America Through the Looking Glass

Seg 1: FBI Numbers on Firearms Don’t Add Up
Seg 2: Mamdani Sets the NYC Tone
Seg 3: Illegal Exodus - An Economy Transformed
Seg 4: Time for the Fed to Buckle Up

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
No, that's what was free.

Speaker 3 (00:11):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.

Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangelites.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Hello and welcome to libtin Nation Radio. I'm your host,
Mark Angelidis. On today's special edition. We are talking FBI
and accounting defensive use of firearms. We're talking what's happening
in New York City. We're also talking how the exodus
of illegal immigrants from America is affecting the housing and
economic markets, and a whole lot more. It's going to
be quite the show. Please remember, Libty Nation Radio is

(00:56):
sponsored by liberty Nation dot Com. You can access podcast
breaking news analysis and arrange biting and brilliant shows to
wet your apetype of freedom and your fondness for the
great American Constitution. And you're here on Libertination Radio. Head
Ghast Coast on the Radio American Network. I'm your host,
Mark Angelidi's We're very fortunate to have with us Liberty
Nations chief political correspondent and satirist mister Graham. Jerre Noble,
thanks for being here, Graham, as a pleasure. Mark. So, Graham,

(01:19):
there's something that I think our audience would be fascinated
to learn about because it's really not publicized much. And
you wrote what I consider the definitive piece on this
and that's a complement both to your writing but also
to the fact that hardly anybody else in the country
has covered this topic. But it is entitled FBI massively

(01:41):
undercounted defensive gun US for years, and you can go
and read that on the page of libertination dot com. Now, grem,
we all know that there is an effort to minimize
the and so there's some extremes here. There's a to
minimize the story of a good guy with a gun
stops a bad guy with a gun. There's a huge

(02:02):
effort to minimize that. And I've tried thinking this through
on so many levels. Why would somebody want to do that?
And the best answer I can come up with is
because otherwise criminals might be dead, and that seems to
me the grandest reason for it. Yah, criminals who are
in the process of committing a crime with a firearm

(02:24):
might be dead, and therefore we should minimize that. The
other reason behind why these things will be underccounted is
because there's a general anti gun prevalence, not just in
the media but also in many levels of government. Now, Graham,
you could give us the outline of your brilliant article
on that.

Speaker 3 (02:46):
Well, basically mark between I believe it's twenty fourteen twenty
twenty four, so a ten year period. The FBI, and
I use the word massively and the tit article because
it really is a massive discrepancy. The FBI came up
with numbers that showed that in something like less than

(03:08):
three point five percent of all active shooter scenarios. Now,
I'll come back in a minute to define active shooter
for our audience, because it's not the same as say
a mass shooting. In less than three point five percent
of those incidents, did a armed civilian intervene in some

(03:28):
way with a weapon to stop what was going on,
to interfere with the shooters. The Crime Prevention Research Center
they did a study and they found out that, in fact,
the percentage of those interventions by armed civilians was just

(03:49):
way higher than that. It was something like thirty something percent.
Off the top of my head, if I remember now,
what an active shooter scenario is. That's basically when anybody
in a public space opens fire with a weapon. Now,
it doesn't matter if they don't kill anybody, it doesn't

(04:10):
even matter if they don't hit anybody. Actually, once they
open once someone opens fire in a public area, that
they are cast as an active shooter. So it's not
again we're talking about mass shootings here, we're talking about
just those active shooter scenarios which happen. Well, the FBI
says that they don't happen as much as they do.
And here's the problem. See, the FBI are going by

(04:33):
the data that is getting reported to them by law
enforcement agencies around the country. Now there's no standard for that,
there's no mandatory reporting, there's nothing. And so therefore, what
are those local law enforcement agencies reporting. Are they undercounting
their numbers or are they just simply not reporting to

(04:54):
the FBI at all.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
That's possible.

Speaker 3 (04:57):
The Crime Prevention Research er what they did was they
scoured through media reports of active shooting, so local media
reports from all over the country, and that's how they
came up with their figures, which were much greater than
the FBI figures. So I'm not so Basically, what I'm

(05:18):
saying is, yeah, maybe because there are a lot of
people in the FBI who are kind of anti gun,
don't want civilians to have guns. So did the FBI
deliberately undercount these or were they just going on bad numbers?

Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well, here's the here's the issue. The first point that
maybe they don't want civilians with firearms. That's that's almost
besides the point when it comes to presenting the data,
isn't it Because the FBI no as well as you
and I do, and as well as in some circles
that they admit that their data is incomplete. As you say,

(05:55):
there's fifty different states. Within those fifty different states, there
are multiple municipalities, and there's no standardized reporting on this,
so some places just aren't reporting, some places are reporting
as something different, and some places are reporting on a
different timescale. So when they try and collate all the data,
I think the FBI should be honest enough and say

(06:17):
this figure that we're presenting is only based on a
minimal proportion of the data available. However, what you have
is the media, the fourth estate, picks up this idea
and runs with it. It's like three percent, It's tiny,
it's minuscule. Now, I love the fact that you delineates

(06:39):
between active shooter and a mass shooter. And that's another
statistic that just always kind of blows my mind how
these are measured. So and we see this, there's this
massive denigration, particularly of and you know, I'm batting for
the home team here, particularly of white men, and it says,
you know, white men are the shoe in so many

(07:01):
of these cases, it's white men who are dangered. We've
heard that from elected politicians espousing this in public. It's
white men who are the real danger because they're involved
in what they classify as mass shootings. And what's always
struck me as fun as that is that they've decided
to exclude gang violence from mass shootings. So there are many,

(07:24):
multiple times more people killed by gang violence in what
a layman's interpretation of what a mass shooting might be.
So a shooting where a massive people get shot, that's
a layman's interpretation. Yeah, if we just counted those what
these are divisive and let's be clear, race baiting politicians

(07:45):
are saying, it's the opposite of the truth. It's on
such a far end of the spectrum for what reality
actually is, and it's being used for political purpose. Now, Brent,
why do you think that these narratives, these multiple narratives,
we have so defensive uses for example, now, those used

(08:07):
to be counted by the CDC, So we're not even
talking about somebody who stops an active shooter, but defensive
uses in general against an assault or robbery, sexual assault,
things like this, those used to be counted, and they
don't count them anymore. Do we have any idea why
is it just political? Is there funding for it?

Speaker 3 (08:25):
I think it's just because there are so many of
them that it would crush the whole anti gun narrative.
I mean, if you think about how many times, I mean, look,
defensive use of a handgun could literally be.

Speaker 2 (08:39):
Some guy's in a.

Speaker 3 (08:40):
Convenience store and then some other guy walks in and
pulls out and you know, there are videos all over
the internet of this all the time. Some other guy
walks into that convenience store, pulls out a handgun and
points it at the cloak and says, give me the money,
and some other guy in that store who's carrying actually
pulls out.

Speaker 2 (08:59):
Here is gun.

Speaker 3 (09:00):
And even if he doesn't, even if nobody fires, you know,
there would be robber sees that suddenly sees the quickly
dad in and he runs out the store. That is
a defensive handgun. Yes, or maybe you know, just you're
walking along the street and somebody comes up to something.
Somebody comes up to you and you know, says, give

(09:22):
me a wallet, and you just maybe show them that
you're carrying a pistol and they run off. I mean,
you know, it's happened to me just less than two
years ago. Some guys I was I was driving down
a road late in the evening.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
It was dark.

Speaker 3 (09:37):
Car in front of me was break checking me. I
flashed my lights at him, and then next moment, two
guys got out of this car. One of them had
a tire iron in his hand, and they started walking
towards me. And I, you know, I carry all the time,
so I just rolled down my window and I put
my I didn't even point the pistol at him. I
just kind of held it up like this out of

(09:58):
the window and I just said, is there a problem,
and the guys just turned around and got back in
the car drove off.

Speaker 2 (10:04):
That's a defensive hang on, it's a defensive use.

Speaker 3 (10:06):
Yes, So no police reports were fired, no shots were fired,
no police reports were filed, So nobody that's not in
the statistics. How many times a year and throughout this
country does that kind of thing happened thousands of times?
And so that's why that don't report.

Speaker 2 (10:24):
The last data that I got from the CDC before
they stopped counting this stuff, and do forgive me, audience
if I've got this wrong, but I believe it was
two and a half million uses per year of reported
defensive uses of fire reporters. Yes, yes, reported, and that's
going to be in reality a hell of a lot more.

(10:45):
And of course, at the end of this is what
it all comes down to, is how many lives have
been saved by people legally carrying their firearms exercising their
constitutional right.

Speaker 3 (10:57):
And then you're exactly right, Mark, and I was that
was going to be my next point in fact, because
if you think about it, if you think there's a
situation where it would be criminal, whether he's a robber
or a potential active shooter or whatever else this bad
guy is got in mind. If he has a weapon,

(11:19):
then if somebody, if an armed civilian, then intercedes and
stops this guy, you can't it's not possible to calculate
the number of potential lives that were saved.

Speaker 2 (11:35):
You have no idea.

Speaker 3 (11:36):
It could be anything from one or two to if
it's a crowded place, five, ten, who knows, it's an
incalculable number.

Speaker 2 (11:46):
It's impossible. And I think that's another reason.

Speaker 3 (11:49):
Because you know, the anti gun narrative is shattered when
you point out to people that you know, hypothetically maybe
thousands and thousands of American lives are saved every year
by law biding civilians with guns.

Speaker 2 (12:08):
As they say in armed society is a polite society.
We'll be back with Graham Noble after the shot break.
Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (12:20):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark
Edge of Ladies.

Speaker 2 (12:26):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio or Romania host
Mark Antley's and we're continuing our conversation with Liberty Nations Graham,
Jay Noble, thanks for sticking around. Graham. Now, we talked
about defensive uses of firearms and in the earliest segment,
but one place where gun laws are very very strict

(12:47):
and likely to become more so should the lead contender
win the mayoralty this coming November is New York City
and zo Ram Mamdani is should he in which all
signs point to a landslide for the Ugandan born socialist. Now, Graham,

(13:08):
what is happening with Zorah Mamdani, because it seems to
me that New York is about to adopt quasi socialist
measures in every form that it can under his leadership. Now,
I'm not one to judge, but well sometimes i am.
I'm not one to judge, but it seems to me

(13:30):
that socialist measures have a long history of failing time
and time again.

Speaker 3 (13:36):
Well, Mam dan me has kind of put his party
in a difficult position really by not not intentionally, but
he's done it by his mere presence on the national stage. Now,
and that is that one thing that the left in general,
not just the Democratic Party, but the left in general.

(13:58):
One thing they've always done is they've all was pretended
that they don't really some of them more kind of
radical policies, they try to play them down. I mean,
they've done this with the guns. How many times have
you had left wing and say to conservatives, oh, stop
making a fast we're not going to take your guns.
But actually that's exactly what they wanted.

Speaker 2 (14:19):
And unless you're Beto O'Rourke, the perennial losing candidate, how
right we're going.

Speaker 3 (14:24):
To take He was really well, you know, and I'll
give the guy credit for just that. I'll give him
credit that he actually yeah, absolutely, But but you know,
and they do this, and they've always done this with
the socialist thing. They've always said, we're not no, no, no, no,
we're not socialists and amocratic democratic socialists, which is just
a nonsense term anyway, but oh yeah, no, we're not

(14:47):
really socialist. But now with Mam Dammy and and a
lot of people now, a lot of the leaders of
the Democratic Party have been loath to kind of really
jump behind him because they know if they they do,
then everyone else is going to just point at them
and say that you are endorsing a socialist. And so,
you know, Hakeem, Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, the leaders of the

(15:11):
you know, the the Democrats in Congress, they've been loath
to endorse him. But other Democrats have endorsed him, and
it's almost as if they're kind of I almost hate
to use the word normalizing because it's become a trendy words,
but it's like they've kind of they are now normalizing socialism,
you know, although even now I think it was just

(15:31):
a CBS or NBC recently who just maybe yesterday even
somebody on one of those networks come out and said, oh, look,
Zoroman Dammi is just not a socialist. You know, it's ridiculous.
So they're caught between this thing. Do they keep denying
he's a socialist or do they actually say or do
they kind of cross the rubicon and say, yeah, no,

(15:52):
we're we're we're giving him our fall backing, you know. So, yeah,
he's a socialist, he's got our backing. We're good to go.
But I think the other thing, Mark is they might
be the Democrats might be a little loath to really
throw their lot in with him completely, because I'm certain
there are some of them that are realistic enough to

(16:12):
know that if he does become Mayor of New York City,
which as you said, seems likely, and if he managed
to implement all the things he wants to implement, there
is an extremely good chance that he is going to
destroy New York City's economy, and and and then that's
going to be like the proof in the pudding, if

(16:34):
you like, where people can say, look look what mandemmic
socialists took over in New York City, and look what
he's done to that soul.

Speaker 2 (16:42):
Now great, great, and everyone will grat you know that
if that happens, they'll just say they didn't do it right,
and we can do it better. Now, that's right. Yeah,
that wasn't That wasn't real solf. It wasn't real socialism. Yes,
that was something different. We'll do it better next time.
So Tim Donner, Liberty Nation's senior political analysts and longtime

(17:04):
host of This Here radio show. He did a great
article on the shocking truth about Mandommie's socialist roots. And
of course Mandami is the He's not just the Democrats
contender for New where he's the Democratic Socialist of America
contender for the New York City mayor. And he quotes

(17:25):
a string of I wouldn't even know what to call these,
to be honest with you, Graham in his article about
what the Democratic socials of America, of which Mandami is
the flag bearer openly flag bearer want and I'll just
give you a couple of quotes here, So Tim Donner writes,

(17:47):
they support performing abortions in churches. They believe a prostitution
and marriage are quote two sides of the same coin.
They believe women and children are reparably harmed by capitalism,
and that and in a certain that being in a
traditional family is akin to being in prison. What do
you have to say to that, Graham final words, Well, I.

Speaker 3 (18:08):
Mean it just comes down to the one of the
kind of underlying principles of socialism in general, say that
children and even adults, really everybody, every citizen is essentially
like the property of the government. I mean, that's that's
really what they That's that's really what they're getting at.

(18:31):
Is that is that all of the all of the
citizens or the residents of a country like that, you
are all essentially owned by the government, and particularly the children,
particularly the children, which is exactly why they want to
abolish the family unit, so that they can basically make
children wards of this date.

Speaker 2 (18:48):
Graham J. Noble let freedom ring, thanks for being here.

Speaker 3 (18:51):
Thank you, Martin.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
Tee.

Speaker 3 (19:00):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.

Speaker 4 (19:03):
Of enterprise and freedom is special and late.

Speaker 1 (19:06):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.

Speaker 2 (19:23):
And you're back on libitin Nation radio head coast to
coast on the Radio America Network. I remain your host,
Mark Antelis, and we are joined by Liberty Nations Economics
editor and general fiscal is mister Andrew Moran. Thanks for
being here, Andrew, Thank you for having me so, Andrew,
I want to talk about the how the well essentially
how America. We're talking economics, housing, Marcus, things like this.

(19:46):
How it's changed since Donald Trump specifically ramped up his
crackdown illegal immigration. What's the what's the view from twenty
thousand feet.

Speaker 4 (20:00):
Well, you can see that.

Speaker 5 (20:02):
So for example, one thing the administration recently pointed to
was the number of foreign workers and the civilian labor force.
So they use that number to determine the number of
actually self deportations. Steven Miller I think he was Box
News and he said that, oh, we'll around one million
people have self deported because the civilian labor force numbers
show that there was a one million decline in just

(20:22):
the last few months alone, and that number was a
few That number is actually outdated. If you look at
the most the latest number, the number is actually on
one point four to five million.

Speaker 4 (20:32):
Then, so the number of foreign workers are really.

Speaker 5 (20:35):
On the decline in the United States and this is
having you know, a wide range of impact.

Speaker 4 (20:39):
Now, whether that's positive or negative lends on your.

Speaker 2 (20:42):
Let's dig into those impacts. So from from my position,
and of course you know, my position is shadowed by
my beliefs, my experience, and things. For me, I would
say that they are majority positive impact, as in Americans
are now can now command a better market, right because

(21:07):
there's fewer applicants to a job. Is that correct or incorrect?

Speaker 4 (21:12):
Well, I guess it depends on what sector you're referring to.

Speaker 5 (21:14):
Of course, fatality and leisure, which is heavily dominated by
foreign workers. And yep, most likely one thing, that one
number that you always want to look at, especial the
last few years, because this dates back to even before
the pandemic, was the diversience between the employed foreign workers
and employed US born workers. And that gap has really narrowed.
So just this year alone, the number of employed for

(21:37):
foreign workers has aclied around I think four million, and
the number of employed American workers is up about two
point four million.

Speaker 4 (21:45):
So that number and that gap has.

Speaker 5 (21:47):
Really closed under the current administration. That largely has to do,
of course, with how the President has handled immigration and
the border crisis.

Speaker 2 (21:55):
So the people who are least happy about this would
be the as Bernie Sanders calls them, the oligocs, because obviously,
wages along with energy are one of the sorry, let's
rephrase that taxes, wages, and energy costs are the three

(22:16):
the three big cuts to your your bottom line. Taxes
are coming down, I think, I think we should we
should get into what's happening here. But with the extension
of the Tax Cutting Jobs Act, taxes are generally coming
down across all levels. In terms of energy, energy prices
are coming down as well, only marginally. I expect them

(22:38):
to fall more, but I think that there's a bit
of a lag effect on that. Do correct me if
I'm wrong. But with with wages, they're going to have
to go up because of the lack of immigration, lack
of yeah, the self deportations, things like that, and of
course the closing of the border, which means there's no
new people coming in. I believe border crossing down somewhere

(23:01):
between ninety three and ninety seven percent, and those people
would go to work, but they go to work at
very very cut rates, which are undercutting American workers. So
they get two benefits, taxes down, energy costs down, and
one negative. But that negative, that's gotta be good for
the American worker, especially people looking to get into work.

(23:22):
Hasn't it okay?

Speaker 4 (23:24):
All right? So there's a few things I got to
touch on.

Speaker 2 (23:25):
So wait, is that unravel it?

Speaker 5 (23:27):
On energy prices, yeah, they have, they have come down.
I recently did something about labor day gas prices. It
is the lowest in about five years. Oil prices they've
fallen to as low as sixty one dollars a barrel,
though at the time of this recording it's around six.

Speaker 4 (23:42):
It's actually risien of sixty five now.

Speaker 5 (23:45):
When it comes to wages, so yes, wages are going up.
On the real which is inflation adjusted for blue hollow
workers is actually as the highest of any present in
almost sixty years, rising one point four percent in the
first five months of twenty twenty five.

Speaker 4 (24:01):
Nominal wage growth. It's still around, still hovering.

Speaker 5 (24:03):
On four percent on a year over year basis. Now,
if you look at the last Consumer Price Index report,
you were not here, but if you if you read it,
you see that surprisingly this in this climate, because you
have tariffs, you'd think that goods inflation would be the
biggest driver of inflation.

Speaker 4 (24:19):
However, for whatever reason, service service relationship services.

Speaker 5 (24:23):
Inflation dramatically rose and account for a line's share of
last of the July CPI increase. Now, many e contomists
have presented of theories. One of them is that immigration.

Speaker 4 (24:36):
Has played a role.

Speaker 5 (24:37):
So if you're having fewer illegal immigrants working in the
service sector, therefore you're hiring American workers and therefore you're
paying them higher wages and they get you know, benefits or.

Speaker 4 (24:46):
Whatever the case.

Speaker 5 (24:48):
And that contributed to the price pressures in the service
services sector. And now a lot of economists, and probably
the entire federal Reserve system, they pay more attention to
the services side of inflation because a conservative as a
broader indicator of where inflation might be heading. It's very
labor intensive. They still have the the the input cost pressures.

Speaker 4 (25:09):
From a variety of areas. So you know, I was
watching CNN the other day.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
I tought you myself, I'm sorry to hear that, and
I saw a.

Speaker 4 (25:17):
Segue with Abby Phillips and this one. I think she's
an economist. I've got her name now, And she was.

Speaker 5 (25:22):
Saying, how if you want higher wages and if you
want to have fewer immigrants, then you want to have
higher services inflation.

Speaker 4 (25:31):
Now, I'm sure that is up for debate.

Speaker 5 (25:32):
But I thought I thought that to be quite interesting
at the time when everyone just hated inflation. But now
she's saying, yeah, we we as a conservative, she's saying, yeah,
I want to higher inflation.

Speaker 2 (25:42):
Well, yeah, I mean it's it's one of those it's
putting the cart before the horse. I think, is the
maybe the right way to look at that. You want
the effects of a higher inflation with that necessarily the
higher service inflation. Yeah, it is an odd way to
look at it. It's very odd way to Now let's
talk about another sector here. I came across an article

(26:04):
that I shared with you from Washington, DC's most prominent newspaper,
and it was about house prices and housing availability. And
I read through that article and I sent it to you,
because I was amazed by one thing. They the authors

(26:24):
argued that, you know, there's no need for federal intervention
because this problem is taking care of itself. And it
seemed to stay away entirely from the fact that there
are two million plus less people in the country than
there were six months ago, which you'd think that would
be like a huge indicate. There's like a big flashing

(26:45):
sign saying there's more homes because there's two million less
people in the country. What did you make of it?

Speaker 4 (26:52):
Yeah, they were halfway through the article.

Speaker 5 (26:54):
It talks about I think it was the Federal Housing
Financiency Finance Agency or the National National Association of Realatures,
and they said that the US has a housing.

Speaker 4 (27:06):
Shortage affordable housing towards about four.

Speaker 5 (27:07):
To five million, but nearly half of that is in California.

Speaker 4 (27:11):
So therefore that's you know, it's really skewing the results.

Speaker 5 (27:15):
Why But now, if you have the whole legal immigration thing,
a lot of legal immigrants are in California, So if
they're being shipped out of the state going back to
where they came from, then of course you're gonna have
more housing stock available. But one thing that a lot
of people are going to stake on. They think that
illegal immigration raises house prices, but that's not necessarily the case.

Speaker 4 (27:34):
The one area that there raise.

Speaker 5 (27:35):
Prices on is the rental side of the US housing
market because of course, you know, someone coming from Guatemala
making you know, six dollars an hour.

Speaker 4 (27:43):
You know, and is not going to be able to
afford a house against.

Speaker 2 (27:45):
Of course, this isn't the Obama days. You know, the
guy with six bucks isn't gonna be able to buy
a mansion. This isn't two thousand and nine.

Speaker 5 (27:55):
So anyway, so they're more likely to rent, therefore craving
out a lot of the individuals, A lot of young
people can't afford to buy a house, so therefore they
lift up the rental prices. So the rental market is
more of a concern when you look at the immigration file,
and the rental market is still elevated. I mean, I
think with redfin a couple of months ago they said
that rental costs were just four dollars shy of the

(28:17):
all time high. So that's still an issue when it
comes to housing inflation, housing affordability.

Speaker 2 (28:24):
Yeah, I do wonder if if there isn't a more
direct connection to that because a lot of people, I know,
we talk about the really big companies buying up housing stock.
Now that's clearly going to be putting price pressure on
people wanting to get on the housing market. But there's
also people who are doing In England, we call it

(28:44):
the buy to let market. So it's some guy with
a fairly stable job, he might buy a second property
and then try and pay off that mortgage with the
rental income from that. And so when you have pressure
in the rental markets, that's also affecting what kind of

(29:05):
mortgage rate they're getting, because if they have to rent
that market value, then of course what kind of deal
they're getting from the bank is also going to make
a difference, isn't it.

Speaker 5 (29:15):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean up here in over here in Canada,
we have the exact same problem. I mean, I think
the last number, I think it was from the Royal
Bank of Canada and they said that in the Ontario
real estate market, I think is sixty percent of all
new purchases came from investors who have two or more
residential properties. So that's really exacerbating the issues that the

(29:35):
at least, at the very least the Ontario housing market
face and I'm sure over across the pond in the
United Kingdom, mortgage rates is another issue too. That's another
factor that's really adding or exacerbating the housing affordatalytic crisis,
because when you have a six percent mortgage rate or
seven percent of mortgage rate, then that's going to raise
your multily your monthly housing costs. And they say the
rule of thumb is thirty percent of your income should

(29:58):
be dedicated to housing. But the numbers easy as is
around forty to fifty percent, which is unstenable for a
lot of people, especially the US labor market weekends, which
recent data suggest is.

Speaker 2 (30:08):
I've always thought that thirty percent numbers insane. I don't
think we ever paid thirty percent.

Speaker 4 (30:13):
I did, were, I still do, I still do exist.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
That's that's that's crazy town. But that's Canada for you.
That's uh. I'm trying to think of the ending of
Chinatown here, but that's Canada Town for you. We'll be
back with Andrew Moran after this shopbreak. Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (30:34):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Angelides.

Speaker 2 (30:40):
Andrew back on Liberty Nation Radio. Remain Mark Angeladies and
we're continuing an economics discussion with Andrew Moran. Now, Andrew,
we are we are living in the wake of Jerome
Pals probably final Jackson the whole speech, and I guess
the question everybody's lived here is what's going to happen

(31:01):
to the interest rate? And can Secondly, can people hope
from more than a quarter to point cut in the
near future?

Speaker 5 (31:11):
Okay, so the first question is out of the Jackson
hole retreat. The conclusion was the pal pivot because in
this speech he as much as he gave as much
clear as answer as he could that interest rates will
become that it was similar to last year's when he
said it's time to it's time for a policy to adjust.
So the Federal Reserve it's been on hold for rate
cutting since January and heading into the September meeting, according

(31:35):
to the CME FED Watch Tool or the Atlanta Fed's
Market Market Probability Tracker, overwhelming investors are expecting a twenty
five basis point interest rate cut. However, heading into that
meeting is going to be a brage of economic data
that's going to decide whether to keep on hold or
to cut. That's the August jobs report and that's the

(31:56):
August consumer price index report and the August producer price
in next support perhaps the August import prices data. So
these are huge factors that's going to weigh on the
on the FMC policy meeting decision.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
I hate to be a jaded jenny, as some say,
but it seems to me that what's really going to
make the difference on the decision is just how Jero
and Pal's feeding about Donald Trump. I mean, tell me
I'm wrong, Andrew. To me, it seems as though the
Fed's been playing politics in a in a very real

(32:33):
way and not responding to actual market signals as it
did under Joe Biden. It did respond to to clear
market signals, and now not so much, as far as
I can tell, Am I wrong?

Speaker 4 (32:49):
No, You're absolutely right.

Speaker 5 (32:50):
I mean, I've argued, I've been I've been to this
profession for a very long time, and I've contended for
for many years of the Federal Reserve is a political institution,
no matter what they say of how it's an independent
entity devoid of any politics, because there's just too many
coincidences when it comes to the Federal Reserve, particularly in
the past year, because the labor market and inflation were

(33:11):
not very different from they were in September twenty twenty four.
Now they say that, oh it's about tariffs. We want
to wait, and we have the luxury to afford to,
we have the patient We can be patients before adjusting
monetary policy. But if you're focused entirely on data and
you're data dependent, and then you're not looking forward to
you know, the possibility that terrorists overrated elation.

Speaker 1 (33:32):
Hey.

Speaker 5 (33:32):
Also the other side of the dual mandming dual mandate,
excuse me, is maximum employment. Now, if you're worried about
the labor market and it seemed like Joe Pow was
that Jackson Hoole speech then, and you're very well aware
of the lag effect of monetary policy, then you would
have acted months ago, or at the very least, you
would have acted in July like Governor Christopher Waller and
FED Vice Chair of Supervision Michelle Bowman. They were the

(33:55):
dissenting votes at that July meeting. So you would have
to cut rates right now? I mean, yes, yes, you would.
From an outsider, Yes, the economy is growing, labor market
remains relatively intact, inflation is not reacting as much as
many people had anticipated when it.

Speaker 4 (34:11):
Comes to tariffs. But that's it.

Speaker 5 (34:12):
But if you're a data penant institution, then you're gonna
focus on that. You're just focused on what the numbers
are showing you, and that's showing you that'll give fine
cut interest rates.

Speaker 2 (34:21):
Yeah, it seems he's just holding on for grim death
from this, and there there's there's a major impact to that. First,
of course, there's there's the impact on the American people
with you know, interest interest rates, but there's also a
bunch of debt refinancing that needs to take place in

(34:41):
the US this year, and by having a rate cut
in advance of that, that could say billions, billions and
billions of dollars in the federal government, which itself would
have I mean, if there's if there's less debt in
the government, less deficit in the government as well, there

(35:03):
would be there there would certainly be a knock on effect,
wouldn't there on the very factors that the Fed looks
out for. So surely they're they're risking a falling a
foul of there are two key principles. By risking so

(35:25):
this is a convoluted way of doing it, but by
risking the increased payback that the government will have. Is
that is that have I got this wrong?

Speaker 1 (35:35):
Okay?

Speaker 5 (35:35):
So on paper you would be correct. You think that, Okay,
the Federal Reserve is going to cut interest rates. Therefore
the death servicing costs are going to lower, are going
to be lower because the tenure yield, which is the
benchmark treasury security, that yield is going to decline. However,
the exact opposite happened last year from September until January.
The Federal Reserve was in rate cutting mode. But what

(35:55):
happened there was a clip. There was a complete divergence
between the Federal Fund rate, which is a key policy
rate for borrowing costs, and the ten year yield. There
was a complete divergence. It went it went like this,
and nobody could explain why.

Speaker 2 (36:08):
Then.

Speaker 5 (36:08):
There were very various reasons, because many many factoris influence
a ten year yield. Have the conditions of the economy,
you have inflation, you have fiscal concerns. That was a
legitimate fear that many economists had and investors had, especially
after Trump's electoral victory, because of the worry that he
was going to expand, he was going to increase deficit
spending and you guy, so of course you have the

(36:30):
long term national debt challenges. So there are many factors
that could that would weigh on the ten year treasure yield.
So yeah, cut interest rates now, but will that will
that lead to lower mortgage rate mortgage costs for example,
because again the mortgage cost, the mortgage rate that the
thirty year focus on the ten year treasury yield, So
it's not it's not concrete that that fed that drome.

(36:51):
Pal cuts rates and then therefore insust rates are going
to fall across the board. There's just one aspect of it,
the two year yield. However, that tracks more of the
of the federal funds rate, though that has less of
an impact of the broadery economy.

Speaker 2 (37:05):
So we can realistically expect a quarter point that that's
probably on the cards. That's like a ninety probability.

Speaker 5 (37:13):
Would you say, well, yeah, the betting market has actually
the futures market does have a ninety percent chance of
that happening, But there are so many waldcards heading into that.

Speaker 4 (37:23):
Specifically data, I just.

Speaker 2 (37:24):
Meant, what impact would that have on the now? Very
specifically thinking between now and next June July August, what
kind of an impact would that have on the American
wallet if we.

Speaker 4 (37:40):
Get a quarter point, not much.

Speaker 5 (37:43):
It's what the Fed does after that, because the fear
is that, especially among monetary policy makers, that if the
Federalserve cuts interest rates in September, it doesn't necessarily mean
that it will continue the rate cuts because of what
happens to the economic data. But however, it depends on
who is served on the Federal Reserve Board. Because now
you have Steven Myron, the former head of the Council

(38:04):
of Economic Advisors. He's temporarily replacing Adriana Cutler who resigned recently.
And then you have that issue with Lisa Cook and
who he's going to appoint. So therefore you're if that
if he appoints somebody who's sympathetic to his cause, and
right there you have four votes supporting RAID cuts, and
then you know who he puts in draw Draw Powell's place.
That person will likely also support interest rate cuts. So

(38:27):
and then you have a couple of you know, who
are flip flopping on like Austin Woolsby. He may support
a RAID cut, but the very least you have four
or five who would support rate cutting. After the September
policy meeting. The market market is betting into two rate cuts,
and the Summary of Economic Projections also penciling into rate cuts.
But all depends on what the CPI and the PCE

(38:48):
and the jobs jobs numbers are showing.

Speaker 2 (38:50):
Yeah, cuts tend to come in cycles rather than spikes.
I think so. Andrew final word has the economy looking
scale of on to ten. It's not a it's a
number of other words.

Speaker 5 (39:04):
There's so many factors that involved here. Long term I
would say probably seven or eight, depending on all those
investments from foreign and domestic companies are realized. But short
term there are too many headwinds to give it a
high levee.

Speaker 2 (39:19):
Too many headwinds from the Captain, Andrew Moran, thanks very much,
thanks for having me, and that's all we have time
for this week's edition of Limberination radio Head Coach to
Coach on the Radio American Network has been your host,
Mark Angelini's I'd like to thank our guest today, Graham J.
Noble and Andrew Moran. Of course, thank you the listeners
at home taken the time each and every week to
tune in. Please remember the Libitination does not endorse candidates.

(39:40):
Campaigns or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement. Thanks
for being here.