Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Some new developments in our
Speaker 2: search for extraterrestrial life not here on Earth, but somewhere
Speaker 2: in our solar sys. So let's go and put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. This is actually a fascinating
Speaker 2: development from NASA. They say, quote, a moon of Saturn
Speaker 2: has all of the ingredients needed for life. Data from
Speaker 2: the NASA spacecraft reveals that phosphorus is present in the
Speaker 2: subsurface ocean of Enceladus, which is one of the moon
Speaker 2: of Saturn. It's a tidy, tiny orbiting moon of Saturn,
Speaker 2: they say, it has quote all of the key building
Speaker 2: blocks of life. The moon is only about three hundred
Speaker 2: miles in diameter, but it has a global subsurface ocean
Speaker 2: of more than thirty miles deep continuously erupting plumes at
Speaker 2: its south pole, sprays bits of icy particles from that
Speaker 2: ocean hundreds of miles into space through the cracks and
Speaker 2: the moon crust at supersonic speeds.
Speaker 4: Quote.
Speaker 2: These geysers enable spacecraft flying by to study them the
Speaker 2: chemical mapup of the ocean without having to plunge beneath
Speaker 2: the ice. Data from the previous NASA mission suggested that
Speaker 2: the moon possessed every chemical block needed to form life
Speaker 2: that we have known of in the Solar System except
Speaker 2: for phosphorus. Now we know that phosphorus, being critical to
Speaker 2: DNA crystal, actually has been discovered on this moon. So
Speaker 2: the name also of the moon and Salatus difficult to say,
Speaker 2: just for me because I'm not all that read up,
Speaker 2: but I did know that the way that they named
Speaker 2: saturn moons was within Greek methodology, and Ensolatus is one
Speaker 2: of the giants who is the offspring of Gaya aka
Speaker 2: the earth and Uranus the sky, so it's one of
Speaker 2: those children in Greek mythology, thus getting the name there
Speaker 2: of Saturn's moon.
Speaker 3: So it's interesting though.
Speaker 1: Nonetheless, yeah, well, they have a researcher quoted here who
Speaker 1: says the next step is to figure out if it
Speaker 1: indeed is inhabited. It's going to take a future mission
Speaker 1: to answer that question, so we don't know yet.
Speaker 4: Maybe it's a forward operating.
Speaker 1: This is exciting because it makes Ensilatus and salitas, how
Speaker 1: we say, it, an even more compelling destination.
Speaker 5: To go and do that kind of search.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess the thing that this made me
Speaker 1: think of Soccer is if they're even in our own
Speaker 1: solar system, are places that are potentially that have all
Speaker 1: the building blocks of life, that are potentially inhabitable, then
Speaker 1: what does that mean for the.
Speaker 5: Like vastness of the universe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just, you know, statistically speaking, it's obvious that
Speaker 1: there must be many, many, many other places that similarly
Speaker 1: have these same building blocks of life.
Speaker 2: Of course, I mean that is it's so obvious because
Speaker 2: we and actually even as he points out, you know,
Speaker 2: within space, it says, quote within the cosmos, Phosphorus is
Speaker 2: by far the rarest as of what we know, at
Speaker 2: least so far. But it does demonstrate to us just
Speaker 2: how little we actually even know, you know, even about
Speaker 2: our own solar system eight or nine Measley, little planets
Speaker 2: and their moons, like we're only discovering this now in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three. Then you combine that to the Milky
Speaker 2: Way galaxy, and then you combine that too all of
Speaker 2: these other galaxies where, you know, I just think it's
Speaker 2: so ridiculous to even claim, you know, I guess not
Speaker 2: that many people do claim that we are literally the
Speaker 2: only life in the entire universe, just that you know,
Speaker 2: the the what are the odds that we would be
Speaker 2: at the same that we would reach our stage of
Speaker 2: development at the exact same time that another civilization had
Speaker 2: also reached past development for intersolar intergalactic interstellar travel, and
Speaker 2: that those two would find each other.
Speaker 3: And that's kind of.
Speaker 2: What the actual paradox is, not that life has not
Speaker 2: existed or does exist or whatever in the universe, just
Speaker 2: that that they would be able to find each other
Speaker 2: at the same time. Does you know it does seem
Speaker 2: quote unquote fantastical, but also considering the number of ensulatuses
Speaker 2: that are likely out there, the number of earths and
Speaker 2: all that are out there, it's not as crazy as
Speaker 2: it seems to be presumed that there's millions, potentially hundreds
Speaker 2: of millions of type civilizations scattered all throughout the universe.
Speaker 2: But hey, you know now we're starting to get now
Speaker 2: things are starting.
Speaker 5: To get into Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, there's nothing more human than to contemplate the great
Speaker 1: mysteries of the universe. And there's nothing that's sort of
Speaker 1: more centering, I guess, than to contemplate just these the
Speaker 1: vastness of the universe and what else might be out
Speaker 1: there helps put everything in context.
Speaker 3: Let me put a word in just for darkness.
Speaker 2: I did not truly understand darkness until I went to Moab,
Speaker 2: which is one of the it's a National Dark Sky
Speaker 2: Zone in the United States. Moab is the desert the
Speaker 2: town in Utah for the Artist National Park.
Speaker 4: I drove in the middle.
Speaker 2: Out night, pitch black. You can barely see anything except
Speaker 2: for the distance of your headlights. You get to the
Speaker 2: parking lot where everybody's going stargaze, and you turn the
Speaker 2: car off and you look up and it is one
Speaker 2: of the most stunning things I've ever seen in my
Speaker 2: entire life. Everyone's gotten a little bit of glimpse of
Speaker 2: it if you go on camping or something like that.
Speaker 3: But I beg people go to an.
Speaker 2: Actual dark sky zone or Hawaii. I forget exactly what
Speaker 2: ket conservatory I think is what it's called. Either of
Speaker 2: those places, it will blow you away. Yeah, and I'm
Speaker 2: sure there are several other I think the South Pacific
Speaker 2: also some areas and all of the other than Hawaii
Speaker 2: that you can visit. But in the United States National
Speaker 2: Dark Sky Zone, I think Big Sky Montana.
Speaker 4: This is like that.
Speaker 3: It will change your perspective entirely on everything that was.
Speaker 1: This was actually something that blew Kyle away. Moving from
Speaker 1: New York City suburbs down to middle of nowhere in
Speaker 1: Virginia where we live, which obviously is not like total
Speaker 1: there's still some light pollution, but the vast difference between
Speaker 1: what he could see in the night sky in New
Speaker 1: York City versus here kind of blew his mind.
Speaker 5: So certainly speak to that.
Speaker 3: Even a fifty percent chance change is insane.
Speaker 2: But try one hundred percent, Like I beg you, everybody
Speaker 2: could try and go and experience with yourself.
Speaker 3: So anyway, we're not alone. We'll see you later.
Speaker 1: So in the midst of all kinds of turmoil over
Speaker 1: at CNN with the top guy being out of the job,
Speaker 1: you have Charles Barkley, who is set to start a
Speaker 1: new talk show there alongside Gail King, and he made
Speaker 1: some interesting comments about the timing of his new show
Speaker 1: coming out.
Speaker 5: Take a listen, you don't need to go take that
Speaker 5: news job.
Speaker 4: You can come on our show. You know more about
Speaker 4: hockey than we do.
Speaker 1: Have to travel out apparently with this new talk too,
Speaker 1: I'm jumping on the Titanic. Everybody keep saying aboard a board.
Speaker 5: A board, right, jumping on the Titanic.
Speaker 1: You know what's funny though about that clip is like,
Speaker 1: clearly Charles Barkley doesn't need CNN.
Speaker 5: In fact, I was shocked that he even took the job.
Speaker 1: And the fact that he doesn't need CNN is exactly
Speaker 1: why his show could actually be interesting because he'll say
Speaker 1: something like that, which clearly, like you know, is in
Speaker 1: politic and not what CNN bosses want to hear.
Speaker 5: But since he's Charles Barkley, he can get away with it.
Speaker 3: Oh right now, they're really getting destroyed.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, CNN actually this is even a
Speaker 2: reflection by their own reporter Brian.
Speaker 3: Stelter, who has literally yeah, used.
Speaker 2: To dominate CN used to dominate on brave breaking news
Speaker 2: like Friday when the Trump indictment was on Seals.
Speaker 3: Something's changed.
Speaker 2: MSNBC has now capitalized, So MSNBC actually destroyed both Fox
Speaker 2: and CNN on the day of the Trump indictment. Obviously,
Speaker 2: the boomers over there are just losing their minds. Nicole
Speaker 2: Wallace getting them all ginned up. Rachel Maddow is, you know,
Speaker 2: doing backflips. But CNN, you know, is in a tough
Speaker 2: spot because they capitalized exactly on that same market, then
Speaker 2: decided to ditch them. And they're like, well, which way, Like,
Speaker 2: who are we? We have no credibility with the right,
Speaker 2: Their credibility with the left is gone because they are
Speaker 2: not willing to be as crazy rushing layers as MSNBC.
Speaker 3: So what is there? You know, what what is their
Speaker 3: purpose of existing right now?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: No, they're I mean, I don't know what the way
Speaker 1: for it is for them because they spent so much,
Speaker 1: so many years cultivating a certain audience and it was
Speaker 1: basically like the same audience as MSNBC, where I mean
Speaker 1: sometimes CNN was even going like further than MSNBC in
Speaker 1: terms of you know, like liberal derangement. And so after
Speaker 1: you've cultivated that audience for years, you can then turn
Speaker 1: on a diamond be like actually everything we said was wrong.
Speaker 5: Actually our coverage was wrong. Actually our hosts were wrong.
Speaker 1: Actually what we were doing was terrible and was bad
Speaker 1: for the world and bad for democracy and whatever. And
Speaker 1: we're completely changing course. I mean, I don't even know
Speaker 1: that they changed course all that much. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: you're right, but they did enough for viewers to, you know,
Speaker 1: the viewing base, the viewing audience that they had themselves
Speaker 1: cultivated to be like, Okay, well I can go over
Speaker 1: to MSNBC and get like the comfort food fed right
Speaker 1: to me. So I don't even know what you're up
Speaker 1: to over here. And when you combine that with the
Speaker 1: fact that it's not like any of this content is
Speaker 1: that engaging or entertaining anyway, there's just no reason for
Speaker 1: you we'll stick around.
Speaker 2: I think what we need to do is to make
Speaker 2: sure that people understand this is only a once a
Speaker 2: week's show. But even if Charles does well, it's not
Speaker 2: like it's going to save that. Yeah, whoever, the new
Speaker 2: boss is over there. I just got to say, good luck.
Speaker 2: That is it and Titanic. One can only pray, one
Speaker 2: can only hope.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, I mean, I guess the last thing I'll
Speaker 1: say is you are talking about still even with writings down,
Speaker 1: even with profits down, even with all of that, a
Speaker 1: gigantic juggernaut of a media enterprise. You know, surely there
Speaker 1: is some path to them being relevant again and providing
Speaker 1: information and news coverage that people actually want to seek
Speaker 1: out and actually learn from and actually get something out of.
Speaker 1: But it's not clear that there are any New York
Speaker 1: executives who have figured on a plan for making that happen.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well said.
Speaker 4: Inflation, Government speirit, consumer hate it, and the media lies
Speaker 4: about it too. My name is James Lee, and today
Speaker 4: we will uncover together the web of lies and propaganda
Speaker 4: spun by the mainstream media to obfuscate the truth about inflation, not.
Speaker 1: Just one factor but several that's fueling inflation.
Speaker 4: The reason for inflation.
Speaker 6: Do you see this flaring up inflation?
Speaker 5: That's the main cause of inflation.
Speaker 7: An inflation conspiracy theory is infecting the Democrat Party.
Speaker 4: Inflation propaganda has come full circle, and today we are
Speaker 4: going to go on a three year journey to expose
Speaker 4: the insane lies we've been told about the causes and
Speaker 4: effects of inflation. Let's go back to early twenty twenty,
Speaker 4: shortly after the pandemic took hold of the world, On
Speaker 4: March twenty seventh, twenty twenty, Congress passed a two trillion
Speaker 4: dollar plus stimulus package called the CARES Act. Part of
Speaker 4: the package included direct aid to endividuals and households in
Speaker 4: the form of a twelve hundred dollars stimulus check to
Speaker 4: provide relief for those whose jobs were impacted by pandemic shutdowns.
Speaker 4: In December of that year, Congress passed yet another stimulus bill,
Speaker 4: the Coronavirus Response and Relief Act, which doled out another
Speaker 4: six hundred dollars check to individuals making under seventy five
Speaker 4: thousand dollars a year. In March of twenty twenty one,
Speaker 4: Congress passed the final coronavirus stimulus bill, the American Rescue
Speaker 4: Plan Act, which distributed another fourteen hundred dollars to most
Speaker 4: Americans thirty two hundred dollars in total to the people,
Speaker 4: and some at the very top were not too happy.
Speaker 4: Economist Larry Summers, Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary and Barack Obama's
Speaker 4: top economic advisor, was a high profile critic of these
Speaker 4: relief checks.
Speaker 6: I don't think the two thousand dollars checks make much sense.
Speaker 7: I'm not even sure that I'm so enthusiastic about the
Speaker 7: six hundred dollars.
Speaker 4: Checks, and I think taking them to two thousand dollars
Speaker 4: would actually be pretty serious stake that would rink this
Speaker 4: could temporary overheat. In a Washington Post op ed published
Speaker 4: in February of twenty twenty one, a month after the
Speaker 4: final relief check was issued to Americans, Summers wrote that
Speaker 4: the stimulus checks would quote set off inflationary pressures of
Speaker 4: a kind that we have not seen in a generation.
Speaker 4: And when inflation jumped from one point seven percent in
Speaker 4: February of twenty twenty one to seven point nine percent
Speaker 4: a year later, cable News and its army of pundits
Speaker 4: and experts quickly placed the blame on these stimulus checks
Speaker 4: the reason for inflation.
Speaker 5: The stimulus.
Speaker 4: We have placed ourselves at risk for this inflation that
Speaker 4: we're now seeing.
Speaker 6: Fourteen hundred dollars direct payments could be deposited into bank
Speaker 6: accounts as early as this weekend. Do you see this
Speaker 6: flaring up inflation the way we are seeing some marketants
Speaker 6: participants viewing this absolutely ma react.
Speaker 4: He just passes this really really massive stimulus, and I
Speaker 4: think that that's the main cause of inflation. So their
Speaker 4: assertion is that the economy freaked out because people made
Speaker 4: a couple thousand dollars more. Is there any truth to that?
Speaker 4: Andrew Yang, who ran for president in twenty twenty with
Speaker 4: ubi universal basic income as a core tenant of his platform,
Speaker 4: he had this to say.
Speaker 8: The relief checks and the enhanced child tax credit, it
Speaker 8: gets mistakenly blamed for inflation later, which is you know,
Speaker 8: very upsetting and frustrating and troubling. Yeah, because everyone's like, oh,
Speaker 8: we can you send checks out and then price it
Speaker 8: go up? But it's like, well, if you do the math,
Speaker 8: you realize that the checks were a very very small
Speaker 8: component of the five trillion that went out. I tried
Speaker 8: to explain to people, It's like, look, five trillion dollars
Speaker 8: is fifteen sixteen thousand a head, Like, do you remember
Speaker 8: sending out fifteen sixteen thousand ahead? You know, it is
Speaker 8: about like, you know, maybe like one or two grand ahead.
Speaker 8: So what the hell happened to the other you know,
Speaker 8: thirteen fourteen ye grand?
Speaker 4: Yeah, what did happen to the rest of the money.
Speaker 4: Taking a closer look at the CARES Act, the first
Speaker 4: of the three Coronavirus Stimulus bills, only about a quarter
Speaker 4: of the money went to helping individuals and households. To
Speaker 4: undred ninety billion went to direct payments. That's the twelve
Speaker 4: hundred dollars check, another two hundred and sixty billion for
Speaker 4: additional supplemental unemployment. Much of the rest the one point
Speaker 4: two to one point four trillion dollars was handed out
Speaker 4: to some of the wealthiest in this country, corporations, businesses,
Speaker 4: and major industries like the airlines as tax breaks, loans,
Speaker 4: and grants. So while it is certainly the case that
Speaker 4: the Fed quote unquote printed a lot of money in
Speaker 4: the year following the onset of the COVID nineteen pandemic,
Speaker 4: which could and did contribute to inflation just based on
Speaker 4: fundamental supply and demand principles, the reality is that almost
Speaker 4: none of that money went to regular people. So the
Speaker 4: mainstream narrative continued to evolve in the coming months.
Speaker 1: The global supply chain crisis hasn't been seen since World
Speaker 1: War II. Cargo ships continue to sit in an ocean
Speaker 1: parking lot off the coast of California as millions of
Speaker 1: goods are in limbo.
Speaker 4: It's an la traffic jam in the Pacific. In October
Speaker 4: of twenty twenty one, The Wall Street Journal tied inflation
Speaker 4: to supply chain disruptions occurring as a result of the
Speaker 4: pandemic aftershock, which isn't inaccurate because the pandemic did throw
Speaker 4: the entire global supply chain in complete disarray, causing supply
Speaker 4: shortages and a subsequent price increase. But to what degree
Speaker 4: that is the question. And it was around this time
Speaker 4: where rumblings in independent media along with other academics began
Speaker 4: to surface about the true impact of the supply chain
Speaker 4: crisis on prices and what else might actually be the
Speaker 4: real driver of inflation. To cite one specific example, on
Speaker 4: December twenty nine, twenty twenty one, Front of the Show,
Speaker 4: Matt Stoller posited on his substack newsletter Big that corporate
Speaker 4: profits drove sixty percent of inflation increases based on his
Speaker 4: analysis after backing out planned inflation, which is roughly two
Speaker 4: percent historically, sixty percent of the increase in inflation went
Speaker 4: directly to corporate profits, while the other forty percent could
Speaker 4: be explained by the Fed's monetary policy and the global
Speaker 4: supply chain crisis provocative, or at least it was at
Speaker 4: the time, and legacy media totally doubt. Just a few
Speaker 4: weeks later, on January tenth, twenty twenty two, the Washington
Speaker 4: Post Editorial Board published an op ed asserting that pinning
Speaker 4: the current inflation problems on corporate greed is a quote
Speaker 4: unquote flimsy argument. Other op eds followed, claiming greedflation, as
Speaker 4: it later became commonly known to be fake, a witch hunt,
Speaker 4: some even going as far as calling it a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 7: Flation conspiracy theory is infecting the Democrat Party, and she
Speaker 7: goes after what she's coining as greedflation, and she's basically
Speaker 7: saying with the idea of blaming all these companies for
Speaker 7: raising their prices when all of the prices of everything
Speaker 7: that goes into what they make has gone up, and
Speaker 7: they're trying to just keep their heads above water.
Speaker 5: And in a lot of cases, some of them are
Speaker 5: doing quite well.
Speaker 4: Hang on a second, some are doing quite well. Was
Speaker 4: that a Freudian slipped there? In September of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 4: The Intercept reported that CEOs of major corporations have been
Speaker 4: praying for inflation because it's an excuse to jack up prices.
Speaker 4: And this was all caught on tape.
Speaker 1: We view a little bit of inflation as always good
Speaker 1: in our business.
Speaker 3: We would expect to be able to pass that through.
Speaker 7: And as I've said before, you know, inflation has been
Speaker 7: a little bit of our friend in terms of what we.
Speaker 2: See at reach out pricing.
Speaker 8: We want to make sure that we're not leaving any
Speaker 8: pricing on the table. We'll take as much pricing as
Speaker 8: then sure we can absorb.
Speaker 4: And we know if we need to take more pricing
Speaker 4: we have room to do it.
Speaker 2: Today We've seen no resistance from our customers.
Speaker 8: I'm really pleased.
Speaker 2: Our sales teams have gotten much better at pricing than
Speaker 2: ever in the history of the company.
Speaker 7: We're not going to be given this pricing back now.
Speaker 1: It's not a matter can we take.
Speaker 4: A pricing increase?
Speaker 1: Now, it's about how much of a price increase? So
Speaker 1: you're going to take.
Speaker 4: Inflation is good for business. Inflation is our friend. We
Speaker 4: will raise prices as much as we can, and we
Speaker 4: aren't going to give it back. Sounds a lot like
Speaker 4: corporate manufactured inflation that has nothing to do with global
Speaker 4: supply chain disruptions or monetary policy. You tell me what
Speaker 4: you think. It's not exactly secret that in the past
Speaker 4: couple of years despite constant talks of a recession. Is
Speaker 4: it already here? Is it six months away? Corporate profits
Speaker 4: have been at an all time high, and according to
Speaker 4: data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the past
Speaker 4: three years from twenty twenty to twenty twenty two saw
Speaker 4: a dramatic increase in the contribution of corporate profits as
Speaker 4: a percentage of unit price, while other costs such as
Speaker 4: employee compensation have decreased. In March of this year, the
Speaker 4: Economic Policy Institute estimated that between twenty twenty and twenty
Speaker 4: twenty two, corporate profits have contributed to more than a
Speaker 4: third of price growth. So how does mainstream media square
Speaker 4: this circle? How do they continue to do the bidding
Speaker 4: of their corporate masters while also facing facts that corporations
Speaker 4: are greedy by nature? I will tell you just a
Speaker 4: few weeks ago, on May twenty fifth, twenty twenty three,
Speaker 4: the Wall Street Journal published this article greed inflation is
Speaker 4: real and probably good for the economy. Ah okay, So
Speaker 4: this brings us full circle. As Friend of the Show
Speaker 4: and Intercept reporter Ken Klippenstein aptly pointed out that over
Speaker 4: the course of a couple of years, the idea that
Speaker 4: corporate profits contribute to inflation went from a conspiracy theory
Speaker 4: to real and probably a good thing. The journal claims
Speaker 4: that quote a bit of corporate greed, which they admit
Speaker 4: is contributing significantly to inflation, is actually a good thing
Speaker 4: because it may be helping the fight against recession. A
Speaker 4: bit of mental gymnastics, they got themselves tied up in
Speaker 4: a little bit of a not hard to say, but
Speaker 4: to lay out the message clearly. What they are saying
Speaker 4: is that inflation from corporate price increases, which so happens
Speaker 4: to put money in the hands of shareholders, that's actually
Speaker 4: a good kind of inflation. But in another one of
Speaker 4: their recent articles, they say that inflation from wage growth,
Speaker 4: where money is put in the hands of a regular worker,
Speaker 4: that's a bad kind of inflation that we really need
Speaker 4: to be worried about. I hope you see the game.
Speaker 4: The farcical nature of mainstream media covered. It is all
Speaker 4: propaganda facilitated by the entire legacy media ecosystem on half
Speaker 4: of their corporate and billionaire owners, who will undoubtedly benefit
Speaker 4: from such massive increases in corporate profits, all with the
Speaker 4: goal of maintaining their power and control over you. But
Speaker 4: we have a choice we can choose to believe in
Speaker 4: this type of propaganda, or we can refuse such narratives
Speaker 4: that blame regular people, narratives that are meant to divide
Speaker 4: the working class, narratives that are designed to indoctrinate you
Speaker 4: into defending your oppressors. Only then can we potentially change
Speaker 4: the status quo. Thank you so much for watching. What
Speaker 4: do you think? Sound off in the comments below. If
Speaker 4: you enjoy these beyond the headline segments, I would encourage
Speaker 4: you to check out and subscribe to my YouTube channel
Speaker 4: fifty one forty nine with James Lee. The link will
Speaker 4: be in the description below. I'd really appreciate that, and
Speaker 4: as always, keep on tuning into breaking points and thank
Speaker 4: you so much for your time today