12:22):
And i ran It was a huge fan of good
modern architecture, right. She was a big fan of Frank Cloud. Right,
and think about how it wrot. Think about the fountain It.
If you haven't read the Fountain It read the fountain
in Iran despised the idea of building like they did
in Greece and Rome, because they built it in Greece

(01:12:43):
and Rome. The whole point of the fountain Head is
the idea of progress and independence and and and the
creation of something new. And from an architectural perspective, building
the architecture around the materials that are available to you today.

Speaker 2 (01:13:00):
You don't build a modern building.

Speaker 1 (01:13:02):
With steel and glass and concrete the same way as
you build a Greek building, which is great for its time.
But the materials they had were extraordinary limited. The knowledge
they had of engineering was extraordinary limited. And yet we
should restrain down all of itage engineering, not use new

(01:13:24):
amazing materials because we have to fit into the style
of people who did things the way they did it
two thousand years ago.

Speaker 2 (01:13:31):
It is barbarism.

Speaker 1 (01:13:40):
So it's a false alternative to present it as the
worst of modernity versus Greek architecture. No, there's good modernity.
There's good modern architecture, and that should be the standard
good modern architecture. And it's again disgusting and pathetic that

(01:14:10):
this is what the conservative movement stands with. The Conservatives
they love tradition, they love the past. They're not about
the future. They're not about growth, they're not about new,
they're not about bold, they're not about they're not about exciting.
They're about the past. They're about the same. They're about tradition,

(01:14:32):
they're about mimicking the past.

Speaker 2 (01:14:39):
All right, that is the news.

Speaker 1 (01:14:41):
So September ninth, twenty twenty five, Yeah, we can do
a whole show on architecture, right, So.

Speaker 2 (01:15:01):
You can.

Speaker 1 (01:15:02):
You can argue about the various modern buildings being erected, right,
whether they're good or not.

Speaker 5 (01:15:10):
But you know.

Speaker 1 (01:15:12):
That to build Greek enrollment buildings is stupid and dumb
and wrong esthetically, morally, intellectually, philosophically, economically, functionally wrong, so
let's make modern architecture better. But to defend this, this

(01:15:35):
executive orded by Donald Trump, it really is pathetic, really
is pathetic. This is much worse than building a bad
modern building. A bad modern building is at least trying
to do something new and something different. Building a Greek

(01:15:58):
of Roman is surrendering to the past, surrendering to tradition.
The argument should be about making modern better. That's what
the focus should be, that's where the energy should be.
But again, you want to see great architecture, go to China, innovative, interesting, exciting, groundbreaking.

(01:16:24):
Some of it doesn't work, so that you go, yeah,
that doesn't work. But at least they're trying. At least
it's interesting. At least somebody is trying something new.

Speaker 2 (01:16:37):
And of course.

Speaker 1 (01:16:40):
It's very fascist in a sense that, yeah, let's dictate
architecture from above.

Speaker 2 (01:16:47):
That does sounds familiar, Right, Let's.

Speaker 1 (01:16:49):
Have a national architect that dictates architecture from above. All right,
we will now move to your super chet questions you
could ask in the super chat. We've done pretty well
right now in the second hour. We're about sixty two

(01:17:10):
dollars short of our second hour goal. So please consider
supporting the show.

Speaker 2 (01:17:14):
Yesterday we.

Speaker 1 (01:17:16):
Made it into we made our goal and that was great.
We actually almost made it into the third hour.

Speaker 2 (01:17:22):
We didn't.

Speaker 1 (01:17:23):
We did two hours, but we made our second our goal. Today,
we've got a good number of twenty and fifty dollars questions,
so this is great. Not a lot of questions, but
enough to because they're mostly twenty and fifty dollars, enough
to get us close to our goal. So sixty sixty
two dollars. Let's try to achieve that. You can use
a sticker or you can use a super chat stickers.

(01:17:46):
If you don't want to ask a question, just support
value for value or trade with me. If you're getting
value from the show, show you know, pay for it
in a sense. And a question is.

Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
Great because you get to dictate, You get to dickate
the you get to dictate the content.

Speaker 1 (01:18:07):
I'll talk about whatever you want to talk about, and
you can use you can use you can ask a
question for you for two dollars and I'll answer it.
Let me as a note that we have sponsors for
the show. Alex Epstein. Alex Epstein is a leading I
think in the world on issues relating to climate change
and issues relate to energy and the use of fossil fuel.

(01:18:27):
If you want to understand these topics, if you want
to dig deeper into these topics, if you want to
develop your.

Speaker 2 (01:18:34):
Ability to think about them, but also your.

Speaker 1 (01:18:35):
Ability to communicate, to argue with your relatives during the
holiday season coming up soon, coming up soon, and argue
with the friends and your coworkers about these issues. You know,
Alex develops great talking points on these topics.

Speaker 2 (01:18:53):
So yeah, you'll sign.

Speaker 1 (01:18:56):
Off Alex's substack Alex Epstein to substack dot com, Alex
Epstein's subse dot com. A great friend of the show,
and a friend more broadly, and a great guy, and
of course massive influence on what's going on or some
influence on what's going on in the energy space with
the Trump administration. Mary Ellen, thank you for the stick

(01:19:19):
I'll go of all the stickers in a minute. An
institute is promoting. It's I'm an institute Live. These are
courses that you can sign up for. Don't have to
be accepted, You don't have to do an application, you
just have to register. You can get a discount by
because you're your on book show listener. It's twenty five
ybs ten is the code twenty five YBS ten.

Speaker 2 (01:19:41):
These courses will allow you to.

Speaker 1 (01:19:43):
Dig deeper into the philosophy of objectivism, and there is
no pace. You can take them whenever you want. You
can take classes whenever you want. You can take them
live if you want, or take them by video recorded
if you want.

Speaker 2 (01:19:56):
You can do one work or not.

Speaker 1 (01:19:58):
You can decide on how involved then how engaged you
want to be a phenomenal opportunity to dig deep into
the philosophy with some of the leading teachers and objectivism today.
You've got a course on work and objectivism Don Watkins,
Thought's Funny and uncr Gate are in that course. You've
got a course on the philosophy of objectivism talked by Onca.

(01:20:20):
I think Opah lennipikos Opa is the textbook for that.
And you've got the philosophy through the novels. That is,
how do the novels illustrate and teach us the philosophy? Uh?
And that's with uncle got so amazing classes. I think
your understanding and knowledge of objectivesm will be enhanced dramatically

(01:20:40):
by taking them.

Speaker 2 (01:20:41):
So sign up.

Speaker 1 (01:20:42):
I rand dot oak slash dot here Ironran dot oak
slash dot here and click on the Iran Institute Live
Courses and you'll be able to register day and get
more information about them. And finally, h hand a shot, Well,
hand a shot to tease it, then hand the shot
wealth dot com slash ybs and to shut wealth. One

(01:21:04):
would have products that help you with capital gains taxes,
deferring them, reducing them has a huge wealth effect. Just
to defer them huge wealth effect. So I suggest looking
up if you have a highly appreciated stock that you
intend to sell one day or are selling right now,
or you have a business that you intend to sell

(01:21:25):
at some point and you will enco significant capital gains taxes,
So hand a shot wealth dot com, slash ybs, or
check out the video that I did with Robert Robert
hand a shot where I interviewed him about this product
and we talked about it. I think everybody should watch
it because you'll learn a little bit about finance. You'll
learn a litle about taxes and about how taxes work,

(01:21:46):
and about a little bit about markets as well and
how creative finances come up with solutions the market problems
or the tax problems. So check out the interview. It's
on my YouTube channel and find it. If you look
at the playlists under sponsors Sponsors, you can find.

Speaker 2 (01:22:05):
The playlist there.

Speaker 1 (01:22:06):
All right, let's check out the questions. Let's start with
Harpa Campbell, who has a fifty dollars question. Happer says
a barrier to persuading people of objectivism is they believe
our philosophy expects too much of people, that it's unrealistic
for everyone to be self sufficient long range thinkers, and

(01:22:29):
it's cool to expect something that can never be lived
up to.

Speaker 2 (01:22:32):
I mean, I think that's right.

Speaker 1 (01:22:34):
I think the biggest, one of the biggest problems we
have in convincing people is their own lack of self esteem.
And remember they're projecting on other people what they feel
about themselves. I mean, there is a deep, deep, deep
sense in which capitalism requires a people of self esteem.

(01:22:56):
Like people have to have the confidence, the wherewithal, the
knowledge that they are capable of surviving, doing well, flourishing
when they are free, that they don't need a government
run safety in it, that they don't need to be

(01:23:17):
regulated you or to behave properly. They have to have
the confidence that they can be successful and that they
can't be moral, that they won't be seduced, that they
won't be by short term.

Speaker 2 (01:23:36):
You know, whims and seductions.

Speaker 1 (01:23:41):
And I think a lot of people don't have don't
have that self esteem.

Speaker 2 (01:23:46):
It reminds me even a morality, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:23:49):
The whole was that Ben Shapiro's criticism of selfishness as
what about the goal? You know, if you're selfish, you're
going to go with every lot at the bar who
wants to sleep with you, You're going to go sleep
with her because your immediate whims are more important to you.
If you're selfish, then your long term values. But that

(01:24:16):
kind of attitude is an attitude of somebody who doesn't
trust himself. Is an attitude that needs a god to
sit over him saying, oh, I'm.

Speaker 2 (01:24:26):
Going to get you. If you do that, I'm going
to get you.

Speaker 1 (01:24:29):
That can't actually trust their own rationality, can't actually trust
their own.

Speaker 2 (01:24:33):
Values to guide their own life. And it's the same here.

Speaker 1 (01:24:39):
You know, people who don't have the confidence that they
can economically, but really in terms of just living that
they don't have the ability to live unless it's guided
by other people, unless they have a safety need provided
by the government, unless somebody makes it you know, regulates

(01:24:59):
them that they don't misbehave. It's like God sitting above
you making sure you don't misbehave at the bar. Here
is a government sitting somewhere there making sure you don't
misbehave in your business. Yeah, capitalism requires self esteem, and
self esteem requires a morality of egoism. And you're not

(01:25:21):
going to persuade people of objectivism if they don't have
at least the willingness to try to find that self esteem,
to engage in that part of them. If they're cowardly,
if they are cowards, they're not gonna they're not going

(01:25:41):
to embrace objectivism. They're not gonna embrace capitalism. Capitalism, I mean,
objectivism is demanding. It's demanding. It's demanding you take yourself
into seriously. It demands that you take your life seriously.
It demands that you pursue yourself interest ruthlessly. It demands
that you don't give into your emotions on a whim.

(01:26:03):
It demands that you live with the capital l.

Speaker 2 (01:26:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:26:10):
Absolutely, it is a demanding and this is why it's
going to take a long time to get the culture.

Speaker 2 (01:26:19):
On board.

Speaker 1 (01:26:21):
Not gonna be easy, David says, so many similarities between
the left and the rights policies. Do you now admit
the horseshoe theory has its merits? No, because it's it's
it's I don't know what hushshoe means. It's not a theory.
I've explained this, I've given an explaination for this for

(01:26:42):
twenty years. I've said, to left and the right are
the same. I don't need a horseshoe theory for that.
I've said there's only one spectrum in politics. I've said
this for a long long time, and I man really
said it, and I said, this is not original to me.
There's one spectru in politics individualism, collectivism, capitalism, statism, and

(01:27:07):
then left and right, both collectivists and both statisms. Now,
this part, the collectivist part, has lots of branches.

Speaker 2 (01:27:16):
It looks like an arrow.

Speaker 1 (01:27:18):
The individualist is the is the tip of the arrow, sharp,
one directional. There's only one path to individualism. But collectivism
is where the arrow has the feather. There are lots
of branches. There are lots of kinds of collectivism. There's
a right wing collectivism and left wing collectivism, and some
right with collectivism is fascist and some right we collectivism

(01:27:41):
is racist, and some right wind collectivism is tribalists, and
they overlap because of all white wing collectivism, and some
left wing collectivism is an out and out communist, and
some of it is Denmark collects socialists, and some of
it is out and out new kind of socialist, and
some of it is racist, woke racist. But they're all collectivists,

(01:28:01):
and they're all overlapping, and they're all similar and all
the same because they're all collectivists and all on that
side of the political spectrum. So it's not a horseshoe
with the moderates over here and bending the two extremes
to be the same.

Speaker 2 (01:28:17):
That's ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (01:28:18):
I mean, there's essential which is an't you, But then
there's an arrow, there's a straight line coming out, and
the straight line is the line towards individualism. So again,
the correct way to think about the political map is.

Speaker 2 (01:28:35):
Not the horseshoe theory.

Speaker 1 (01:28:37):
That is a corrupt way of looking at The correct
way is to look at it as collectivism individualism. There
are lots of collectivists, some of them are right wings,
some of them us left wing, but they're all collectivists.
And since they are collectivists, and since collectivism implies statism,
then they're gonna be similar because activism is similar.

Speaker 2 (01:29:01):
It's just the question of which group and statism is similar.

Speaker 1 (01:29:04):
You want a powerful state, it's just no matter what
you regulate.

Speaker 2 (01:29:12):
So again I agree.

Speaker 1 (01:29:16):
I've always said, always, always, always said that the lefts
and rights policies are the same. This is why, you know,
when everybody gets so upset about the left and you
know you have to vote for the right because they're
better than the left, I go, eh, really, they're just
the same. They're all the same. They are the same
basic policies. So it's not I do not admit that

(01:29:50):
tholshoe theory has his medicine. I have a much better theory. Well,
I aint Vander has a much better theory that explains
the same phenomena and fits so much tomorrow, because you
know what alternative is.

Speaker 2 (01:30:01):
The alternative is not the bend in the horseshoe.

Speaker 1 (01:30:04):
The alternative is way over here individualism, which is fundamentally
different in every respect from the modern right and the
modern left. And yeah, there are some old style conservatives
that are a little bit in our direction. They're not
on the horseshoeing, you know, they're off, they're not in

(01:30:24):
the collectivist of Benching. They were a little bit of
an individualism. They're not quite individualist and a little bit
of poor markets. They are completely statists and they're on
their way. And then the classical liberals, and then there's objectivism.
So it's a nice line with the splintering at the
edge to the collectivist to catch Thank you David in

(01:30:45):
another fifty dollars from David.

Speaker 2 (01:30:47):
How does stagflation happen?

Speaker 1 (01:30:50):
Well, I mean stagflation is usually the consequence of inflation.
I mean there is this story that kind of Cameians
tell that you flood the market with money causes the
economy to grow because the money starts circulating and people
are buying and buying, and production happens.

Speaker 2 (01:31:12):
They want to satisfy the demand.

Speaker 1 (01:31:14):
Of people, and that production creates more economic activities. The
economy grows as inflation grows. But that is completely unsustainable
because the reality is that inflation is devastating for the
planning of production. It's state devastating for entrepreneurs, for innovation,

(01:31:34):
and for economic long term planning. So ultimately, and sometimes
right at the beginning, inflation cripples production. She keeps bumping
more money into the economy. Prices go up as a consequence,
but production does not, profits do not. Growth in business

(01:31:58):
does not. Because businessmen don't know how to price things.
The pricing signal is broken.

Speaker 2 (01:32:06):
They don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:32:08):
How to think in terms of the future. What a
price is going to be in the future, What is
value going to be in the future. What should my
discount rate be to today? What are my cash flow
is going to be expected in the future. Because inflation
is completely messes all of that up, and therefore they
stop producing, or they produce less, or they only produce

(01:32:29):
in the short run without planning for the long run,
and that cripples economic growth. And that's the stagnation part.
And you have inflation with stagnation. But ultimately, I think
every inflation lands up being a form of stagflation. Every
inflation ultimately involves stagnation in real terms, because inflation.

Speaker 2 (01:32:54):
Destroys the productive process.

Speaker 1 (01:32:57):
It destroys the capacity to plan, It destroys planning for
the future, It destroys entrepreneurship, innovation.

Speaker 2 (01:33:06):
And growth.

Speaker 1 (01:33:09):
Growth needs means planning for the future, and you can't
because of inflation. David, another fifty dollars, Thank you. David,
that's two hundred dollars today. Thank you, thank you, Thank you.
David says have to go so we'll catch the rest
on the podcast. Glass to support YBS. Thank you, David.

(01:33:29):
Really appreciated from Costa Rica. And yeah, let me know
if you have any follow up questions to those questions.
Really appreciate the support. All Right, we're only eight dollars
away from reaching our second hour goal.

Speaker 2 (01:33:43):
Eight dollars away. And by the way, thank you it's
economy for the sticker. Thank you about optimum.

Speaker 1 (01:33:50):
Thank you, Mary Eleene, Thank you Alan. Let's see if
we had any other stickers. I don't know, did we
uh to the dumb to the dumb to the dumb
to the dumb.

Speaker 2 (01:34:09):
No, that was it.

Speaker 1 (01:34:10):
But you can now do a sticker and get us
to the eight dollars to the to the two hour goal.

Speaker 2 (01:34:15):
Just with four to two dollars stickers. There's your goal
for two dollars stickers.

Speaker 1 (01:34:20):
Dodo Bunny, do you expect things to get to get
dark ages bad or just no growth, mixed economy bad
or something in between.

Speaker 2 (01:34:28):
Well, I mean there's short to medium run.

Speaker 1 (01:34:30):
I expect no growth, mixed economy and then expect something
in between. I do not expect dark ages dark age
unless this guy with a nuclear catastrophe and nuclear war.
I don't expect dark ages. As I've often said, knowledge
is too dispersed. Even if the United States sinks and
destroys itself, there are plenty of other places around the

(01:34:51):
world where knowledge is being preserved, where civilization.

Speaker 2 (01:34:54):
Can continue and can thrive.

Speaker 1 (01:34:57):
Uh So.

Speaker 2 (01:35:00):
I do not expect the dark ages anytime in the
short run. The long run, I just.

Speaker 1 (01:35:05):
Don't expect it. I expect no growth, mixed economy, and
maybe great depression, like bad for a while, complete stagnation
after a crash, some kind of crash that lowers the
stand of living of everybody, and then really really low
growth for a long time. I expect it. It could
be bad, but I don't expect it. It goes away,

(01:35:26):
it goes away completely. But you know, we will, we
will see technology and knowledge. Ultimately, it's in knowledge that
what is necessary in order to preserve, to preserve civilization,
what you need is knowledge, and then knowledge makes it

(01:35:48):
possible to sustain technology. And even if we decide to
turn against AI and against robots and against mechanization and
against technology in this country, I don't know, some religious
zeal it Luodites comes to power fifty years from now
in America and burns all the you know, blows up

(01:36:09):
all the data centers that feed AI because AI is dangerous,
I mean, just making stuff up right science fiction. Then
somewhere else they will continue to do it. So again,
the dispersion of knowledge is incredibly beneficial. The fact that
it's not all dependent on Rome, on one place, on

(01:36:31):
one empire. The fact that the same knowledge is available
to everybody in the planet, no matter where you live,
you can access it. And even if the Internet goes down,
you know, plenty of people go to universities, plenty of
books are being read. All that knowledge is does exist.
It's not like the burning of the Library of Alexandria.
I don't think that will ever happen again.

Speaker 2 (01:36:54):
That the real loss, the real loss of.

Speaker 1 (01:36:57):
Knowledge, and then a glow philosophy Christianity, which it was
almost global, at least in the West, that despises knowledge
and despises science and despises inquiry and suppress us as
a consequence all progress, which is what happened during the
Dark Ages, right, Not your average algorithm, what's the tech

(01:37:21):
sect They're able to generate all this wealth before politicians
had any idea how to suppress it. Now that they
tech bros have all this wealth, they can lobby politicians
not to regulate them.

Speaker 2 (01:37:34):
It's not how it works.

Speaker 1 (01:37:36):
I mean again, politicians don't set out to destroy industries.

Speaker 2 (01:37:42):
They don't set out to destroy wealth creation. They want
wealth creation.

Speaker 1 (01:37:45):
Because they want to be able to tax it and
they want to be able to control it. Politicians set
out to regulate primarily because they want power over things,
and primarily because and often because something happens. Something bad happens,
on accident happens, and they need to be perceived as
doing something about it. A financial crisis happens, so they

(01:38:06):
need to be perceived as doing something about it, so
they regulate the banks. It's not like they regulate the
banks because they wanted to destroy banking. They don't.

Speaker 2 (01:38:14):
That's not how they think.

Speaker 1 (01:38:17):
They think they are doing good now they were veining,
but they think they're doing good and they do it
in you know, and the only way they can perceive
as doing good is by increasing their power. So it's
not that, oh, here's the tech industry, we can destroy

(01:38:38):
their wealth today.

Speaker 2 (01:38:39):
Let's go do it.

Speaker 1 (01:38:40):
They don't think that way at all. I mean they
think as ai AI can do all these negative things
and it can real bad things that can be a
product of AI. Or they think, oh, people committed suicide
after watching Facebook. We should regulate Facebook. We should protect
people from Facebook. Book is doing bad things to people.

(01:39:01):
Let's regulate Facebook. That's the sequence. So as long as
silicon value was small and the innovations did not have
perceived negative effects on people, politicians just stay clear of it.
And you could argue that actually some of the laws

(01:39:24):
that they passed in attempts to define property rights and
in attempts to.

Speaker 2 (01:39:31):
If you will regulate.

Speaker 1 (01:39:32):
Lawsuits around the internet, we're pretty good, actually, because I
think they often they're trying to do what they think
is good. We're pretty good. But then some negative consequences happens,
like I don't know, everybody gets pissed off on Twitter
because conservatives get banned on Twitter years ago. Let's get

(01:39:53):
rid of section one was it two thirty, which is
actually a good section.

Speaker 2 (01:39:57):
It's good, it's a good policy.

Speaker 1 (01:39:59):
Let's get rid of it, and let's regulate social media
because there's a sieved em.

Speaker 2 (01:40:10):
And it's also not true that wealth prevents regulation. I mean,
you know, what's his name.

Speaker 1 (01:40:16):
Rockefeller was very wealthy when they broke him up. Lots
of businesses, most big businesses were very, very large and
significant when they were regulated. And tech will be regulated.
The thing that their wealth allows them to do will
be to help shape the regulation, but it won't prevent

(01:40:37):
the regulation from happening, and it won't.

Speaker 2 (01:40:42):
AI will be regulated.

Speaker 1 (01:40:43):
It will be regulated differently under Donald Trump because he
has different goals around it than under Democrats, but it
will be regulated. It already is regulated, and of course
tech is regulated a variety of different ways today. But
again you're imputing to politicians motivations that maybe they have

(01:41:05):
in secret. You know, maybe some of them deep down
just want to destroy wealth. But the number of nihilists
is relatively small. Suddenly explosive nihilists and their own mind explosives.
Most of them are just evaders. Most of them are
just power lusting evaders. Clark, the individualists are losing left

(01:41:27):
and right a collectivists. Absolutely, they're the ones winning elections,
and they share the same premise premises.

Speaker 2 (01:41:34):
The left is consistent with them.

Speaker 1 (01:41:36):
The right is hypocritical about them, hypocritical about them, well,
I mean the right is consistent with them as well.
The modern right is suddenly consistent with them. The modern
right has no problems with the collectivistic premises. But yeah,
I just describe that, and I agree with you completely
fee and focused in Star Trek, Prime director prevents giving

(01:41:58):
advanced techtive barbaric societies.

Speaker 2 (01:42:01):
Is there something to this?

Speaker 1 (01:42:03):
How dangerous are the products of the mind in the
hands of those who reject the supremacy of the mind.
I mean, they're very dangerous, and there's absolutely something to it.
It's why the world, the civilized world, should have protected
prevented North Korea from accessing a bomb, right, They should
have prevented them from getting nuclear weapons, and they should

(01:42:24):
have bombed them ruthlessly to prevent it. It is why
it's right for the civilized world to prevent Iran from
getting a bomb. You do not want barbarians to have
a weapon that can destroy the planet, can destroy maybe
not the planet, millions of people in the planet, and

(01:42:48):
particularly people who have expressed a willingness to use it.

Speaker 2 (01:42:51):
So it's too late with North Korea, but it's not
too late with Iran.

Speaker 1 (01:42:56):
You've got to stop them from getting it say yes,
there's something can all jeez that that the bad guys
should be barred from having. And this is why I
was in favor on some limited restrictions on tech sold
to China. If that tech it can be obviously used
for military purposes. You do not want the Chinese military

(01:43:21):
to keep up with American military. You want to have
an advantage, and you don't want to sell them the
tools by which they will kill you with. All right,

(01:43:44):
jennifer'sis do you think it can be valid to say
I laugh so I don't cry. You should take ideas seriously,
of course, but sometimes make fun of bad things to
help your brain cope.

Speaker 2 (01:43:55):
Yeah, I do think.

Speaker 1 (01:43:56):
I mean it's a kind of a last result in
a sense. But yeah, yeah, I think sometimes things get
so ridiculous, so evil, so pathetic, so nutty that saying
you know, I gotta laugh because otherwise I'll cry is
a legitimate thing to say, even if it's not completely
accurate in terms of what it actually reflects and what

(01:44:17):
it actually means. All right, let's see. Yeah. I want
to remind you that the best way to support you
on book show is through a monthly contribution on Patreon
dot com. You know, just go to Patreon patreon dot

(01:44:38):
com and type in your on Book show and become
a monthly support, regular support of the youon Book Show,
or become a member here on YouTube. These are the
best ways to support the show, in addition to asking
questions in the super chat.

Speaker 2 (01:44:53):
But it is it is a great way, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:44:56):
We're done with the twenty and fifty dollars questions. We're
now down to the ten and five and two. You
can still ask questions, particularly if they're in the twenty
plus range, and I will stay here and answer them all.
We've already made our second hour goal, but we might
go into third hour and then then I'll be asking
you for more, all right. By the way, if you

(01:45:20):
do ten dollars a month or more on Patreon, you
get a RSM feed, You get a feed, a podcast
feed with no commercials. You get to be able to
listen to podcasts with no commercials for ten dollars or
more on Patreon, only on Patreon, So check out Patreon.

Speaker 2 (01:45:39):
If that is of interest to you, it should.

Speaker 1 (01:45:41):
Be to all my podcast listeners. You should all be
on Patreon. It should all be a ten dollars so
that you can get the commercial free so much better.

Speaker 2 (01:45:52):
Liam says, does having evil thoughts make you evil?

Speaker 1 (01:45:56):
No? No, I mean it's worth thinking about why you're
having the thoughts, and because the evil thoughts could create
psychological angst and conflict. But no, just having the thought
does not make you evil. It's acting on them or
taking them seriously that makes you evil. But if you
know they're evil and you dismiss them, you're fine. Psychologically.

(01:46:19):
You want to find the origin of those thoughts you
want to think about. You want to figure out the
introspection and therapy why you're having them, so you can
get rid of them, because they're not healthy. James Trump
looks like he's fading cognitively. Isn't too old to do
real damage?

Speaker 2 (01:46:37):
I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:46:37):
I don't. I don't think that's right because I think
given his ability to basically do whatever the hell he
wants and to control the Republican Party said they will
do whatever the hell he wants, his fading cognitively makes.

Speaker 2 (01:46:50):
Him more and more and more dangerous because nobody will
say no to him.

Speaker 1 (01:46:57):
Literally, nobody in the Republican Party says no to Donald Trump,
so he could be senile and a raving lunatic, which
he already is, arguably, and he could get away with
murder and nobody's going to challenge him. As he said
in twenty sixteen, he could shoot somebody in the middle
of Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't change anything. I think

(01:47:19):
that's true, and it's even more so today. And if
he's a raving lunatic, bad thing, he could do really
bad things and nobody will stop him.

Speaker 2 (01:47:29):
Michael.

Speaker 1 (01:47:30):
Larry Salizman seems pretty confident in the Court's ability to
prevent authoritarianism, but it does seem our institutions are not
shutting from down like they should be. Well, Congress isn't
Congress is complete failure, there's no question about that.

Speaker 2 (01:47:45):
But we don't know yet about the courts.

Speaker 1 (01:47:49):
Again, the district courts and the pelic courts are doing
their job and now it's going to be up to
Supreme Court, and we won't know for another six months
a year if the Supreme Court is doing its job
or not. So I don't I think it's too early
to make that judgment, Michael. And we're not We're not
athbitarian yet. This is not authoritarianism. You know, he's an

(01:48:13):
authoritarian president. But there's no reason to believe there will
be no election in twenty six. There's no reason to
believed there won't be an election in twenty twenty eight.

Speaker 2 (01:48:28):
We have not.

Speaker 1 (01:48:30):
We have not, you know, moved into We're now a dictatorship.
We're not there. Edwick says, how would israel Is really
public react at the end of the war to the
murder of the remaining hostages. I made me horrified. To
what extent would they take it out in Antenniao and

(01:48:50):
blame him for it?

Speaker 2 (01:48:51):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:48:52):
Certainly, a big segment of the Israeli public hates na
Tenniel has always hated Natennio, and I think that segment
of the public has only grown since October seventh. And
sometimes his popularity increases, like the success with Iran or
the success with Hisbela, but then it plummets again around
his indecision about Gaza. And remember I advocated for taking

(01:49:17):
over Gaza and doing everything they're doing right now to
pretty much, you know, twenty two months ago. And it
should have been done twenty two months ago, not now.
This is the point that the son of Ramas is making.
I advocated for killing Ramas's leaders in Qatar twenty two
months ago. All of this stuff should have happened then,
not now, and we wouldn't be in the situation we

(01:49:39):
are now. So I think a lot of these really
public will turn against Natonio. But then again, he is
such a political animal. He manages to.

Speaker 2 (01:49:47):
Survive no matter what. So who knows not to have
a j algorithm?

Speaker 1 (01:49:53):
If Florida were to eliminate property taxes, would that make
it by far the free of state?

Speaker 2 (01:49:59):
Do you see other Republican governors copying it? Would you
consider retiring there? No, I don't like Florida. I mean
taxes only one.

Speaker 1 (01:50:06):
If I'm going to live in Florida, might as well
just live in Puerto Rico, where still pay less taxes
than Florida.

Speaker 2 (01:50:15):
Taxesn't one. I don't like Florida.

Speaker 1 (01:50:17):
I don't There's a lot. I don't like the weather.
I don't like the flatness. I don't like the fact
that it's such a magnet for old people, even though
I'm one of them. But I want to be in
a place with lots of young people, not in a
place with a bunch of old people.

Speaker 2 (01:50:33):
But would it make it by father free of state? Probably?
It's it's it's close anyway, it's in the top five.

Speaker 1 (01:50:42):
I think it's those regulations in taxes and so on.
This would and again it depends on whether they have
to increase other taxes in order to make up for
the for the for the shortfall, right, So it depends
what your total tax burden is. But getting rid of
popping Texas and big deal, you know there's some great

(01:51:02):
well other Republicans governors copying it. I don't think so
because other Republican governments, again, they're all challenged by the
fact that they're not cutting spending. So if you don't
cut spending, where are you going to get the revenue
to cover everything you want to spend money on. If
you cut a major tax, where do you get the money?

Speaker 2 (01:51:25):
So they have to find an alternative. So I don't
think a lot of governors are going to copy it.

Speaker 1 (01:51:31):
It would be great if they did. You know, By
the way, California, because of a proposition passed in nineteen
seventy eight seventy seven seventy eight, has cap property taxes,
so your property taxes cannot be increased. So it's set
by the purchase price. So if you bought property in

(01:51:52):
California a long time ago. Your property taxes are very low.
My property taxes in California were very low, so in
comparison probably Texas. In California probably lower than significantly lower
than Texas, and lower than Florida.

Speaker 2 (01:52:06):
Right now.

Speaker 1 (01:52:07):
Now Florida will eliminate them, so it'll be low in Florida.
But you know, in California it's low. And you know, again,
how are they going to how are they going to
make up for the revenue shortfall? That's what I want
to know. Henry says, Hi, you and I'm weighing up

(01:52:28):
taking a year out to travel. I'm concerned about returning
on a lower salary, regressing in my career. Welcome thoughts.
Hope to see you again when you're next in the UK. Look,
it's hard for me to say because I don't know
what career you in. I don't know what the prospects are,
I don't know all of that. I don't know how

(01:52:49):
old you are. So hard for me, just because sorry,
but I can't remember people. So even though I met you,
I don't remember. So yeah, so.

Speaker 2 (01:53:09):
It's so I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:53:13):
But generally I'm in favor of taking a year off
and traveling and putting that on your resume and adding
that as a kind of a making you more well rounded.
And I don't know that it's going to slow you
down regress your career. It's not necessarily will do so

(01:53:35):
it could be you could also spend that year learning
new skills, right, I mean, it can be all just traveling.
You know you'll have spare time. Why not learn a
new skill? You know, really master AI take some courses online.
So if you structure your travel right, particularly if you

(01:53:57):
use it as an opportunity to upskill, then I actually
think you won't necessarily.

Speaker 2 (01:54:06):
Take a step down in your career.

Speaker 1 (01:54:08):
The younger you do it, the easier it is to do,
the more acceptable it is, and the easier it is
to enter your career without losing too much.

Speaker 2 (01:54:17):
The older it is, the harder it is to do.

Speaker 1 (01:54:19):
Once you have a family, of course, it's almost impossible
to do so if you're young, if you don't have
a family, If you're in a profession where you can
learn on the road and you can study and you
can improve your skill set, I'd say do it.

Speaker 2 (01:54:37):
Jamie, Hello, wondering.

Speaker 1 (01:54:39):
Your thoughts on the cord and Kugar study. On minimum
wage in the nineties and the do Blester and Reichs
study tighter minimum wage effects across state borders estimates using
contiguous counties.

Speaker 2 (01:54:54):
Thank you if I remember right.

Speaker 1 (01:54:57):
Do Blester and Reich over turn earn the Card and
Cougar study. They show the opposite correct me in the
chat if I'm wrong. But look the Card and Kugar study,
as we criticize from the day it was published, it's
not a particularly good study. The change in minimum wage
was too small. This study focused on too small of

(01:55:21):
a region, on too short of a time. You know,
for every Card and Kugar there are ten to fifteen
studies that show the minimum wages do harm. I keep
reading more of them as we go, so because there's
one that managed to squeeze out the empirics to make

(01:55:43):
them right. Well, what I'm saying is I think that
do less than right study title minimum wage effects across
they boat. It shows that Card and Kugar were wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:55:57):
That minimum wage has no effects.

Speaker 1 (01:55:58):
Card and Krugar shows the minim wages do not hurt unemployment,
that do not increase unemployment, do not hurt the very poor.
Then victims of minimum wage. Again, for every Card and
Kruger study. There are multiple studies the show that they're wrong,

(01:56:19):
And there are a number of studies, I think, including
the one you're citing, the show that Krug and Card themselves,
the show that the original study was flawed in the
way it measures the effects and in the the way
they looked at the region.

Speaker 2 (01:56:37):
In which the effects were felt or not felt.

Speaker 1 (01:56:41):
So I think Card in Kruger is bad economics, and
I do Lester and Right if.

Speaker 2 (01:56:47):
I memor right is better.

Speaker 1 (01:56:49):
But you know, the fact that minimum wage is destructive
economically does not require an empirical study. I mean, impilical
studies are good to support it, but it does not.
It's it's basic theory. It's basic supplying demand. It's not
hard to figure out. Uh, it's it's it's a law

(01:57:10):
like the law of gravity. And again there are ten
studies five one Card and krugar to show how bad
it is actually affecting the economy. There is a Natives

(01:57:33):
asking about the best place to talk online about philosophy.

Speaker 2 (01:57:36):
There is a discord channel I think is mouse Love.

Speaker 1 (01:57:41):
If mos Love is on here, he can give you
the link to the Discorde channel where they I think
they have regular conversations about different topics, about different topics.
But uh yeah, I love that Nate knows everything and

(01:58:03):
it stands above everybody and just judges everybody's opinions from
the perspective of he knows everything.

Speaker 2 (01:58:12):
Maybe he does.

Speaker 1 (01:58:13):
I don't know, Nate, Maybe he is all knowing Loan
the Center. Trump is being hungry for lower interest rates.
Is it possible as appointees a messaging revising data to
force the Fed to do it?

Speaker 2 (01:58:28):
Not yet, I mean not yet.

Speaker 1 (01:58:30):
But and he doesn't want low employment numbers blame the tariffs,
So I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (01:58:36):
I think he's I think is a point.

Speaker 1 (01:58:41):
It's not his appointees at BLS producing these numbers. These
are Biden appointees producing these numbers, making Biden administration look worse.
Mary Lee says to call the Trumpet administration the Toddler
presidencies and insult to small children.

Speaker 2 (01:58:58):
Absolutely true, solutely an insult. Ryan.

Speaker 1 (01:59:04):
Would you like to interview son of Hamas if he can,
if we can reach out to him and encourage it.

Speaker 2 (01:59:10):
Yeah, absolutely, I would like to. I would like to.

Speaker 1 (01:59:13):
I'd enjoy interviewing him. I think he's a real hero
and really courageous Rajiev, Niko says incredibly good was incredibly
good in his Road to Fascism lecture. I agree, great
work AARI is doing in developing new objectives intellectuals.

Speaker 2 (01:59:30):
Thanks to air I and you thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:59:32):
Jeev.

Speaker 2 (01:59:32):
Really appreciate that, and I agree about Nikos's talk.

Speaker 1 (01:59:36):
Marius, what are your thoughts on the Indonesian and Nepalese protests.

Speaker 2 (01:59:42):
I don't know that much about them. This is why
you know I'm not talking a lot about them.

Speaker 1 (01:59:52):
You know, both the Palain Indonesia and unbelievably corrupt administrations,
and people are rebellion against it. I think particularly Nepal,
where it is very socialist my understanding, and very repressive
and very corrupt administration.

Speaker 2 (02:00:10):
People are going onto the streets.

Speaker 1 (02:00:12):
Demonstrating against them, and I think that's a good thing.
So I support any change that brings about more freedom.
I don't know anything about the Indonesian demonstrations right now
and what they are demonstrating for, so I haven't read
up on either of those, so I shouldn't talk about
them when I don't know.

Speaker 2 (02:00:30):
Anything about them.

Speaker 1 (02:00:31):
I'll try to read up on Nepal because Nepal seems
to be really heating up. I think they just burned
down part of the parliaments. A Art says, is Trump
the alternate pragmatist. Is pragmentism in the US past responsible
for the void that made today's US political state possible. Yes,
so the answer to the second question is yes, it's

(02:00:52):
pragmentism in the US past have made Trump possible. Trump
is beyond pragmatism. Trump is just a wim worshiping thug.
Trump is just a whim worshiping thug. He's not an
adherent like I don't know Kennedy, to any kind of

(02:01:13):
set of ideas about how to make decisions short term,
don't think in principles, not long term.

Speaker 2 (02:01:20):
Make this. He's just emotes. He just does what he
feels like doing and and and he does it in
a way like.

Speaker 1 (02:01:30):
Like a mafia boss. Mafia boss has behaved this way. Right,
you can't say mafia was pragmatist. They're just thugs. Kim

(02:01:57):
tips some moving up in a financial operations career.

Speaker 2 (02:02:01):
You know, I don't know if I have tips. You know, generally,
tip for moving up in any career is.

Speaker 1 (02:02:09):
Do a good job, be responsible, seek input, seek feedback
for your manager. Develop that kind of relationship with the
manager where you expect feedback negative and positive, and develop
a skill set improve your knowledge. So, in spite of

(02:02:29):
the fact that Nate thinks that you know AI is retarded,
AI is going to be an amazing tool for financial operations.

Speaker 5 (02:02:39):
It is.

Speaker 1 (02:02:40):
It's going to provide allow you amazing shortcuts. It's going
to allow you to use whatever software you're using for
financial operations to do it much more effectively, much faster,
much more productively.

Speaker 2 (02:02:53):
It is an amazing tool, and as such, use.

Speaker 5 (02:02:57):
It, you know, learn how to use it, study it, Uh,
you know, introduce new ways to your boss on how
to improve what you're doing.

Speaker 2 (02:03:07):
Don't wait for them to tell you.

Speaker 1 (02:03:16):
Uh but but yeah, uh you know, keep innovating, keep
thinking and and and and keep engaging with your boss
at that level. But learn, learn how to do your
job better, learn new skills, constant learning, and life generally
in Korea.

Speaker 2 (02:03:37):
For sure, not you have your algorithm.

Speaker 1 (02:03:40):
IM not sure if you already commented on this, but
thoughts on Ukrainian refuge goals, stabbing to death on the
bus in North Carolina. Trump has let you onto this
to rally his racist, mindless base. Yeah, I mean you know,
it's obviously tragic and hullable and and uh, this guy
should probably have not been on the streets. I don't

(02:04:00):
I haven't read as rap sheet. But he's a repeat offender.

Speaker 2 (02:04:04):
And I am very much for I'm very much for.

Speaker 1 (02:04:17):
You know, somebody is a violent criminal at some point
throwing away the keys and not allowing them back. So
I think that the way they're Right and Trump are

(02:04:38):
using this is sick and irresponsible. They're using this in
order to say, you know, look up, bad crime is
in the world as crime is plummeting. So yeah, crime
is when it happens, it's horrible, and when it happens
on video, it's even more horrible. Crime like this happens
every day, but you don't get a video of it,

(02:04:59):
so it really is sad. And yeah, I mean, I'm
all full tougher sentences on violent crime, much tougher sentences
on violent criminals. Ben Jackson recently moved to France for
career growth, traveling wife's family. Yes, it's bureaucratic, but I

(02:05:22):
find value in being here. End of the day, you
have to live your life, pursue your values thoughts. Yeah,
I agree, I mean, and you don't have to live
in one place the rest of your life. You're going
you should live where you're going to live the best
life possible to you at that point in time. And
if that's France right now, great, and if that's somewhere
else in five years, great. In that sense, I am,

(02:05:47):
I hate to use the term, but a globalist. You know,
take advantage of the fact that we live in a
world where you can travel, you can live in lots
of places, you can experience lots of amazing experiences, lots
of amazing cultures, great food and France, great art in France.
So yeah, get out there and see the world. I

(02:06:07):
tell everybody that. So I'm absolutely in agreement. I'm spending
a month in Farance. I just spent three weeks in Lisbon.
Last year, I spent six weeks in Barcelona. Who knows
who I'll spend next year. And I live in Puerto Rico.
Who could have ever imagined I would live in Puerto Rico.
So you go where your values dictate, not where your

(02:06:29):
birth dictates. Iconnivote is it undignified to spray whipped cream
directly from the can, directly onto one's mouth while standing
at an open fridge. It is delicious, So your answer
won't stop me.

Speaker 2 (02:06:45):
Keep up the good work.

Speaker 1 (02:06:46):
No, I mean it might be undidentified to do it
in a three star Michelin restaurant, it might be undidentified
to do it in public.

Speaker 2 (02:06:55):
But in front of your own fridge, of course, whatever
makes you know? Whatever? Right? I mean, of course it's
dignified in front of your own fridge. And if it makes,
if it's delicious to do so, then it would be
undignified not to do it. And sways.

Speaker 1 (02:07:14):
Another Iran group announced Peacock is speaking at their event
next month. Is a fourth branch of the movement emerging?

Speaker 2 (02:07:23):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (02:07:24):
Maybe I think this is the one from Iran Center UK.
They're putting on a conference. I didn't know Leonard was
speaking there, but it doesn't surprise me. Razie who runs that,
has a good relationship with Leonard, or has had a

(02:07:44):
good relationship over the last couple of years with Leonard,
so they are putting it together. Is a rc UK
a fourth branch of object I don't know.

Speaker 2 (02:07:53):
What that means.

Speaker 1 (02:07:54):
I don't know what the movement means or their four branches.
Is the Ato Society a branch of objectivism? I don't
think so, because I don't count them. But look, my
view is and has been for at least a decade
maybe two, that the more successful objectivism is, the bigger
objectivism becomes, call it a movement, call it what you want,

(02:08:18):
the more people will be doing more things independently of
one another, more organizations started, more think tanks established, more
intellectuals doing things coordinated with the iron manstute or not.
That is the job of the iron Man Institute is
not to be some kind of a gatekeeper coordinator of

(02:08:44):
all stuff you know that is done under the ban
of Ironman.

Speaker 2 (02:08:49):
We can't you know, can't do that. Other stuff will emerge, So.

Speaker 1 (02:09:00):
Let it happen, let it rip and and I love
the competition, and uh, let the better confidences succeed and
the less confidences not succeed, and let the and and
From philosophical perspective, the thing that Iman Institute is committed to,
which I don't think any of these other institutions are
committed to, and even if they were, they could don't

(02:09:22):
have the talent to do it, is the Institute is
committed to preserving Irn's philosophy. Qua Inrance philosophy, we might comment.
We might uh do uh, we might you know, apply
it in a variety of different ways, but we refer
to original sources.

Speaker 2 (02:09:42):
We keep those original sources alive.

Speaker 1 (02:09:45):
We continue, we continue to teach from original sources, and
we are dedicated to preserving the philosophy.

Speaker 2 (02:09:54):
As I Ran presented it.

Speaker 1 (02:09:57):
That's the one thing we are committed to that none
of these other things are not. And I'm not going
to comment on on Leonard's uh giving the talk all right, Michael.

Speaker 2 (02:10:19):
Says, well, is will eventually take out Ayatula. Maybe I
don't know.

Speaker 1 (02:10:26):
I don't think so. They had their chance, but maybe
if if the circumstances arise, if if you Wan becomes aggressive,
then then they might. I told it might die any
day now. Anyway, he's he's he's pretty old, so he
might die.

Speaker 5 (02:10:45):
But uh.

Speaker 2 (02:10:53):
But anyway, that is the on book show for today.

Speaker 1 (02:10:57):
Thank you, guys, I appreciate it, Thanks to all the
super chatters, thanks to all the support. I will see
you guys all tomorrow. I think at the same time
we should be we should be fine. For the same time.
I look forward to seeing you tomorrow with the news
and with the discussion and debate, and I have a

(02:11:20):
great rest of your week. Bye everybody. Don't forget to
support the show on Patreon, Patreon dot com.

Speaker 2 (02:11:25):
Bye,

All Episodes

Israel Strikes Qatar; Jobs in Crisis; Murdoch's Exit; US Military Decline | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

.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;}Israel Strikes Qatar; Jobs in Crisis; Murdoch's Exit; US Military Decline | Yaron Brook Show