The American Ideological Tightrope

Seg 1 – Mamdani Versus Reagan
Seg 2 – Ten Year Yields and a Brighter Gen Z
Seg 3 – Joe Rogan and the UBI Conundrum
Seg 4 – Understanding the K-Shaped Economy

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. No
that it was free, 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 Markangeldes.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Hello, Welcome to Liberty Nation radio Head Coast Coast on
the Radio American Network. I'm your host as always, Mark Angelides.
On today's special edition, we are talking the economy, Zo Ramandani,
Joe Rogan and the k shaped economy and much more.
It's quite the in depth show coming up. Please remember
Liberty Nation Radio sponsor by liberty Nation dot Com. You
can access podcasts, breaking news analysis and the range of

(00:56):
biting and brilliant shows to what your aptute freedom and
your fundness for the great American Constitution. Hello, welcome back
to the Libertin Nation radio Head Coast Coast on the
Radio American Network. I remain your host, Mike Antle's and
we're joined today by Liberty Nations Economics Affairs editor, the
economics guru, the man who knows, perhaps even more than
Jerome Powell himself. Take that in any way you wish,

(01:18):
Andrew Andrew Moran, thanks for being here, Andrew, thanks for
having me so, Andrew, we decided to do an economics
special today, and I wanted to kick this off with
what I consider it's a bit more political than the economics.
But Zo ran Mandani when he won the election day

(01:41):
and he gave his victory speech and said he said
these words, Andrew, and I'm sure you've thought of that.
He's for our radio listeners. Andrew's shaking his head with
the rye grin in his face because he knows exactly
what this quote is. And we will quote. We will
prove that there is no problem too large for government
to solve and no concern too small for it to

(02:04):
care about. Now, Andrew, we're both with Liberty Nation. Who's
pairing company is one generation and obviously based on the
quote by Ronald Reagan, and Ronald Reagan had another quote,
didn't he There's the scariest words in the English language,
that I'm from the government and I'm here to help
and so how do we how do we split this

(02:25):
particular ideological atom. We have them Downey on the one
side saying that there's no problem too small for government
to care about, which to me, and I don't know
if you agree with this, it seems to me that
he wants to get government involved in every level of
your life, whereas Ronald Reagan, for his flaws, I mean,

(02:49):
machine guns, come on. But and the Deficit had the
idea that the government shouldn't be involved in your life
at every single level. And those are two very opposing views.
So Andrew, first off, give me your thoughts on what
man Danny was saying there.

Speaker 3 (03:09):
Well, not a nauseating I watched that thing. I covered.
I was up all night watching covering the election. I
just I saw that speech and that was the main
event of the night and just oh, I just wanted
to throw up listening to watching that. But it's not surprising.
I mean people from a lot of post election covers
I've seen people are surprised. But what Mendanni said and
what he had what you know, what that whole I think,

(03:29):
because it sounds like he just did a regime change
and he overthrew the government and the mask came off,
but it's not surprising. You look, if you look at
his campaign, all of his campaign promises. It was promising
absolutely everything, free buses, you know, free childcare, free to
s lgbt Q, I P plus, whatever the case it was,
you know, city owned grocery stores. He offered everything under

(03:51):
the sun. And that's and that's at a local level.
So you know, if he's the face of the Democratic Party,
which a lot of people say now perhaps he is,
then that's gonna go gradually to a national level. So
that's what's concerning. But at the same time, I agree
with with what George Will said. He was on I
think it was on Bill Maher and he said that
every twenty five years or so, there needs to be

(04:11):
some election, city, state, whatever the case, where they introduced
some socialist policies to show the young generation that socialism
never works. So perhaps, you know, New York City love
stuff is not going to get not going to be
implemented anyway, but if it were, it's going to fail.
And that's going to at least hope to show the
young generation of voters, a lot of young people who
really were voting for Danny to say, okay, well, these

(04:33):
aretealas necessarily great. But then maybe there will be the opposite.
Maybe Will say, well, that's not a real socials has
never been implemented.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
Yeah, yeah, I've not heard that from George Will. But
it does remind me of something that Constantine Kissing Trigonometry
said recently that we only really learned from uh history,
We only really learned from the history that impacted our grandparents,
if that or was to that effect, because your parents

(05:05):
tell you, well, this is what it was like in
this day, and your grandparents, if you're lucky enough to
have them around as you're forming your ideas, you know
this is something that they can teach you. But it
seems that this cycle speeding up. And I think, I mean,
this is an entirely different topic, but I think it's
more to do with we tend to see. We talk

(05:27):
a lot about the nuclear family, but it seems to
me that has become the maximum rather than the minimum
suitable standard for raising a family. Unfortunately, but Will will
they pass on the knowledge that you know, socialism was
that this great evil that led to communism, that led

(05:48):
to obviously the place that communism always leads, which is
mass graves so that there is something interesting about it, though,
because you'd expect New Yorkers that there are men Americans,
of course, and then they have this. You know, the
whole ethos of America is rugged. As far as I

(06:09):
can tell, it's rugged individualism. It's what made America what
it is today, which is the world's most powerful country
and economy. And yet you have in New York, you
have this this little pocket of humanity that has decided
let's let's not go for that. Let's go for the
government can can determine every aspect of my life. Because

(06:31):
I think what people don't understand is that when it
says the government, when Nandoni says that, you know, there's
no problem too small, that means things that maybe you
don't want them involved in. You know, why should the
government be involved in how you educate your children, for example,
which is for me, one of the that the chief

(06:54):
concerns about where I live that someday it like state
schooling will become mandatory and then I'll just have to
move and take, you know, take the kids somewhere where
it's not so why do you think they've opted for this? Uh,
this switch around from what many of us outside of
America or not non Americans, I think is the defining

(07:15):
characteristic of America.

Speaker 3 (07:17):
Well, first, I was in New York City has generally
pretty been left leading for last you know, thirty years,
So Ma'm Danny being elected isn't necessarily surprising, But now
is it a broader question? There is this crossover appeal
between you know, the brand of Trumpnomics ands around Mam Danny,
and it's this populous appeal. I me know from mid
Danny he tapped into that for a lot of young people.

(07:38):
And we you know, we tend to make fun of
young people and their socialism and the love of Chaye Gavara.
There are two that costs two hundred dollars to buy
those t shirts. But a lot of young people, especially
in Saday's economy, they tended, they tried to do the
right thing, and they go to college, you know, they
try to get a degree. They work a minim they
work a midium wage job, but they can't seem to
get ahead. You know, I saw this recently that came
out and said that the median age for first time

(08:00):
whole buyers is forty thirty years ago forty years old,
that number was a twenty seven, twenty eight years old.
So a lot of people they feel left behind by
this very system. So if it is if it is
a system of individualism and free market capitalism, and they
see a guy saying, you know, we're gonna tear down
this wall. We're gonna you know, take you know, a
hammer and sickle to it, then they're gonna be attracted to.

(08:21):
They're gonna they're gonna find Okay, fine, maybe I can
finally get ahead or at the very least, you know,
burn burn down a system that I cannot even take
advantage of. So I think that's why I love young
people voted from Danny, and you can see that with Trump.
Love young people voted for Trump because he wanted to
to dismantle the whole you know, globalist system and bring
back manufacturing jobs. And you'll get, you know, offer people

(08:43):
what their grandparents had in the nineteen fifties, you know,
wearing the overalls and the and the and the steel
lunch pail and going to the local factory, working nine
to five and able to have a job and a
home and a car in the driveway and have some
money left over. So that's what So for the Trump's
Trump voters, that's what they what they liked. And for
a m. Danny voters, the idea of you know, cheaper

(09:03):
groceries at a coverment grocery store, that's what that's what
appealed to them.

Speaker 2 (09:08):
Yeah, it's I don't know. It strikes me as very
strange that we have so many examples of how this
kind of socialism has has utterly failed in so many ways. So,
I mean a lot of people quote the well, there's
the there's the northern Scandinavian countries and their socialists. But

(09:33):
even their leaders will say, we're not socialist. You know,
we exactly have safety nets. They'll say, we're not socialist.
This doesn't happen without a free market economy. You know,
the kind of safety nets that people want doesn't happen
without a free market economy.

Speaker 3 (09:46):
Exactly. Absolutely. That's the thing too, you know, Barnie Anders
will keep saying, oh, we need to be more like Sweet.
We got we like Scandinavia. But the problem is that
they're capitalist societies, but they have massive tax rates. They
take from the productive members of society tax and fifty
five percent and then for these welfare systems and a
lot of them, you know you so Sweden is not
a great example more because of that whole migration problem.

(10:07):
They've had it transformed in the education t we needs
to be such a high standard for education world and
now it's slowly deteriorating because of the immigration policies, which
of course is another issue for the other day. But
that taps into also the discussion of socialism and capitalism
and you know the high tax treats that you have
to fund these types of programs.

Speaker 2 (10:25):
Absolutely right, Well, we're gonna be back with Andrew Moran
talking about what's happening in the broader economy after this
short breakdown, Go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (10:40):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edge.

Speaker 2 (10:45):
Ladies, Andrew back on Liberty Nation Radio, continuing our conversation
with me your host, Mark Antheladies, and Andrew Moran, Liberty
Nation's economics editor. Andrew, thanks for sticking around that. We
briefly touched on why Sarah Mandani was quite popular amongst
the young, quite popular, very popular amongst the young in
New York and part of that was because that they

(11:06):
either can't see themselves owning a home, which as you mentioned,
it's now at the average age for owning a home
that's forty years old, and that brings us quite nicely
into Now it was only recently that I learned this,
but this brings into ten year yields. And for those

(11:28):
of you who aren't familiar with why this matters, Andrew,
how do ten year yields impact the mortgage markets?

Speaker 3 (11:37):
Well, the thirty year mortgage it tends to track the
tenyure yield as the benchmark typically because you know, companies
rely on this because families tend to sell their homes
around the ten year mark. So the mortgage lenders they
based for thirty year yields on thirty year mortgage rate
on the ten year yield. And now with the falling
ten year yield, you're also seeing falling mortgage rates across

(12:00):
the board. And you haven't seen these mortgage rates in
about probably a year, and and a law of the
consensus that they're going to keep falling because of the
lower treasure yields across them.

Speaker 2 (12:10):
So they're at the treasure are they're they're under four
percent now, is that right?

Speaker 3 (12:15):
The ten year yield, it recently fell below four percent,
is now hovering around that area, and it's completely fascinating
because you know, at the start of the year it
was at nearly five percent and then actually you know,
tank to as low as where it is today. But
on the opposite of the spectrum, long term government global
bond years have actually risen. So Japanese yet sorry, the
Japanese bonds, the British bonds in your country, you know,

(12:37):
those yields have been rising. So it's been the exact opposite.
And I've been I've been amazed by what's happening. This
is in this corner of the fighters markets.

Speaker 2 (12:44):
So what's driving this this decrease in the bonds?

Speaker 3 (12:48):
Okay, so so various factors. One is that so the
markets have been penciling in the federal reserve lowering interest rates,
you know, the Federal reserve pretty much, I mean drop palace,
so that at December rate cut is not guaranteed, but
overall the expectations that interest rates will be falling.

Speaker 2 (13:02):
So just just to interrupt, way to go to your
own power for creating stability by saying it might happen,
it might not. It might, it might not.

Speaker 3 (13:12):
But it's so funny because he keeps saying that, you know,
with they go on a meeting by meeting basis, and
then he starts off this press coffer by saying, you know,
it's not a foregone conclusion that they make that December.

Speaker 2 (13:22):
Sorry, Yeah, to carry on what you're saying anyway.

Speaker 3 (13:27):
So the next part also is that people have concerns
about the broader economy. So when people have concerns about
the economy or the financial markets, which is heavily dominated
by AI, people will seek shelter in a traditional safe
even asset like the ten ten year yields. So those
are their two main factors right now. Why yields them falling.
The other factor could be that people have more confidence

(13:49):
in the fiscal situation in Washington right now that there's
going to be a more sustainable path.

Speaker 2 (13:55):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (13:56):
You know, Chersey secretary is comt best and he had
that three arrows growth plan and he wants to have
the deficit GDP ratio at around three percent by the
end of Trump's term. Now, in the last fiscal year,
they they did make some gains on that because it
fell below six percent when you know, so his argument
is that when the when the economy is not in
a recession or there's not a pandemic or there's no war,

(14:16):
you have, your deficit GP race issue should be lower.
So in the last fiscal year it came to five
point nine percent, down from six point five percent. So
you're gradually making me hopefully as the years go by.

Speaker 2 (14:27):
So do we expect to see a boom in home
buying now that the mortgage rates are at a pretty
recent low.

Speaker 3 (14:36):
Well, see, that is an interesting question because there was
recent data from redfin. It's a it's a real estate platform,
and it's said that there's more sellers than buyers right now.
It's about there's about five hundred thousand more sellers than
there are buyers. But what you're really saying, you're you're
not seeing so much demand from first time home buyers
or people trying to purchase a new home. What you're
seeing is refinancing demand. I did a story the other

(14:58):
day and it was data from the Mortgage Bankers Association,
and that organization found there's actually a one hundred and
eleven more than one hundred percent increase in refinancing demand
over the past a year on a year over year basis,
because people were taking advantage of that lower interest from
other mortgages. Because you know, a year ago it was
at seven percent and now it's at six point two percent.

(15:20):
So you're you're you're you're potentially saving tens of thousands
of followers by refinancing. So that's the bigger thing right now.
You know, whether I think if it goes below a
six percent or five percent, then perhaps you could see
a boom in real estate, in real estate buying, But
then that creates the other effect whereby you're having you're
having a greater supply of buyers, but then you're not
having a greater increase in supply, so that could potentially

(15:41):
bid up prices and you're back to where you were
in the first place. But on the but for the
most part, lower interest rates. That's that's something that you know,
Trump he promised you would do and that's something he's
slowly delivering on. So kudos to him on that front.

Speaker 2 (15:54):
Yeah, it's a it's a multifaceted, fested insuestanncy. You've got
basic interest rates, you've got mortgage rates. I wonder if
part of that equation and I'm guessing it's going to
be quite a small percentage now. But with the there's

(16:15):
the deportation extravaganza and the self deportations as well. Now,
this will affect more the rental market. But if the
rental market price has dropped, people have more money to
put away for a deposit. And so do we see
if the it's the right way to phrases. If the

(16:36):
deportations continue a pace as they are now, will we
expect that to impact the first time buyers market? Down
the line?

Speaker 3 (16:47):
Yeah, I would tend to agree yes, but that takes time.
I mean I had a conversation.

Speaker 2 (16:51):
Without the line that's what down the line means, and.

Speaker 3 (16:53):
Yeah, yeah, well but yeah, because I've talken to many
conservatives and they say, oh, well, you're starting to see
the immigration data influence housing market, but it's too early
to determine that. In even the data itself, I mean,
it shows a steady increase in medium whole prices, and
you have that you start to client in self deportation deportations,
So you don't see a link yet, but perhaps in
the future you will. I think one thing that I

(17:14):
don't know if you're talking about this, but Trump had
a proposal over the weekend by saying offering fifty year
mortgages thy years. I don't know if you've seen that
but that is such a social media stir.

Speaker 2 (17:28):
So, uh, I'm not entirely sure that the uh, the
rationale behind that, and we don't have time to go
into in this segment, but do look out on the
pages of liutination dot com for Andrews coverage on that
topic because it's going to be quite fascinating. But just
to kind of wrap this up then, so actually we

(17:49):
will one quick question on the fifty year mortgages. So
will it create an incentive for people to stay locked
in at a specific house because other people might be
doing the same thing.

Speaker 3 (18:00):
I think I think it would all depend on the
mortgage rate itself, because in economic exa that's something called
the lock and effect. So you saw this in the
aftermath of the pandemic, when people got two percent or
three percent mortgage rates over a thirty year span, they
didn't want to move there. They didn't want to sell
their home because they got such a lovely three percent mortgage.
So if I were to sell my house, would move
and get a different mortgage, I'm going to pay a
higher price not only for the price tag of the home,

(18:21):
but a higher mortgage cost. So over that fifty year span,
it all depends the mortgage rate, but you can also refinance.
So there's a lot of advantages and disadvantages over that
fifty year mortgage. The primary disadvantage, of course, they're paying
more interest to the bank over half a century. Your
whole life, you're paying the bank for this property.

Speaker 2 (18:40):
It's like a contract for immortality. We earn your soul
in this life and the next. We're going to be
back with Andrew after this show break talking Joe Rogan's folly.
Don't go anywhere no I thought was free.

Speaker 1 (19:01):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.

Speaker 2 (19:04):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
And read. This is Liberty Nation with Mark Angelides, 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 (19:25):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio Head Coast Coast
on the Radio America Network. I remain your host, Mark
Antheleti's we're continuing our conversation with Liberty Nations economics Guru
Andrew Moran. Now, Andrew I hinted at the end of
the last segment there about the Joe Rogan folly. Now
a cards and table. I'm a big fan Joe, Please
do get Graham Hancock back on again because my my

(19:47):
favorite guest. But he was doing an episode with Brett Weinstein,
also a great guest on the show, and Jordan popped
up with if everybody had I think this is roughly
how it went. If everybody had five hundred thousand dollars
a year in like a UBI based a universal basic income,
the everything would be much better because you know, crime

(20:10):
would drop and people wouldn't have to worry about things.
And I was thinking, well, sure, who doesn't want half
a million dollars a year just handed to them? But
of course that's that's quite the rabbit hole, isn't it
in terms of what impact that has on the value
of your money? And there's no better person to speak

(20:31):
to this about than an economist. Andrew. Let's give me
the second order effects here.

Speaker 3 (20:38):
Well, I too, like Joe Rogan, I like this podcast
very much. I love that long form content and rate
dives into people's view opinions. If I bring back any guests,
it would be that Quota Tarantino or Roger Avery filmmakers.

Speaker 2 (20:48):
That was I enjoyed that. I enjoyed that one.

Speaker 3 (20:51):
Yeah, I like how to talk about eyes white shut
of the story behind that. Anyway, It's okay. So to
your question, Oh yeah, I mean I think it's it's
a horrible idea to give everyone five hundred thousand dollars
a year. I mean, for one, where you're gonna get
this money from you, you're gonna print money, You're gonna
run deficits, so I don't know how you're gonna cover

(21:11):
this tab.

Speaker 2 (21:12):
Well can you mentioned that though? Right? He said that
the AI drive will create such an economic engine and
growth that it would presumably that would just come in
from tax revenue, right, and then be redistributed.

Speaker 3 (21:27):
Well, yeah, well I've seen I've seen an idea to you.
I remember I think it was Bill Gates at the start,
this was before AI was going through a boom, and
he said that for every company that would have a robot,
you would apply payroll taxes to each individual. Robots help
to keep covering the same tax base that the United
States runs. But overall, I mean it's still inflationary because
you have to, you know, because there's a government distributing

(21:48):
this wealth. Correct, It's not you know, Amazon doing it,
Amazon handing out one hundred thousane hundred thousand dollars paycheck.
The second issue. Even you want to remove that part
of the equation, what you're gonna have, you gonna have
another price inflation effects because you're bidding up the prices
by having artificial demand. If everyone's getting five hundred thousand
dollars a year for nothing, they're going to bid up prices.

(22:09):
But then that creates the other effect too, whereby maybe
it's a moral discussion and philosophical discussion. But when everyone's
giving something for nothing, especially that level of money five
hundredousand dolls a year, and left sue, nothing changes in
the economy. You know, there is an inflation, There isn't
you know, labor shortages, everything is just right now five
hundred thousand dollars a year. You're gonna have that same
impact that you did to doing this pandemic when people

(22:30):
have nothing to do, their lives have very little meaning,
and they dive into all these other things. You know.
I remember seeing the chart where the number of people
who were said they were different genders spiked during the
pandemic because they had more time to just think. Speaking
of Joe Rogan, Joe Rogan had a guest on a show.
She was a psychologist, and she was saying, when you
keep thinking about your problems in your head, you keep
talking about it, you're gonna be a depressed person. Whereby

(22:52):
if you're doing something with your life, if you're working,
having family, work in your hobbies, whatever the case, you're
gonna be a much happier person. Now, if people have
all this free time, they're getting five hundred dollars a year,
who knows they're who knows that they're gonna be doing it,
They're gonna allocating that time very well. So five dollars
a year, five hundred thousand dollars a year for nothing,

(23:12):
that creates inflation, that creates economic headwinds, and that creates
also a philosophical philosophical uh, bisection of humanity. So you're
not for it, then, absolutely absolutely not. But I mean
there was a discussion in economics, you know they have
for for many years in the in Austrian economics anyway,
jobs is not necessarily the long term goal for an

(23:34):
economy should be wealth. So Elon Musk he was talking
on stage the other day and he was saying, how
when you have if you have robots and you have
ai that's gonna create ub scene amounts of wealth, and
you're gonna eliminate you're gonna abolish poverty, and people won't
have to work as much because the robots are creating
all this wealth for you. And you know, and what's wealth?
How do you define wealth? Are you defining wealth by
just having more leisure time and spending less time working?

(23:57):
Are you generally well wealth by you know, having where
goods and services at are cheaper costs. So there's a
lot of discussion there, but overall, I see the point
that they're making. But so wealth is the objective, not
necessarily jobs.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
Yeah, there's a few ways to look at this, I think,
and one thing that I'm almost certain of. Oh, by
the way, back to your point, I think clinically, neuroticism
and depression are are basically indistinguishable the third fourth fifth
order effects of such a plan. And of course, UBI

(24:30):
is it's not just something that Joe Rogan talks about
on his podcast, you know, it's there's been many implementations
of it during bought for trials and tests across the world,
and I guess what they've all reported is people felt
happier to have a little more money in their pockets,
but they didn't make them anymore creative. It didn't make

(24:50):
them anymore driven to do anything. But I think what
you'd find is the initial effects of that income coming
in is we would see massive what I guess what
people term deaths of despair is you'd end up with
people they don't have because where it kind of keeps
you grounded, you know, speaking to other people, having to think,

(25:13):
having to put on your sane face for the day
to deal with other people, it keeps you grounded. But
then you've got you're taking that away and for a
lot of people. Now sure a lot of people have
families as well, so it'd be different for that, although
I wonder how many divorces would take place once people
are under each other's feetle bekes none of them has

(25:35):
to go to work. But you've got no goals in life,
You've got no direction, no purpose, you don't have to
keep your saying face on all the time. And what
you might end up with it is just a massive
increase in deaths of despair, right because what else are
you going to do besides you know, take your drink

(25:56):
and do your drugs because you've got the money for it.
Why not. People will have a great time for a
very short time before that spirals, and I think that
would be one of the immediate negative effects. Another one
being that we would lose jobs from the economy that
are only suitable for human beings. I'm sure AI and

(26:21):
robotics and general technology can increase things to a level
where we can take a lot of service sector jobs
out of there. You know, food service ones as well.
We see that. Well, I don't say I don't go
to these places, but like I look through the windows
of a McDonald's when I'm going past, and there's a
they've got these machines where you go and order your

(26:42):
food at a machine, so you're not dealing with it,
and you pay there at the machine, and then presumably
there's somebody at the counts who hands you your food.
I mean, how difficult is it to remove that person
out of the job equation? Right? Robotic it's very easy.
There are jobs that do require human touch. So for example,

(27:05):
we've all dealt with calls that that, or typing trying
to solve something on the computer and you end up
talking to a chat butt and it's this circular. My goodness,
what's the right way to say it. It's it's Dante's
ninth Circle of Hell. But you've got your your heating on.

(27:25):
It's you know that, it's it's the worst place to be.
But then so we know how that is. We've all
experienced that, and that will improve, of course. But what
about if somebody wants to sell you something and it's
something you might want, because people do do sales and
people do buy things. Are people that are going to
accept being sold to by a robot? What about psychiatry?

(27:48):
What about doctors? Don't you you know, do people want
a human touch from a doctor? I think they probably do.
Do they do? They definitely want a human touch from
a psychiatry or counselor? I think they probably do. Don't they?

Speaker 3 (28:02):
Well, don't get me. Still, don't get me starting psychiatry.
You know, that's not I'm not going to dive into that.
But I think it all depends on a result space.
I mean, if studies keep showing how you know, you'll say,
a surgeon, it's a robot doing the surgery, sure, and
it's robot has one hundred percent successory and it can
do twenty four hours a day, then people are gonna
be more more open to that. So I don't know what.

Speaker 2 (28:22):
Guess what about the nursing aftercare, What about the person
who looks after you to come? You know, you need
somebody to move your pillow because your back's off. I
mean for many people, especially older people, if they if
they're not living in your family, or maybe they don't
have family, that personal touch is the thing that keeps
them alive. Yeah, that's what nurses do.

Speaker 3 (28:42):
I will dispute it at all. But if robots can
do the exact same job, and you know, we all
all governments have budget constraints, and healthcare is a huge
sum of money. We're all going up here in Canada,
it's fifty percent in Ontario, all dedicated to.

Speaker 2 (28:56):
Look to someone from England with the exact national health
al but around the taxpayers neck every increasing funds ever
decreasing quality.

Speaker 3 (29:07):
So one thing one thing government wants to do up
here is they want to have more at home care.
But that costs money. You need labor to do that.
So in the next fifty years sixty years, if you
have a robot is able to do that, they can
actually provide twenty four hour a day care and they're
more lifelike and human, and they're kinder and you can
program to be you know more more.

Speaker 2 (29:25):
I dispute the word that they're kinder. I dispute that think.

Speaker 3 (29:29):
Okay, but I've dealt with many nurses over the last
few years. A lot of them are just jerks, you know,
they're not. I mean, I can I get it. The
overwork they're doing, you know, thirty six hours ship.

Speaker 2 (29:38):
They got to deal with people like you. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (29:42):
But if robots can do this, and you know, they're
more efficient at it, and it's cheaper for the covert
or for you know, governmental healthcare, all these things that
I would say, I would see people more more open
to it than the human touch, as you call it.

Speaker 2 (29:56):
Okay, Well, coming back to wrap this thing up in
a messiest bow we can possibly imagine, we generally think
that five hundred thousand dollars or any UBI is probably
a bad idea just for the human condition, right, Yeah,
I mean you can so.

Speaker 3 (30:11):
Many economic discussions against it. I mean, there's someone even
the data, even these studies that are that are that
have been done, they prove exactly everything that you've talked about,
though the drugs and lottery tickets and the smoking. All
of a sudden, you show that more people people spend
more of that free money on those things. Of course
those things are not good for you. So UBI is
a disaster way to happen, But it's gonna be It's

(30:33):
gonna be inevitable. I have no doubt it's going to
be incrementally introduced across the United States and much of
the world in the next twenty years.

Speaker 2 (30:40):
Well, let's see what happens with that. And we're gonna
be back with Andrew after this show break. Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (30:49):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark.

Speaker 2 (30:54):
Edgelaitis Andrew back on Liberty Nation radly, I remain Mark
Anslidis continue our conversation with Liberty Nation and the economics
cure Andrew Moran. Andrew, I want to talk to you
about the the K shaped economy and for those who
are not fortunate enough to know what a K shaped
economy is, much like myself circa an hour ago, could

(31:17):
you give us a brief overview there?

Speaker 3 (31:19):
Okay, So the K is everywhere if you want, if
you go to business media, if you talk to economists,
they're all talking about the letter K. Now the K,
so the upper wing of the K they're asking. The
upper arm of the K means that the high income
people are doing very well in the economy, they're contributing
to the economy, they're keeping it afloat. But the bottom
arm of that K are the low and middle of

(31:40):
com people who are not doing as well. They're not
they're not spending, they're not earning more, they're struggling to
stay afloat. So that that is the case shape that
a lot of economists, market watchers, and I guess inevitably
the policymakers are going to be discussing the next couple
of months, so heading into the midterms.

Speaker 2 (31:58):
Sure, so we say this, it's a tale of two trajectories. Right,
there's one two cities. It's I know, I know where
I was getting here from. It's my cloth. So you've
got these two trajectories, and I wonder if there's any
any possible way that these reconverge bar an economic collapse.

Speaker 3 (32:24):
No, I mean that's a good question. I mean there
are many things that the current administry, current administration is
doing to support, you know, the working class. So one
one data point that came out this past summer was
blue collar wage growth for so the first nine months
or eight months of the administration, blue collar growth was
the strongest has ever been since the Nixon administration. So

(32:44):
that's one advantage to them. The other advantage are lower
interest rates. You know, if if borrowing costs are lower
for lower medical people, whether it's credit cards, mortgages, auto loans,
that's going to prop them up as well. But whether
they reconverge or not, I mean, I think what you
I think what you just said is probably you probably
have to have a reset of economic conditions. M. Jerome Powell.

(33:05):
He was asked about this during what the latest press
conference in October, and they're saying, oh, you know, are
you worried about this shape k case shape that's forming
across the economy in the marketplace And his argument is that, well,
not really, because a lot of the a lot of
the spending that's going on, particularly in the high income demographic,
is fueled by stock market gains. And as you know,

(33:26):
the stock market, despite that springtime volatility caused by tariffs,
stocks are a record highs So people are making a
lot of money on those stocks and that's supporting you know,
whether it's four one k's individual stocks ETFs. That's supporting
a lot of consumption that's going on.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
So I think what we're saying that the ideal economic
situation now after this this these divergent courses being plotted,
would be that the upper continues on and upward trajectory,
but that the low reverse is its course and then

(34:03):
it's almost like the running parallel lines directly upwards. If
that makes sense. And uh, it's the I guess it's
the idea that in a free market economy, everybody gets richer,
just at different rates, and in a more socist economy
everybody gets poorer at a fairly rapid rate. So what

(34:24):
can the administration do to create that lower arm to
reverse its course and start running parallel with the.

Speaker 3 (34:33):
I mean, in in your term, probably not much. I
mean you you see that. For example, there was the
preliminary November University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, and it sure.

Speaker 2 (34:42):
Came out on Friday. Yes, yes, of course, I know
I didn't know and should.

Speaker 3 (34:47):
Di versions in expectations of the economy and current sentiment
of the economy. And it showed once again that gap
with a high end people making people making more than
seventy five thousand, you're more optimistic about the economy and
people earning you know, less than seventy five thousand dollars.
But even even in the in the stock market, you're
not talking was off air. You see the magnificent seven companies.
You know, this is this is a Nvidia, this is Tesla, Amazon.

(35:11):
Their earnings expectations were revived, have been revised upward continually
over the past twelve months. But if you look at
the rest of the stock market, these they called the
SP four ninety three, the their earnings, their earning expectations
have to revise lower. So in every part of the
economy you're seeing these warning signs of of of that gap.

(35:31):
Companies are okay, you know it's fine too. Is that
companies are responding to this as well. So for example, McDonald's,
the CEO was on CNBC a couple I think it
was last month, and he said the reason why they
expanded their value menu was because they noticed that lower
income people were visiting their their shops. Now, to be honest,
I don't know how lower cod people can visit McDonald's
these days during the crisis of everything, but that was there.

(35:54):
That was the company's justification for its for its increase
in the number of value many options. So what are
people or sorry, one more thing too sorry, a Cock's automotive.
It's an automotive platform and has the blue the Kelly
Blue Book, and that looks at automobile prices. And I
said that the average price for a car cross fifty

(36:15):
thousand dollars for the first time ever. And the one
of the analysts said that the people who are buying
the cars today are people in the upper income range.
And you know, when we look at all these numbers,
it ties into everything you were discussing the previous segments,
like Danny voters. It's young people who aren't who are
not in that income trajectory right now. They get frustrated

(36:36):
and they're they're the ones who can't, you know, buy
these homes or these cars or you know, even visit
the McDonald's to get that new vegan burger they have.

Speaker 2 (36:45):
I'm going to pretend I didn't hear that, Andrew, uh So,
what what are people actually spending their their income on?
The ones on the lower arm that they have some income?
And is it is it staple, it's it's it's food,
it's rent and insurance, presumably right.

Speaker 3 (37:06):
Just absolutely utilities, But all these things, all these basics,
they've just risen in priced dramatically as hard from the
keep up, and I cannot you cannot blame them for
having such a negative few of the economy, despite you know,
some broader numbers suggesting that the US economy is doing well.
It is staying afloat.

Speaker 2 (37:22):
I'm wondering if part of the solution is really just time,
because you know, people stay in a job and they
presumably work their way up, and then as people get older,
their income goes up. That's that's always been the big
lie about the one percenters, right, because the problem, yeah, sorry,

(37:43):
because most a lot of people do make it into
the one percent at some point in their their careers.
It's just that maybe they do it once they finally
get that senior managed position in their fifties, and you know,
that's when they're they're financially stable. Whereas you've got a
bunch of twenty two year old, twenty three years, twenty
four year olds thinking well, I'm not financially stable, and

(38:06):
the reality is, well, of course you're not. You're twenty
four years old. Why would you be.

Speaker 3 (38:11):
Yeah, that's a great point. I mean for a lot
of left leading economists, they tend to think that, you know,
income is static, So if you're making one undred thousand
dollars a year, you will continually make that at the
expense of everybody else. But if you really study the
data over the years, you see a constant fluctuation. If
whatever was making one year I make, I may make
thirty thousand dollars the next year, I may make eighty
five thousand dollars a year. But at the same time,

(38:33):
I mean again it's always the two handed economists, because
if you look like say a private payroll Process or ADP,
it's National Deployment Report. It showed that for people the
wage growth for job stays is now the exact semeess
is for people who were job changers. And for a
long time you saw, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic,
people who are changing jobs, they're earning a lot more

(38:55):
than someone who stayed in the exact same position. I
think the annual pay the annual pay growth that eighty
he met something like four percent year over year.

Speaker 2 (39:03):
I'll leave us with the last words that I think
it was the count of Monte Cristo and wait, and
hope Andrew Moran, thanks for joining us, thanks for having me,
and that's just about all we have time for on
this week's edition of Liberty Nation radio Head Coast to
Coast on the Radio American Network. I'd like to thank
our guests today, Liberty Nations Economics at a Terminster Andrew Moran,

(39:24):
for taking the time to join us in this in
depth and fascinating conversation, and of course thank you the
listeners at home. I hope you enjoyed the show and
we do appreciate your tuning in each and every week.
You are appreciated. Please remember, Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns,
or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.