Tariffs, Tyranny & the Fed: Are We Sleepwalking Into Authoritarianism? | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Though radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self interest, and
individual rights. This is the ran Brook Show. A right,

(03:16):
can we here? Can you guys hear me in there?
All right? Well, just to use this mic. It's not
a great mic, but it'll have to do. Let me know, uh,
let me know what you're saying. All right. Uh. I'm
not sure why the setup that has worked every single

(03:37):
time I've used it, every single time I've used it
in the past. I'm not sure why it's suddenly not working.
So the volume is good? All right? Uh? Okay, cool,
all right, that took me out of it a little bit.

(03:57):
Let's get back into Uh, let's get it back into
the show. All welcome you on bookshow. I am here
in Italy, actually in Florence today. It was in Naples
for a week. Is the Is the picture straight? I
don't know for some reason, yeah, I think it looks okay,

(04:18):
all right, I'm trying to get this just right. I
will studying monday, I will have a It looks crooked
to me. It looks like the whole scene is kind
of crooked. But anyway, next week, studying Monday, I will

(04:38):
have an office set up a wired internet connection A
and I will have tested out all the equipment right now,
I'm in my ABNB doing this and it's, as you
can tell, a little challenging to get it all set
up and make sure it is it is working. For

(05:00):
some reason, my MIC's are not working right and my
and my camera looks off. It completely looks like it's crooked.
But that could be just me, all right, not crooked
you're saying. You're saying it looks good, all right, fine,
so be it anyway? Will we have AC and demand?

(05:26):
So the situation in AC in Florence is interesting. I
don't know if this is true of all of Italy.
I don't think it is. I think I think it's
kind of a municipal thing. We will have electricity until
about the middle of September. We'll have AC, sorry, we'll
AC until about the middle of September. At some point

(05:50):
AC gets turned off heat wave, no heat wave whatever,
noisy after some point. And that is a municipal thing. Uh,
in Florence. This is what makes uh, you know, Europe
relative to the United States, Uh, significantly poor poor. It's
it's things like that, right, I mean, who would even

(06:13):
consider in a in an American city to turn off
the ac or to turn off the heat and any
any particular time. It's uh, it's completely nutty European in particular. Uh,
Florence and and and look, Italy is not a cold climate,
so I I you know, it's it is what it is. Anyway,

(06:39):
Naples was interesting, Uh, an interesting city. It's a pretty
rough city. It's it's a dirty city. It's filled with
graffiti everywhere with graffiti. Uh. But it also was more
pleasant than I expected it to be in many In
many respects, Uh, I didn't really see Uh, I really

(07:03):
didn't see a lot of I don't know. It felt safe,
Most of places felt safe. There were a lot of
people who didn't seem like there were a lot of
tourists from outside of Italy, but there were a lot
of Italians there and a lot of tourists, a lot
of people walking around. Uh. And it was it was

(07:30):
a pretty cool place. I don't know that I want
to stay more than we stayed, which is four days. Uh.
And I don't know that there's that much to see.
We went out to one of the islands off the
coast of Naples. We also went down the Malfy coast
and Malfa coast is beautiful. It's it's one of the
greatest grow trips. One of the greatest stretches of road

(07:52):
anyway is uh Is. The uh is the trip down
from Sorrento through a Malfi, the town of the city
town of Malfia, and I guess down down the coast there.
It's just gorgeous and highly recommended if you're in the area,
take a few hours and do the drive. Ideally you

(08:13):
take a whole day and do the drive so that
you can do it solely, take lots of pictures and
enjoy it. Naples also had I think many of you
know from pass shows that I'm a big Caravaggio fan,
and Naples has four Cara Vidios on display, I think

(08:34):
three permanent display. One was in the museum, but it
belongs to a private collector. And yeah, Caravaggio continues to amaze,
and it's clear why he's considered one of the great
painters of all time. He is truly, truly stunning. So

(08:56):
the museum in Naples was really, really good. The Big
Art Museum was really good. Didn't go this time to
the Archaeological Museum, which I highly recommend. Been there before.
It's got all the sculptures and pottery and things like
that from Pompeii over there, so you get a lot

(09:16):
of Roman sculpture and if you're into antiquities, if you're
into Roman sculpture, there's a huge collection, one of the best,
maybe the best in the world, but a huge collection there.
Definitely with the trip. Just got to flaunch last night,
really just walked around a little bit. Today. You haven't
really seen the place yet, but you know, we'll combine.

(09:40):
It's gonna be interesting trying to combine sight seeing at
a very mellow pace because we're going to be here
three and a half weeks and just living and working
and doing these shows every night and figuring out when
to eat and so, you know, juggling all the things
that one needs to juggle when one is in a

(10:02):
new city. It's going to be interesting to do here
in Florence that it's a city really built for tourism,
and we're going to be part living, part tourists here.
I will have, as I said, we'll have an office.
We'll be doing the show from an office. And now
for my ABNB soon enough, all right, let's jump into

(10:24):
the news. We've got a few stories to catch up.
Not a lot has happened, not a huge amount has
happened this week, but a few important things I have
and it's important we catch up, and then we'll do
a show tomorrow. Well, we do a show tomorrow on
something more general. We'll see. I'll come up with the topic,
either something more general or or you're on rusal or

(10:51):
some something like that, not news related in other words,
or not directly news related, maybe indirectly news related. We'll see.
So that'll be tomorrow, so probably around the same time.
I think this is probably going to be the time
for shows moving into the future, either two pm or
three pm East Coast time, except for Thursday and Friday

(11:14):
this week. Thursday will be an hour later. It will
be four pm, and then yeah, what do you call it?
On Friday, might be even five or six pm. So
we'll see. So definitely going to be shows later on

(11:35):
Thursday and Friday. But generally I'm going to try to
do shows at nine pm Eastern time. I think this
is a good time. Maybe sorry, nine pm Florence time,
which is three pm East Coast time. All right, let's
jump in. So Supreme Court ruled and not the stream

(11:56):
quote sorry scrap that the appellate courte the court, the
Federal Court ruled by a vote of seven to four
recently on the case on the case brought against the
Trump administration claiming that the tariffs or not all the tariffs,

(12:17):
but the taffs that are based on the I E
e p A. His emergency declaration UH and the emergency
the emergency that he declared that those tariffs are unconstitutional
or in other words, that he is not authorized by
law to unilaterally imposed tariffs. We've talked about this many times.

(12:37):
We had Larry Salzman, who is part of the Pacific
Legal Foundation, which also filed the lawsuit with regard to
the I E e p A. UH. There's another lawsuit
that's going to different appellate court also on this on
this issue. UH. The the plaintiffs of one in the

(13:00):
law courts. So this particular case that was decided on
Friday was at the International Trade Court, and there was
another one that was a federal district court, both won
by those arguing that it's unconstitutional. This this has now
been appealed by Trump. It's been appealed to the Federal Circuit.

(13:21):
The Federal Circuit ruled seven to four that indeed the
International Trade Court was right, and that Trump's use of
his tariff power is unconstitutional, that he has no basis
to use it. There's nothing in the law that gives
him permission to use it. Indeed, the Constitution clearly places
the responsibility for tariffs on Congress, and that the i

(13:48):
ee PA, which allows the President to engage declare an
economic emergency and engage in certain actions, none of the
actions approved by that law constitute tariffs. So you know,

(14:09):
if so, this is this is the That was the ruling.
The Court did not order the Trumpet administration to basically
eliminate all the taps immediately under the assumption that Trump
will appeal this to Supreme Court. They have they are
staying or they are permitting the tests to stay in

(14:36):
place until the Supreme Court rules it and decides definitively. Now,
we've always thought that this case had First of all,
it had has a huge amount of merit. It's right
on its face. But then the question is how well
the Supreme Court rules rule. And I think Larry said

(14:58):
it was a fifty to fifty and I was pretty
optimistic that the court, the Supreme Court would have actually
rule this unconstitutional. But I'm a little worried to have
to say. I'm a little worried because the seven to
four split in the Federal Circuit Court was basically split
right split, basically basically split by partisan lians. So the

(15:29):
seven judges that were pointed by democratic presidents voted this
was unconstitutional. The four judges appointed by Republicans voted this
was constitutional. Now that worries me because now it goes
to the Supreme Court, where as we know, the Conservatives

(15:49):
have a majority or Republican appointed judges are in a majority.
Now the Supreme Court's being pretty independent, but it has
given a lot of leeway to try. So I don't
know how it's gonna role. I don't know how it's
gonna rule. It's going to be it's going to be interesting.

(16:11):
The you know, the judges in this case were pretty
clear that, you know, because these tariffs are unbound both
in scope, in amounts, and in duration. There's nothing in
the law that permits this. I mean, if he had
said these are temporary tariffs and they will phase, they

(16:33):
probably would have let it go. But given that they
are unbound and that there's no limit to how much
you can do if reading from the court, it says
these staffs apply to nearly all articles inputed into the
United States, and in the case of reciprocal tariffs, apply
to almost all countries. Impose high rates which are ever

(16:54):
changing and exceed those set in the US US tariff system,
and a lot limited in ration. And on that basis,
and on the basis that the law does not permit
anything like this, they ruled it on constitutional. Now, I
don't know how this ream quote is going to rule
on this. It's going to be It's it's very tricky
for them. A Trump administration is you know, basically, uh

(17:23):
basically placed its entire agenda on this. I mean Trump
tweeted in hysteria that if if this rim court overturned
his tariffs, it would basically be the end of the
United States. The economy would tank, it would it would
be a disaster. You know, if you look at Howard

(17:44):
Lutnick said today quote such a ruling would threaten broader
US to teach interest at home, and it broad likely
lead to retaliation and unwinding of agreed upon deals. What
would be the retaliation tarifs would go down, so the
retaliation would be what anyway, unwinding of agreed upon deals
by foreign trading partners and derail critical ongoing negotiations with

(18:08):
foreign trading partners. It's also worth noting that there are
no deals. There's just no deals. No deals are being
cut any Japan's lead negotiator, we're supposed to come to
the United States. Uh, and and basically has the latest
trip because the US keeps changing the terms and keeps

(18:29):
reneging of stuff, and it's back and forth, and so
he's going to wait until some of these things are
hashed out. There is no deal with Japan. There's just
a unilateral declaration by the president of this is the
TAFs and this is what's expected. But there is no
there is no deal. Now I think, I think absolutely

(18:51):
this is the right decision. As the Court wrote the court,
congressional power to impose taxes such as tais is vest
exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution. Taos are
a core constitutional power. And uh, but again this is uh.

(19:12):
Here's what Trump said. If these tariffs ever went away,
ever notice, ever went away, if allowed it was an
if it was a head, it's here. Uh. If these
talks ever went away. It would be a total disaster
for the country. If allowed to stand, this decision would

(19:35):
literally destroy the United States of America. So no panic there,
no hyperbolic no no, no, no panic, no attempt to
rile everybody up. Literally the country would be destroyed if
we just went back to the system that existed a
month ago. And uh, anyway, this is going to Supreme Court.

(20:00):
I'm pretty sure they'll take it. I'm pretty sure they'll
take it. I have no idea how they're going to rule.
I have no idea. You would think that somebody like
Grossage is sensitive to a separation of powers, very sensitive.
This is sole basis of being against all the regulations
in the kind of biregulatory agencies. You think that somebody

(20:25):
like Grostage would rule that this was unconstitutional. But given
how much how much emphasis Trump is putting on these
how much weight he's putting on them, is how much
influences Trump can have on these judges in terms of

(20:45):
how they will I don't know. I don't know, but
it's going to land up being one of the most
important decisions that Spring Court has ruled in, certainly since
they overturned Row in Economic Freedom. One of the most important, well,
in terms of the separation of powers, one of the

(21:07):
most important, you know, in a very long time. If
Trump can get away with this with these tariffs. First
of all, it emboldened him to declare an emergency whenever
he doesn't agree with Congress and just do whatever the hell,
whatever the hell he wants, we are heading towards already

(21:28):
in a number of different fronts. We're heading towards an
imperial presidency. A president that doesn't care about Congress, and
Congress in many respects is taking itself out the equation. Remember,
Congress could pass a law tomorrow eliminating these tariffs, but
it won't. So Congress has made itself irrelevant. And the
only thing preventing Trump can just doing whatever the hell

(21:52):
he wants, literally, whatever the hell he wants, are the courts.
And it looks like many of the district courts and
the appellate courts are willing to take a stand against Trump.
We still haven't seen the Supreme Court really be willing
to take a stand against Trump, and it'll be a

(22:13):
real decisive factor in terms of in terms of the
future of this country. Really, I mean not to be
too dramatic about it. But you know, if this, if
this presidency has already changed the balance of power between
the President and Congress and the courts and everything else
dramatically in favor of the president, it's already an executive

(22:35):
that's more active than any executive probably ever. You know,
if dr ultimately was rained in, this is probably more
than if the are even. And so it's going to
be it's going to be interesting to see if he
can be reined in. And this doesn't just mean if

(22:55):
Trump can be reined in, It really means it can
the president be railed in as a president? Can the
executive be railed in? Or are we destined to one
despotic president after another doing whatever the hell they want
basically right, using the power that they have and the

(23:19):
power the Congress refuses to take back to impose their will.
I mean, they're going to be a number of interesting
court cases. We're going to get to one in a
minute about the about the the federal Reserve. But you know,
we've got, uh, we've got the takeover in d C

(23:46):
which will probably pass muster. But then from what I understand, uh,
they're real preparations for for using federal troops in chicag
And then what right, what happens then what happens in

(24:09):
terms of sorry, executive power, in terms of just deploying
troops whenever they want to whatever places they want. So anyway,
it's going to be interesting. It's going to be interesting.

(24:34):
Trump has again historically taken over taken more power than
any president before him that I can think of. Again,
FDR is the only guy that comes to mind is
trying to do something similar and not succeeding. Not succeeding
up to a point, I mean, got a lot of

(24:57):
stuff done that the courts. If he had not kind
of he had not caused them to submit to his will,
they would have blocked. So a lot of stuff happened
under FDR that was that would have been blocked, and
that expanded again executive poly dramatically, And we're still suffering

(25:18):
from that. We're still suffering from the remnants of FDR.
Now Trump is taking at the next level. How long
will we suffer from that? And of course an unmanifestation
of that is this whole question of fed independence. Federals
of is structured to be part of the government but

(25:40):
independent of in its decisions of the political class. The
politicians in power the particular administration. It has been given
by Congress to mandates, the mandates to keep prices stable
and a mandate to secure full employment, keep unemployment low.

(26:09):
And it has left its own discretion and how to
do that and how to adjust the money supply its own. Now,
the Federals has done way beyond what it has their
supposedly the powers to do. Certainly during the financial crisis

(26:30):
it went way way beyond that. But it has at
least preserved the semblance of independence for most of its existence.
Trump clearly wants to end that. He wants to bring
the Federals of under the thumb, to bring it to

(26:51):
be under the thumb of the president. He wants to
bring it to appoint a position where the President dictate
what the Federals should do, just like the President dictates,
and you know how environmental regulations should be done, how
energy regulation, and how bank regulations should be done. With

(27:17):
the different federal agencies that are part of the executive branch.
He wants the same authority over the FED. Now, why
why is FED independent so important? It's important because it
is very tempting for presidents. And you can imagine very

(27:38):
tempting for this president to use the power of the
FED to manipulate the economy for political purposes. Print money
when it's convenient for the executive, for the for the
for the power, for the political power, for the political
party in power. Uh, you know, bring about a tightening

(27:59):
of money when it's convenient for that, which is rare
once you start inflation area, it's very rare for tightening
to be convenient. When wonders if any president would have
had the guts to do what Paul Volka did in
nineteen eighties, drive interest rates into twenty percent and crush inflation,
price inflation, reduce the money supply and bring about a

(28:23):
complete crushing of the inflation in the United States price inflation,
but at the same time send the United States into
a deep recession in the early nineteen eighties. Would any
politician have the audacity to do that? Now, you know,
it's not that the FED is completely independent. Feds. Fed's

(28:46):
listen to the presidents. They take into account what the
president wants. They take into account kind of what the
Treasury is telling them. But at the end of the day,
it's their decision. Trump wants it to be his decision
and to do that. He wants to reshape the governing board.

(29:07):
The Federal Reserve has a governing board that makes decisions
about monetary policy, and Trump wants to be able to
appoint as many people to that board as possible to
gain a majority, and then for them to vote according
to what Trump wants them to do and to help

(29:28):
with what Powell or whoever the chairman of the FED is.
They just follow Trump to that end. He has talked
often about replacing Powell himself, just getting rid of power,
but he has been told, he's be told that he
probably doesn't have the constitutional power to do that, that Congress,

(29:51):
in the law did not has not allowed the presidents
to do that, and the Supreme Court has commented on
replacing board members and has said that is not within
the purview of the president to do so. That's one

(30:12):
reason Trump hasn't gotten rid of power, I think the
more the bigger reason he hasn't gotten rid of power
yet is because every time he mentions it, the stock
market collapses. The stockmarket goes down, and there's nothing Trump
hates more than the stock up market going down because
there's something he does that's not good for a narcissist

(30:34):
doesn't like that a narcissist is not consistent with a narcissist, right,
So he's trying to work in the edgers and as
part of that, this week he basically fired Federals of
board member Lisa Cook, a FED governor, and you know,

(31:02):
he just he fired her. Now, the claim is that
she has broken the law that she in a mortgage
application led in the application about whether this was a
primary residence or not. Again, this saysn't been proved. This
has just been alleged. It's in front of a court,
I guess. But because of that, you know, Trump Trump

(31:27):
basically fired her. I mean, let me just say, this
is pretty rich, pretty rich from a guy who a
court of law has found regularly lied on his mortgage
applications with regard to the value of his assets, the

(31:48):
value of the real estate he was getting a mortgage on.
So it's really rich to get Trump. Well, again, a
court of law found him guilty of inflating the values
he was placing on his mortgage applications, using a mortgage
application claim as reason to fire her. Now she has

(32:10):
not found guilty. No, in America, at least until now,
you are in a sentence, are proven guilty. She is
not guilty of any crime yet. And as I said
when Trump was accused of this, it's a pretty minor crime. Anyway,

(32:33):
it's a pretty minor crime. Trump is using this in advance. Again,
she hasn't been found guilty yet, it hasn't gone to
court yet. We haven't heard her side yet. I know
you guys have already tried her and pronounced the guilty
and therefore legit to fire her. But none of that

(32:54):
is valid anyway. Trump has fired her. She is now
sued the Trump administration to maintain her job, claiming that
Trump does not have authority to fire her, and she has.

Speaker 2 (33:09):
She has asked a federal a federal court, to a
federal judge to keep her on as FED governor and
suddenly to keep her on while she she contests us.
So the question, the first question before the judge is going.

Speaker 1 (33:30):
To be will she have to vacate the seat while
she because she's contesting it? Or will she be able to?
Will she be able to? Will she be able to
continue to hold the seat on the FED on the
FED board, which would defeat what Trump is trying to do.
Particularly she can drag this out for a long time,

(33:50):
and given the courts, it's easy to drag these things out.
Trump Trump was very good at that during his many
court trivails, uh in the last few years. So it's
gonna it's gonna see it's gonna be interesting to see
how again the quotes rule hear List of the Justice

(34:12):
Department argued the federal law generally affords Trump great deference
to determine the circumstances that would allow him to oust
the Fed governor for cause a term generally interested to
meet professional neglect or wrongdoing. And the question here is,
of course, has she done anything involving wrongdoing? Has anything

(34:35):
been proven? And that is what it's gonna hinge. Is
it enough that they are suspicious of it? Now? I
think in this case they're probably gonna go with Trump.
Trump will get another boarder. Pointee, he's already got one,
uh you know, a board member designed recently, and he's

(34:58):
nominated one of his crony for that position. And he'll
nominate another of his coonies for this position. He'll have
two seats on the Board of Governors, and he will
slowly build up internal pressure on power to reduce to
reduce interest rates. So and of course if that happens,

(35:22):
if the considerations for reducing or increasing interest rates become
now political and not economic, I'll bet you off in
terms of things like inflation, and primarily inflation, because that
would be the greater tendency. But it'll be interesting to
see how interstate policy evolves if it's under the thumb

(35:44):
of Trump. Trump asking the Federal Reserve to raise a
lower interest rate, he has no power over them, according
to law. But if he can control the Board of
Governors and they just do what he tells them to
do because they're in his pocket for whatever reason, then
he will control interest rates in this country, among the

(36:07):
many things that now Trump controls and continues to control.
As we'll see, of course, how the courts will. The
theme here really is that Trump is accumulating immense power
the executive. He is making sure that the people around
him are one hundred per loyalists. There is ongoing turnover

(36:32):
within Trump administration that you're not hearing much about. Deputies
are being fired regularly even though they've been in positions
for very little time, because they've just been appointed to
them because they pissed off the wrong person. And the
loyalty test here is really, really, really strict, so that
the people around Trump today are people that are loyal

(36:55):
to him, to his agenda, to his ideas, to what
he wants to achieve, to what he wants to done.
And he has basically surrounded himself with people who will
follow through on whatever he wants. He wants thirty seven
people at the CIA basically fired. He gets it, even

(37:18):
if one of them happens to be right now undercover
and this endangered his life potentially. He wants it, and
nobody asks the CIA or the director of the CIA.
He just tells Tulsey, get it done, and Telsey sends
out the notifications and then makes it public, including making
naming the guy who is under cover his name public,

(37:41):
and the CIA flips out. Trump doesn't care. Trump doesn't care.
So if the job of the president is total control,
if the job of the president is to become an authoritarian,
if the job of the president is to basically, you know,

(38:06):
to basically disregard the Constitution and take all powers onto himself,
and then Trump is doing his job. But Trump is
you know, exceeding his constitutional is constitutional rights certainly, under
my interpretation of the Constitution. He's way exceeded them, but
did so every president the last hundred years. But even

(38:26):
by the interpretation I think of most courtes today, he
is far exceeding his authority and he is destroying the
ability of the US government I think to function objectively.
And well, you know, the kind of people he is

(38:47):
firing are not people who are being fired because they're
not good at their jobs. They are people who are
being fired because they disagree with Donald Trump, because they
don't buy into his agenda, because they're not one hundred
and accolds of this president, because they won't kiss his butt.
That's the standard by which they are being fired. So

(39:07):
you know, Trump is not This is not a case
where he is replacing people who don't do their job
with people who are better at their job. This says
the case for example, the CDC director. You know, she
was a Trump appointee, but she refused to do some
of the wacky stuff that RFK wants her to do,

(39:27):
so she was fired and replaced by somebody who will
do whatever RFK tells him to do. That's the standard
job of the president is a lot to do what
he is elected to do. The job of the president
is to work within the constitution to secure the rights
of Americans. That is the job of the president. It

(39:48):
is not to do what he promised to do. What
he promised to do is beyond his means to do
because he doesn't have the power to do it. The
job of the president is the secure the freedom and
liberty of Americans, to secure their rights. That's it. And
he can make all the promises in the world. That's

(40:10):
his job. And the thing that he cannot do that
is impeachable. Indeed, I think these tariffs unimpeachable offense. And
this president should have been impeachd last term. I mean
completely fired, not just impeached by the House, but fired.
And he already should have been impeached system. And it

(40:32):
is a disgrace to Congress that they have not acted
against Trump. All right, let's see, all right, Still reminder
to ask questions. You get to shape the show. We'll

(40:53):
get to questions a little bit, all right, It's just
a feign policy. Some stuff happening around the world will
cover quickly, and then I'll go to your questions. Jutis
the Hutis continue to send missiles in the direction of
Israel every few days is or finally responded, I think

(41:18):
it was the day before yesterday, by bombing a government meeting,
a meeting of heigh of government officials in Yemen. The
attempt is always attempting to basically take out the entire
leadership of of the hutisly early put it this way.

(41:44):
Early intelligence suggested that they had got a lot of them,
but they were overly optimistic. They had believed that they
had killed the entire Huti cabinet, including the military leaders.
We still don't know exactly how many people were killed
and who exactly was killed, but it does seem but

(42:06):
it is has been confirmed now that the Prime Minister
of the Huties was killed and with him a number
of other ministers. We don't know who exactly. One of
the targets was, you know, the defense chief was the
defense chief. We don't know if he was taken out.

(42:28):
Also as part of the sorry that was the defense minister.
Also part of one of the targets was the military
chief of staff. He was probably not taken out, so
he probably had not arrived in the meeting yet, as
he was on route to the meeting and didn't arrive yet.
So they still haven't taken him out, and he has
of course threatened to retaliate. Israel continues to fight the

(42:50):
Huties who continue to block the Red Sea and to
prevent shipping from going or a lot of shipping from
going through the Seruice Canal. The Americans continue to do
nothing about this, even though arguably it is the American
Navy that has taken on the responsibility of securing the
sea lanes of the world. You know, Trump cut a

(43:13):
deal with the Hooties and he is fulfilling his side
of the deal, which is leaving them alone. The Israelis
are trying to decapitate them as much as they can.
And again there is there is evidence that it's been

(43:34):
confirmed that the Prime Minister of the Hooties has been killed.
All right, just also from Israel. Israel Is in operations
over the last few days has recovered some of the
bodies of killed hostages. It looks like just a few
minutes ago they announced that they had recovered the body

(43:59):
of be Done Stevie, who was uh it was an
idea for reservist killed at some point in southern Gaza.
Uh and and uh, you know they've also got who
was the body was held sorry. Yes, So this is

(44:23):
a body of a slain hostage. Not not sorry, not
a reservice, a slain hostage who was recovered from Gaza
and the joint Idea Shin Beta operation. This is after
yes the day before yesterday they were covered another two bodies. Uh.
Everybody they recover is one less you know, one less

(44:47):
uh leverage, piece of leverage that the Hamas have over Israel.
Israel uses the bodies of these fallen Israelis and these
not fallen murdered Israelis to try to get as much
out of Israel as possible in the negotiations. So the
more of these they can get, the better, and it

(45:09):
would be even better if, of course, if they could
find them and rescue them alive. At the same time,
the Palestinians gardens are being forced to evacuate parts of
Gaza City, parts of northern Gaza as Israel prepares to
go into those regions. They are demanding the evacuation of

(45:29):
the Garzens into so called humanitarian zones tense cities, so
as to free up kind of the built up areas
so that Israel can operate in them freely and take
them over. Relating to both the Hutis and hamasan Uran.

(45:55):
Of course, Israel and the United States have polled to
a large extent crippled the nuclear capabilities or the capability
of Iran to build nuclear weapons. But it could restart
those programs. It's not that hard to keep to restart.

(46:21):
In the meantime. Iran, if you remember, after the attacks
of the Israelis and the Americans withdrew from the International
Monitoring Agreement over their nuclear facilities and over the nuclear program.
And as a response to that, to their withdraw European
countries today basically have moved to reimpose sanctions on Iran

(46:49):
for the nuclear work. So as of today, the sanctions
on Iran are basically US sanctions. US is the only
country sanctioning Iran now because US is such a big deal.
That is a big deal for Iran. But Iran has
been allowed to a large extent to trade with the UK.
In Germany and France, today, those three countries have moved

(47:12):
to reimpose all the international sanctions on Iran that have
bede lifted under the twenty fifteen nuclear deal. You know,
this they believe is going to be harsh enough and
difficult enough for the Uranians that they are likely to
come back into the nuclear deal or to resume negotiations

(47:37):
around a new deal with the Trumpet administration. So it'll
be interesting they're trying to corner Iran. Iran is obviously
in a very weak position, very weak position, and so
within a thirty day period they just triggered the thirty
day period, after which Iran would face all the international

(47:59):
United Nations back economic, banking, weapons, trade sanctions that have
pummeled at its economy in the past and would do
so again. So that is on the Iranian front. And finally,
you know, it continues to swoar rumors about why it
is that the United States is deploying significant, significant navy resources,

(48:25):
military resources to the Southern Caribbean, and there was the
growing suspicion that the intent of the Trump administration is
to engage with Venezuela, to engage with Venezuela militarily to
take Modua out, which they will use the issue of

(48:45):
drugs as an excuse. Madua, after all, is one of
the great one of the largest drug exporters in the
world and has deals with all the cartels. So there's
a real build up of navy assets and marine assets
on in the Southern Caribbean, not far from Venezuela. So

(49:08):
a president who swore no no new wars, no military engagements,
might be building up for a new war in of
all places, Venezuela. Now I you know, I'm there as
a thug. He's evil, he's bad, He's not a threat
to the United States. He's not an enemy of the
United States in that sense, and going to war with

(49:29):
it makes no sense, you know, assassinate him, support the opposition,
but actually putting American lives on the line to get
rid of him. I mean, Venezuela should be happy, but
I'm not sure what's in it for the United States.

(49:55):
So yeah, we'll keep watching. Supposedly, there's a another navy
asset in the Panama Canal right now, on the way
to join the others off the Venezuela coast, and it's
worth watching and seeing whether this president will launch us
into a war with Venezuela. An attack on Venezuela. Again,

(50:20):
good riddance if they can get rid of that dictata.
This is not out of a sense of Venezuela have any writes.
It's out of a sense of for what do we've
put it placing the lives at the lives of American
soldiers at risk. What's the purpose exactly? Maybe it's part

(50:44):
of the drug war. That's how they'll pitch it. That's
how they'll pitch it. All right, that is the news
for Saturday, August thirtieth. As I said earlier, starting Monday,
I will be in a nice office in a much

(51:05):
more office like environment, much more comfortable environment, and we'll
be back to doing daily regular shows. All right, Let's see,
we got a few stickers. Jonathan, Thank you, Rafael. Are
you back back back in Portugal after South Korea? Hopefully

(51:26):
it was a good trip. Hey, Rafel, Thank you, Greg,
Thank you, Katherine, Thank you Mary, Ellen, Thank you Ryan.
These all stickers. We can still use a few more.
Let's see, we're very close to our first hour goal.
Thank you Greg, and I think that might have gotten it. Whips.

(51:51):
There's Gail and there's another Jonathan. All right, okay, so
thank you guys. Really really appreciate that you too can
help Antonio. Thank you. You two can help support the
show and get us closer to our fundraising goals by
just clicking the dollar sign underneath there and doing this
stay called asking a question. Questions are great, particularly twenty

(52:13):
dollars or more questions get us dot goal. And also
you get to shape the show because I talk about
whatever you want me to talk about. You you get
to dictate the topic by asking a question about it
and let me answer. Add that, if you'd like to
support the show on a monthly basis, you can do

(52:34):
so at patreon dot com, Patreon dot com, or PayPal Patreon.
I think it's a little easier to use patreon dot
com and just put you on book show and you
can you can support the show. You can support the
show actively there that will be on a monthly basis,
which gives me the show visibility into kind of income

(52:58):
as as over time, which is incredibly useful. Thank you
to you guys, all right, Antonio, thank you, HECTA, Thank
you for the stickers. Really appreciated, all right, Michael Michael says.
Jordan Peterson said, quote, you are not mature until someone
else matters more than you unquote. Obviously, taking care of

(53:21):
a child, or having taking care of a child, or
having to take care of a sick loved one does
mature you. But can this sentiment be framed in egoistic terms. Well,
I'm not sure what sentiment you're talking about, but I
don't think. I don't think it's it's true. I just
don't understand. What do you mean by mature? What does

(53:44):
mature in this context mean? Does a mean focused and
serious about life? Does it mean yeah, I don't know.
I don't know in this context what it means. Right,
If mature means being rational, being thoughtful, being focused, being

(54:09):
future oriented, I think. I think a big part of
maturity is not being able to delay gratification. A big
part of maturity is being able to delay gratification. That is,
being able to look at the ice cream and say, no,
I know it's going to taste great, but I'm not
going to have any ice cream now because I'm trying

(54:30):
to lose weight, because it's the sugar is not good
for me. Because whatever the reason is, or you know,
I'll have it. I'll have one a week or one
a month or whatever, and I'll delay the gratification that
I think is maturity, and that doesn't require taking care
of somebody else. Now, it is true that if you're

(54:52):
not mature, if you are not a long term thinking,
if you can delay gratification. If you're not overly rational
and and suddenly you have to take care of a child,
that kind of forces your hand, at least in that
particular realm. But we all know parents are not very
mature and who do a lousy job as a consequence.

(55:15):
So for Peterson, it's all about the other, and it's
all about his definition of sacrifice. By the way, delayed gratification.
According to Peterson, not even need ice cream because I
don't want to get diabetes. In Jordan Peterson's vocabulary, that's
a sacrifice. Now, that is a package deal and incredibly

(55:39):
confusing and unhelpful. But that's how Jordan Peterson thinks about it.
So he associates maturity with sacrifice. I don't. First of all,
I know parents who are not mature and taking care
of another human being. How about taking care of yourself?
Maybe the real sign of maturity. The real sign of

(56:01):
maturity is taking care of yourself. A real sign of
maturity is having a coherent and consistent higher key of
values of knowing what you want and what's important to
you and what's more important to you and what's less
important to you, and being oriented and fixated on that.

(56:23):
That to me is maturity. So I think Jordan is wrong.
I don't think anybody can convince him. I think he's
beyond convincing, but partially just because of age, but partially
because a lot of the cognitive structure that he's created

(56:47):
is dependent on these bad definitions which he's not willing
to consider. Peter TiO pushed him on the issue of sacrifice,
and he wouldn't budget. And I don't think Peter TiO
did a particularly good job up with the pushing on Peterson,
but I just don't think he's gonna budge on this.

(57:07):
But no, maturity is about learning to take care of yourself,
learning to create a higher k of values, learning to
think long term, learning to take into consideration you over time,
not just you in the moment. All right, good question,

(57:34):
Michael Metal Metal Life, Metal Life. Yeah. Can you talk
about the formal training you received in Objectivism? You clearly
have a strong understanding of the philosophy which undergodes you
intellect your work. I mean formal training, I mean a

(57:55):
lot of it. Is a lot of it up to
a certain point. You're self taught. So I had Objectivism.
I read at the Shrug for the first time in
nineteen seventy seven seventy seven, and the first formal training
had objectivism was in probably nineteen ninety four, so I'd

(58:16):
already been studying objectivism on my own and with other
people right in an informal setting for seventeen years. Then
the formal part of her education was ninety four to
ninety nine something like that, and that constituted a classes
from Lennar Peakoff on basically on thinking on confusion, papers

(58:47):
on you know, figuring out trying to analyze your own
knowledge of objectivism and where you're confused and why you're
confused and diagnosing that. Also on communication. Uh, we had
a teaching seminar with with Lena Peakoff, and then what

(59:10):
else formal education had a writing seminar with Peter Schwartz,
and I took a multi year I can't shore how
many years with with Harry Binswanger on Opah where we
basically read the entire book very very very very slowly
and uh and analyzed try to you know, he analyzed

(59:32):
for us every point throughout. So yes, so you know
we've uh, Lena Peakoff, Harry Binswanger, Peter Schwartz on my
formal education But of course I've studied all of Lenapel's courses,
taken a lot of the courses, taking them, some of

(59:52):
them live, taking some of them by tape, you know,
by by h after the fact audio. So I've studied those,
I've studied in Man's essays. I'm trying to think of
the other I mean, maybe there was some other courses
that I took. And then the other thing is interacting

(01:00:12):
with a lot of objectives, philosophers, interacting with with Uncle Gate,
interacting with greggsel Mary and Jason Ryan's and Tera Smith
and you know, Robert Mayhew and a lot of objectives
and intellectuals. Have you been swearing of course on a
regular basis. So the former part was those classes that

(01:00:34):
I that I mentioned. Mary Allen says, why can't congressional
Republicans see where we are heading headed with Trump? It
would be self preservation to impeach him. Do they want tyranny?

(01:00:56):
Trump is nothing without their support? Uh? What a bunch
of cowards. Well, I think they think that they are
nothing without his support. They believe, and I think there's
a lot of truth to this, that their political support
rests on the support of Trump, that without him they

(01:01:16):
would lose elections, they would lose primaries, and they would
lose elections. That they are in office in terms of
what their constituency wants. They're in office basically to support Trump.
That that's what the constituency wants. That's what the people want.
And they're terrified of upsetting Trump, of Trump backing somebody

(01:01:40):
who will run against them. They're terrified by the base.
They're terrified by MAGA. Even if MEGA is not a
majority of the Republican Party, MAGA is the active part
of the Republican Party. MAGA is the part that gets
out and comes to town halls, It's the part that
goes to demonstrations, it's the part that gets out to vote.

(01:02:03):
That's who they're terrified of. They're terrified of MAGA, and
it's self preservation that is preventing them from standing up
to Trump. And it's not clear what the American people want.
I mean, his popularity is not high, but it's never
been high, and he still won elections. And there is a.

Speaker 3 (01:02:22):
Core group of people out there, very passionate, incredibly active,
very vocal, that is actively engaged and.

Speaker 1 (01:02:36):
Actively engaged in promoting Trump stuff. Whatever Trump wants. So
they're cowards and they're not leaders. But the real problem
lies with Republicans who elected Trump and who continues to
support him PTO fanatic. From eighteen sixty eight until nineteen

(01:03:03):
thirteen in the United States, ninety percent of all federal
revenue came from taxas on liqua, be a, wine, and tobacco.
I don't think that's true because I think during that
period of time, a big chunk of revenue came from tariffs.

(01:03:24):
So I think if you include tariffs, that's true. But
I don't know. If I don't know if it's just liqup, beer, wine,
and tobacco, I think it's also tariffs. But here's the thing.
The government during that period was never more than three
and a half percent of GDP. Now, if you shrink

(01:03:47):
today's government to three and a half percent of GDP,
then it's really easy to raise revenue. It's really easy
to come up with schemes to get the government funded.
Three and a half percent of GDP is really really small, right,
It's what one's less than one sixth of what we
spent today, right, So what we spent today is twenty

(01:04:08):
three twenty four percent, So one seventh of what we
spent today something like that, right, and you know, imagine
shrinking the government today by seventy five percent. Then it's easy.
You could. You could cutting up taxes quite a bit.
You could certainly zero COPA taxes, You could reduce to

(01:04:31):
payroll tax, you could do a lot of things. Right,
you deliminate to pay all taxes. Comment spending by seventy
five percent means you've eliminated so security and medicant. The
problem today is not taxes. The problem today is spending.

(01:04:51):
If you spend twenty four percent of GDP, it's difficult
to raise that much money without out very high marginal
income tax rates on the middle class because that's where
most of the money is. And that's what they won't do.

(01:05:11):
They won't raise the taxes. And that's why we keep
money deficits, because we spend and then we don't raise
the taxes to meet them. Taffs are not gonna help much.
They're not gonna help at all. If you take ano
account the extent to which they'll cause the economy to slow,
they'll actually, you know, make things worse revenue wise. And

(01:05:35):
you can tax liquor, beer, wine, and tobacco all day
long and you're not gonna make enough money to make
up for the funding to make up for the spending
just can't happen. So the federal government can only get

(01:06:01):
money in two ways. You can borrow it, or you
can tax it. I assume you'll hear you're talking about taxes.
It can borrow money as long as the markets are
willing to lend it to them, and they can't print money.
Only the Fed can print money, I mean, and the
Fed does that by buying securities, by buying some of

(01:06:25):
the debt from the government. So it's a tricky The
whole thing is tricky. But this is all because you're
spending yourself into oblivion. That's the problem in the United States.
The spending into oblivion is the problem. Christ Us Congress,
in my view, is largely to blame for bringing us

(01:06:47):
closer to authoritarianism. It takes them for ages to pass
crazy laws and all they do is talk. Trump gives
the illusion of being proaction thoughts. Well, yeah, I think
that's right, But Trump is the one that is grabbing
the opportunity and making the most of it. So Congress
has been pretty pathetic for a long long time. Trump

(01:07:09):
is now taking full advantage of the pathetic nature of Congress,
And so I would blame it on the people who
voted for Trump knowing he was an authoritarian, and on
Congress for not standing up to him. They should have
fired him. They should have kicked him out last time,

(01:07:35):
you know, twenty sixteen to twenty and they should been
teaching him now. But in neither cases do they have
the courage to do it. Or they could just pass laws,
or you could pass laws that would overturn his agenda items.
Congress could do that, and they could refuse to nominate

(01:07:56):
people like to approve people like RFK and Pete Hegseeth.
They could refuse to accept as nominations. But they're not.
They passed them all, even RFK. So they've asked for
you know, all of you voted for him, and then

(01:08:18):
Congress for enabling him. Yeah, he is, no question, he is.
Every day is an executive order. He is acting. I
don't see how that's a virtue, but he's acting. Michael,
has the Streame Court abdicated its responsibility of safeguarding of

(01:08:39):
a public I mean, I don't know, not yet. It might,
but it hasn't yet. It's still got opportunities to continue
to safeguard the public. Of course, in many respects, it
abandoned the constitution one hundred plus years ago. So in
that sense, if you mean that, then yes, but I
think it's still kept us in pretty good shape since then.

(01:09:03):
And uh yes, I wouldn't say it's advocated, it's responsibility.
Yet let's talk in a few years, Michael, is major
crime down in blue cities because DA's are bumping fellon
these down to misdemeanors. No, And again, the best evidence
for this is the what I keep saying, and that

(01:09:25):
is murder rates. Nobody is bumping murder down to misdemeanors,
and murder is Murder rates in the United States are
way down, way down from the spike in twenty twenty
to twenty twenty two, and way down from the spikes
back in the nineteen nineties. Murder rates are down. Murders

(01:09:49):
you can count the bodies. It's not what das do.
They're not fudging the numbers. These are real numbers that
can be checked and verified, and are checked and verified.
Newspapers do this. So murder is down across the board. Now,
if murders down, it's likely because crimes usually are particularly

(01:10:10):
violent crimes are correlated that the rest of the crimes
are down as well. So I don't think it's an
issue of das Michael. Is Trump successfully making the dictatorship

(01:10:31):
more palatable to American public? Yes, yeah, I mean it's
palatable to some people on this chat, right, It's palatable
to people who think themselves objectivists. So you can just
imagine that it's palatable to many people out there in
the American public. And Trump is actively doing that, is
actively preparing the ground making it fertile for them. I'm

(01:10:56):
not in Japan. I am flawed. I'm in Florence, Italy,
in an Airbnb. I will be in an office starting
on Monday, so we'll have an office looking an office
environment rather than this. Michael, if Blake showl is super
successful with Boom, maybe could run for president in ten
fifteen years. I think he would be He would do

(01:11:18):
quite well. I hope you're right. I hope you're right.
I have no idea how to assess his chances. It's
particularly in a few years. It's hard to tell what
the American political system will look like in a few years.
Michael is Ai performing so well due to anything Trump

(01:11:38):
is doing or is it purely coincidental and he's just
riding the wave. Will Trump be bad for AI's development
or do you regulate to help expand it? No, As
has no relationship with Trump at this point. It's the
breakthrough his wall down under Biden, but it had nothing
to do with Biden. And the one good thing Trump

(01:12:01):
is doing is he's not regulating it now. There are
some who would argue that there are certain dangers imbedded
in AI that should be regulated. The government does should have
concerns about it, and I worry about that because there
are things that the government has a responsibility to do
with regard to AI, and I don't think the Trump
administration is mature enough about that, mature enough to do

(01:12:26):
what is necessary in terms of national security. Yeah, most
of its national security issues. But the good part is
that it's not going to regulate AI as much as
the Biden administration would have, and in that sense, it
would allow it to grow faster in the future. But

(01:12:47):
the success has had so far has nothing to do
with Trump. Ryan, can you do a show where you
catch up on all the music and movie reviews all
in one shot? Sometimes you have to eat it all
in one bite. I probably won't do that, but I'm

(01:13:08):
going to catch up. Maybe I'll start tomorrow, but I'm
going to catch up over the next few weeks. On
these There are a few that I really, really, really
bad in terms of I haven't done in a long
You know that they paid me a long, long time ago,
and I owe them, so I will be doing whatever

(01:13:28):
whatever I can to catch up in the weeks to come.
Roland enjoy Florence, I envy you or jealous as you
prefer to say, Yeah, jealous is better, Thank you Orland,
I will Michael, the military being deployed to cities is
not for any sort of law and order. It's getting

(01:13:49):
citizens used to seeing them patrol in the streets as
in any pre dictatorship. Yeah, sadly, I think that plays
a big part of it, a big part of it.
And it's flexing muscles. I mean, I mean a lot
of this has to do with the fact and this
is how Trump, I think thinks. Trump wanted to deploy

(01:14:13):
the troops in twenty twenty during the COVID riots, during
the the George Floyd Riots, and his second Day of
Defense refused basically and everybody told him not to, and
he feels really, really really bad about that. He wants

(01:14:34):
those troops deployed. He wanted to deploy back then, and
how come. And he's doing a lot of the things
that he wanted to do back then and couldn't he's
doing now like and this is part of it, and
a lot of it is just flexing muscles. And so
I don't think again, I don't think Trump is the

(01:14:56):
authoritarian's going to take advantage of all this stuff. I
think it's coming down the road. But he is setting
in the stage, and I don't think he's doing it purposefully.
I think he just thinks it's cool that he can
send troops into cities and he can show those democrats
and he could show all those people who hated it
on him. He could show all those people didn't like him,
all those people who voted against him, all those mayors

(01:15:17):
who don't want to listen to him. He's gonna show
them by putting a military personnel with guns and with
you know, big guns on their streets. It's just a
power play. It's a power play. Like with George Floyd,

(01:15:39):
there was actual reason to deploy troops to places like Portland, Oregon.
But today there's no reason to deploy troops. But he's
doing it anyway because he wants to. Michael Funny, how
you eat the rich never means the rich politicians, rich dictators,
or rich lobbyists, only the actually earned their wealth. Yes,

(01:16:02):
I mean that. And it's also not the rich actors
and the rich basketball players. Right, Michael is the CEO
of Intel a coward for partnering with Trump. Well, he's

(01:16:27):
a coward, he's a cronyist, he's a he's a what
do you call it, a an island boil. He's a CEO.
And Intel sadly has a long history of this because Intel,
even in the nineteen eighties, even in its heyday, saw
government help when it faced when it faced competition from Japan.

(01:16:48):
So Intel has been a cry baby to the government
from the early nineteen eighties. It's terrible. So I don't
know if it's just cowardice. I think it's also a
certain attitude they have built into Intel, right, And I

(01:17:09):
think Intel until we'll you know, it's going to do
okay because down it gets government protection. But this is
this is terrible long term for Intel. It's terrible long
term for American business. It's it's really disgusting that he
agreed to do this, But again, I wouldn't be surprised
if he might have even suggested it. Again, Intel has

(01:17:29):
been kind of hand with hand in hand with the
government since the nineteen eighties, or at least trying to
Michael breaking news. Trump vows to nationalized as many private
companies as it takes to defeat socialism. That's a good one.
I like that, And they did, say Lutwick and others
said Intel, it's just the first one. They're going to
take equity stakes in other companies as well, But that's good.

(01:17:52):
I'd like that. Trump vows to nationalize as many private
companies as it takes to defeat socialism. That's good. Michael
thoughts on Kerol O'Leary. He is extremely optimistic about the
US economy despite Trump. I don't know much about Kevin O'Leary,
so I really have no comments on Kevin O'Leary. And yeah,
I mean, there's plenty of reasons to be optimistic about

(01:18:13):
the US economy in spite of Trump. There's us a
reason to be cautious. Emil. I am delighted to see
you again, doctor Brook excellent live stream so far. Hopefully
the Wayward Trumpet company will see the fault of their ways. Yeah,
that is not going to happen. Sadly. Maybe they'll be stopped,

(01:18:36):
but they're not going to stop themselves. Michael, Doctor Mike
Is Rachel often talks about how he absolutely loves Big
Farma something. Hopefully you can discuss on his channel. That'd
be great to get on his show. There'll be a
whole new audience. Raphael says, I'm back in Lisbon, starting

(01:18:57):
work on Monday. Really looking forward to continuing making some
tech M and A deals and having you here again
for great talks. Yeah, I'll send you the final dates
soon and we'll start chat chatting about a program. Or
Felloso goes on to say, I have your Equals unfairbook
in Korean. Can't read it, but looking forward to getting

(01:19:17):
your signature on it. Have a Korean friend here who's
reading it and checking if the wording is consistent. That's good.
It was translated by a local think tank in Soul,
South Korea. All right, I like numbers. Were you and
Lenin closest Lenin Peacock while he was writing dim God,

(01:19:37):
I can't remember I mean, we were probably closest from
early two thousands through when I left for Puerto Rico,
so twenty seventeen, eighteen seventeen, so for about twenty five years,
about fifteen years during that period. Leonard Leonard Peekoff not

(01:20:04):
I don't know who misheard that, So that cover s
the Purdy was writing them. Yes, yes, all right, all right, guys,
that is it. Thank you. I appreciate the support, and
I will probably be on tomorrow. Maybe i'll do some

(01:20:25):
of those reviews that I owe you guys, some of
them tomorrow, will see but we'll definitely do a show tomorrow,
probably the same time as today, so three pm East
Coast time, and will be the same background as today.
Hopefully I'll figure out what's wrong with my MIC by
then and so we'll have a more seamless show. But

(01:20:50):
I will see you tomorrow, and then Monday we'll start
a regular schedule from an office that I've rented here.
Thanks guys, bye, everybody. S

All Episodes

Tariffs, Tyranny & the Fed: Are We Sleepwalking Into Authoritarianism? | 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;}Tariffs, Tyranny & the Fed: Are We Sleepwalking Into Authoritarianism? | Yaron Brook Show