Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to another episode of the Markmas Show,
Speaker 1: where we talk about the decentralized revolution, talking about the
Speaker 1: way the world is changing or right before our very eyes,
Speaker 1: as we go from a world of centralization to decentralization,
Speaker 1: and we look at it through the lens of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology, and of course that technology is bitcoin, the
Speaker 1: decentralized technology that is changing the world. And of course
Speaker 1: you know, each and every week I try to bring
Speaker 1: to you a different perspective. I try to bring to you,
Speaker 1: you know, some stories, some narratives, some ways to look
Speaker 1: at stories differently, so you can start to expand your mind,
Speaker 1: expand your thinking, and start to look at things differently.
Speaker 1: I want to bring to you some of the latest
Speaker 1: breaking news so you can see this happening in real time.
Speaker 1: And that's what I have for you today. I have
Speaker 1: some really big news this week. My job gets easier
Speaker 1: and easier because there is so much going on in
Speaker 1: the world that you need to be aware of. And
Speaker 1: the reason why you need to be aware of it
Speaker 1: is because we're always looking for confirmation of where we're going.
Speaker 1: So if I gave you directions how to get to
Speaker 1: my house, I might say you know, uh, drive down
Speaker 1: the highway until you see this sign, and then go
Speaker 1: down until you see this blue fence and then make
Speaker 1: a left, and then at the mailbox to make a right.
Speaker 1: And so and I would say, eventually you're gonna get
Speaker 1: to this location, get to my house, or get to wherever.
Speaker 1: And so as you're driving, you're constantly looking at the
Speaker 1: signs to make sure you're continuing to go the right way,
Speaker 1: and you're also um looking to see if, um, you know,
Speaker 1: if you're getting closer. And so we have these ideas
Speaker 1: of where the world is going, and we're looking for
Speaker 1: either confirmation confirmation that we are going that way or
Speaker 1: we're going somewhere different. It's very similar on how the
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies like the FBI would look at threats. And
Speaker 1: so they might say, you know, here's three or four
Speaker 1: potential threats for this event. Um, you know, there could
Speaker 1: be a bombing, there could be a shooting, there could
Speaker 1: be uh, you know whatever. Right, so there's there's different
Speaker 1: threats for these for these for this event, if this
Speaker 1: was gonna happen, then this, this, this, and this would
Speaker 1: have to happen. But if this thing was to happen,
Speaker 1: then it would be this, this, and this, and then
Speaker 1: because they don't know exactly, not a Cristal ball. And
Speaker 1: so what they're gonna do then is they're gonna sit
Speaker 1: back and they're gonna watch. And as they start to
Speaker 1: see these certain events happening, they start to show them
Speaker 1: which direction that we're going, which potential outcome would be reached.
Speaker 1: And so, if we are going into a decentralized world,
Speaker 1: like I believe we are, I believe that's what history
Speaker 1: shows us, or we're not, we want to know are
Speaker 1: we going that direction? So we look for these signposts,
Speaker 1: and we can see them everywhere. They're all over the place.
Speaker 1: One of the signposts that I see all over is
Speaker 1: the world seemingly breaking down before our very eyes. If
Speaker 1: you've read the book Atlas Shrug, then you know what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. You haven't. On highly recommended. I Rand
Speaker 1: wrote it um. It's a big book. It's highly worth
Speaker 1: to read, and talks about how as government gets big,
Speaker 1: it gets oppressive. It starts to restrict the free markets
Speaker 1: which create all the all the development technologies, and as
Speaker 1: it continues to restrict them, you get less and less
Speaker 1: entrepreneurs participate in society. They start going and creating their
Speaker 1: own society, and that society breaks down. And of course,
Speaker 1: so we can see this all over the place. Uh,
Speaker 1: and there are signs to show this. Now, there's a
Speaker 1: couple of things that I saw, one of which is
Speaker 1: um cyber pandemics. Now, is this a sign that society
Speaker 1: is breaking down because entrepreneurs aren't participating, or is this
Speaker 1: a sign that we're at the end of an empire
Speaker 1: where basically the best way to get ahead is to
Speaker 1: steal and manipulate, or is it maybe intentionally being done
Speaker 1: in a way to get us to act on something. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer to that, but what I
Speaker 1: do know is that these things are happening, and it's
Speaker 1: very coincidental that at the very same time the World
Speaker 1: Economic Form is meeting talking about the risks that we
Speaker 1: face because more cyber we're going to face a cyber pandemic.
Speaker 1: So cyber attacks are going to happen so big and
Speaker 1: so frequently it becomes so bad it's gonna be a pandemic,
Speaker 1: a cyber pandemic. And so since this is going to happen,
Speaker 1: and because it's gonna be so bad, then we need
Speaker 1: to do something about it now. And what would that
Speaker 1: thing be, Oh, yeah, you and I, we should give
Speaker 1: it more of our freedoms. What freedom should we give up? Well,
Speaker 1: we need to give up any of our freedoms that
Speaker 1: would allow us to use the Internet anonymously. So they
Speaker 1: wanted to be like China. In China, you have to
Speaker 1: be verified before you can use the internet. Being able
Speaker 1: to use the Internet anonymously puts everybody in danger, and
Speaker 1: you don't have the right to put others in danger.
Speaker 1: Don't be so selfish. Who cares about your own personal privacy?
Speaker 1: Think about the greater good. You stay in private puts
Speaker 1: me in danger, and you don't have that right. Being sarcastic,
Speaker 1: I'm not really being sarcastic. That's what they say. I
Speaker 1: don't agree, or maybe I do agree, It doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: The point is is that a greater good is doing
Speaker 1: less harm. So for the couple of percent of people
Speaker 1: that want to potentially hurt things, that's bad. I don't
Speaker 1: want terrorism, but at risk of putting of the population
Speaker 1: through hassle, trouble, and even more danger, I don't think
Speaker 1: it's worth that. And so what am I talking about?
Speaker 1: So they what they propose is that everybody has to
Speaker 1: put an idea in. They have to be verified before
Speaker 1: they can use the web. That way, if you say
Speaker 1: mean things, they don't like or approve. They know who
Speaker 1: you are, but they believe if you give up your
Speaker 1: privacy then they can control that. Now there's the carrot approach,
Speaker 1: which is how do we incentivize people to do that?
Speaker 1: And then there's the stick approach, how can we force
Speaker 1: them to do that. We've been seeing them talk about
Speaker 1: this ramp up of cyber attacks, and yet all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, here they are. I saw this week, we
Speaker 1: saw Young Brands says that nearly three restaurants in the
Speaker 1: UK were impacted due to a cyber attack. Young Brand
Speaker 1: said late on Wednesday, at ransomware attacked or impacted certain
Speaker 1: information technology systems of the company, which led to the
Speaker 1: closure of nearly three hundred restaurants in the UK for
Speaker 1: a day. It's a big deal. Now A side note,
Speaker 1: funny coincidental. Young Brand owns Pizza Hut and Taco Bell.
Speaker 1: They didn't specify which restaurants were impacted. I just think
Speaker 1: it's funny. It's Pizza Hut. Um. If you don't understand
Speaker 1: the relevance of that in the very first purchase of
Speaker 1: the Internet was done and it was at Pizza Hut,
Speaker 1: and I think two thousand nine or two two nine,
Speaker 1: I think the first purchase with bitcoin was done and
Speaker 1: it was for pizza. And now we have the cyber
Speaker 1: taxs being done at pizza joints. Something about pizza and
Speaker 1: hackers and computer nerds. I guess I'm not sure you
Speaker 1: know about that. Let me leave me a comment, let
Speaker 1: me know. But it says that KFC said there was
Speaker 1: no evidence of customer databases were stolen, even though data
Speaker 1: was taken from the company's network, and so this seems
Speaker 1: to be ramp being up. Now. Some of these ransomware
Speaker 1: attackers has to be paid in Bitcoin, so they might
Speaker 1: have you believe that it's bitcoin's fault. Never mind the
Speaker 1: fact that they've been doing these long before bitcoin. We're around,
Speaker 1: uh more of these have been paid off in dollars
Speaker 1: and I've never been paid in bitcoin. But they may
Speaker 1: tell you it's been bitcoin's fault, but I don't want
Speaker 1: to point into that. What I want to talk about
Speaker 1: is that this is coincidentally gaming gaining steam at the
Speaker 1: same time as the WEF is warning us that we
Speaker 1: need to give up our privacy so they can have
Speaker 1: more control to prevent us from this exact type of thing.
Speaker 1: You might also know, last week we saw the f
Speaker 1: a A in the United States. The f A shut
Speaker 1: down all flights at the same time. It was the
Speaker 1: largest shut down, the largest disturbance of flights in history,
Speaker 1: and supposedly they had a glitch in the system and
Speaker 1: the glitz forced them to shut it down. Now, Pete Buddendog,
Speaker 1: who's in charge of the Transportation Secretary, he says that
Speaker 1: it could have been a cyber attack. That could have
Speaker 1: been we don't know. They haven't come out with that yet.
Speaker 1: But what's coincidental and I wasn't aware of this until
Speaker 1: just the other day, is that just before or I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: a week two weeks later after the fight attack happened.
Speaker 1: The same thing happened in Canada. Their flight system was
Speaker 1: attacked as a matter of fact, and it has also
Speaker 1: been done in the Philippines as well. And it's almost
Speaker 1: like these cyber attackers are attacking our core critical infrastructure
Speaker 1: like transportation, like flights. Now, when that happens, it causes
Speaker 1: billions of dollars of loss, hundreds of millions of people,
Speaker 1: as lives are impacted. They don't get to the meetings
Speaker 1: on time, to see their loved ones on time, etcetera.
Speaker 1: And that is the pain. It's that turning the pain
Speaker 1: dial up. It's the stick that gets us to give
Speaker 1: them our freedom. If you're just tune in and listening
Speaker 1: to the Markmas Show, we're talking about the decentralized revolution.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the way the world is ransforming into
Speaker 1: a decentralized world. We're talking about that some of the
Speaker 1: biggest news headlines of the week. I have more to cover.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get into what the economy, the markets are doing,
Speaker 1: with the stock markets are doing, what bitcoin is doing.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about what's happening with the war, potential
Speaker 1: nuclear war. We're gonna talk about some more disinformation and
Speaker 1: a whole lot more stuff you don't want to miss.
Speaker 1: We're back with all that moren a minute. You don't
Speaker 1: go away, We're back, all right, Welcome back. If you
Speaker 1: just tune in, you're listening to the Mark mo Show,
Speaker 1: We're talking about the decentralized Revolution, and we're running through
Speaker 1: the biggest news headlines of this week to help you
Speaker 1: understand where things are going, where we're headed and what
Speaker 1: is going on We're talking about before some of the
Speaker 1: risks that we've seen in the system, and let's talk
Speaker 1: about some some more practical stuff that's in front of us.
Speaker 1: Of course, all eyes are on the FED, They're on inflation,
Speaker 1: they're on potential recession. Now, typically we refer to a
Speaker 1: recession as two quarters of negative economic growth, but of
Speaker 1: course the Biden administration changed that definition for us, and
Speaker 1: so technically I guess, well, I don't about technically, but
Speaker 1: per Biden, we're not in a recession. But what is
Speaker 1: the real risks of the economy. Are we going into
Speaker 1: a recession? Are we going into a depression? And what
Speaker 1: does that mean for your job? What does that mean
Speaker 1: for your cost of living? What does that mean for
Speaker 1: your retirement accounts and your assets and things like that. Now,
Speaker 1: nobody has a crystal ball, and so we have opinions,
Speaker 1: we have guesses, um and things like that. There was
Speaker 1: a really big survey that was done and that was
Speaker 1: asking about will the global stock markets crashing? Now at
Speaker 1: one point, I'm gonna talk about some of the economic
Speaker 1: data and some of the market data. I do want
Speaker 1: you to keep in mind, though, that the economy does
Speaker 1: not equal the market. So in when we saw them,
Speaker 1: the economy shutdown. Businesses were shutdown, people were put out
Speaker 1: of work. We saw the stock markets hit, all asset
Speaker 1: prices a new all timized. So just rememheer. The two
Speaker 1: are not connected to key peace to keep in mind,
Speaker 1: but when we're looking at global stock markets, we can
Speaker 1: see that um the of a. Results are all over
Speaker 1: the board. Now, one thing about surveys is that if
Speaker 1: it's done through a big enough sample size, they can
Speaker 1: be extremely accurate. As a matter of fact, there's been
Speaker 1: numerous tests where they crowdsourced information. They've done them where
Speaker 1: like at a at a county fair, they have like
Speaker 1: a steer like a big bowl, and they ask people
Speaker 1: to go vote on how much that steerways how many
Speaker 1: pounds it was, and they put all their votes in
Speaker 1: a into a into a bucket and then they tally
Speaker 1: them up and they average them out. Or they'll ask
Speaker 1: people how many jelly beans are in a jar, and
Speaker 1: they'll get all these people to vote how many jelly
Speaker 1: beans in the jar, talllily them up on the average amount.
Speaker 1: And what they found is that in these crowdsourced type
Speaker 1: of environments where they're trying to guess the weight of
Speaker 1: the bowl or how many gelly beans in the dark,
Speaker 1: they get really really really close, like really close. I
Speaker 1: don't have the exact studies in front of me, but
Speaker 1: I'm talking about extremely close. Now, a couple of things
Speaker 1: about the test. Two things have to be present. One,
Speaker 1: you have to ask people who could potential we know. So,
Speaker 1: for example, if we're going to ask people to vote
Speaker 1: on how big the bull, how many pounds of the bullways,
Speaker 1: we don't want to ask like farmers and ranchers, right,
Speaker 1: We wouldn't want to ask people from New York City,
Speaker 1: for example. The second thing is that we'd want to
Speaker 1: make sure that they didn't see each other's answers, because
Speaker 1: what happens is if if they say, oh, this guy
Speaker 1: said a thousand pounds, will all go pounds? Right, and
Speaker 1: so they you want to make sure they don't see
Speaker 1: each other's answers. But when those two conditions are met,
Speaker 1: they get extremely close. Now with this survey, I don't
Speaker 1: know if those two factors were met. They're asking experts,
Speaker 1: so I'm assuming they're experts. Uh, And because it was
Speaker 1: done online, I'm guessing they did't see those answers. So
Speaker 1: I'm guessing those two things were met, so it's just
Speaker 1: gonna be accurate. I don't know, we have to wait
Speaker 1: and see. But basically, they are asked, UM, what percentage
Speaker 1: do they think stock markets will crash in the upcoming year?
Speaker 1: And they did this through thirty six countries UM. They
Speaker 1: surveyed more than twenty four thousand adults. Each country shown
Speaker 1: had at least five individuals, sampled with countries in the
Speaker 1: G seven and other major economies including China, Brazil, South Korea,
Speaker 1: UM and and sampling at least a thousand people. So
Speaker 1: so pretty decent, Pretty decent. Respondents were asked a question
Speaker 1: on whether quote, major stock markets around the world would
Speaker 1: crash in the following year, and we're asked to respond
Speaker 1: either likely or unlikely. So what they say. You may
Speaker 1: not like these answers. You may not like these answers.
Speaker 1: Let's just start at the Let's just go to the
Speaker 1: United States. We can see the global average. Let's just
Speaker 1: start with the global average. Fifty thought a market crash,
Speaker 1: UM was likely, said it was likely, thirty one percent
Speaker 1: said it was unlikely. In the United States, forty seven
Speaker 1: percent said likely, thirty one said unlikely. UM where is
Speaker 1: it lower. Take a look. Israel, thirty five percent said likely,
Speaker 1: forty two more people said unlikely. More majority in Israel
Speaker 1: said it's not likely to happen. In Hungary, the majority
Speaker 1: said not likely to happen. In China, the majority said
Speaker 1: unlikely to happen. Um. Everywhere else, they pretty much said
Speaker 1: it was more likely, more probabilistic to have a crash
Speaker 1: market crash than it was unlikely to The piece that
Speaker 1: I want to talk about here, though, is for the
Speaker 1: most part, in the United States, was forty seven percent
Speaker 1: said likely. We're kind of in this like sixty forty split.
Speaker 1: And the key piece that I want to hit on
Speaker 1: here is that there is no such thing as certainties
Speaker 1: in life. There's only probabilities. Nothing is h certain. Well, death,
Speaker 1: death certain and taxes, right, that's the old same death
Speaker 1: and taxes um. But other than that, we don't know
Speaker 1: what's going to happen. Are the market's gonna crash? Well,
Speaker 1: think they will, think they won't know? What do you
Speaker 1: think you might go? That's insane. There's a seventy chance
Speaker 1: it crashes in my mind, and perchance it doesn't. Okay,
Speaker 1: you might think it has a chance of crashing and
Speaker 1: a ten percent chance it doesn't the average. The reason
Speaker 1: why it's important is what are you doing this year
Speaker 1: with your money? If you think that the markets are
Speaker 1: going to crash, more than it would be prudent not
Speaker 1: to have money in the markets. It would be prudent
Speaker 1: to store more cash and keep that cash in something
Speaker 1: safe like cash, c d S, treasuries, things like that.
Speaker 1: But if you think there's a thirty percent chance or
Speaker 1: a fifty percent chance it doesn't crash, then you might
Speaker 1: want to start to deploy some of that money right now.
Speaker 1: Now there's there's still a forty seven percent chance it
Speaker 1: does crash, so then you would keep some of that
Speaker 1: money on the sidelines to average in in case that happens.
Speaker 1: And this way you're protected either way. So if the
Speaker 1: markets don't crash and things keep going up, at least
Speaker 1: you've taken some positions now and you have to average
Speaker 1: and as it goes higher. But if you're right and
Speaker 1: it goes down, you could average in lower and have
Speaker 1: a better entry. The key piece here is that nobody
Speaker 1: knows there is no probabilities. And I know you don't
Speaker 1: like that. You want me to give you, You want
Speaker 1: me to give you a certainty, but there's not. But
Speaker 1: I thought this is interesting in the United States thinks
Speaker 1: there will be another crash, but think they don't, and
Speaker 1: so figure out what it is for you and act accordingly.
Speaker 1: But we can see that there is bad economic data,
Speaker 1: um and so it leads us to think that there is.
Speaker 1: But the Biden administration wants to continue to gas light.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, they want to taunt you
Speaker 1: basically saying six six it's a good thing. And you know,
Speaker 1: I get it that you can't afford to put gas
Speaker 1: in your car, and I get it that you can't
Speaker 1: afford to buy organic eggs anymore, and now you've got
Speaker 1: to buy sugar cereal instead. But a good thing. Alright,
Speaker 1: we've done a good job. It's a form of gas lighting,
Speaker 1: highlighting how climbing prices are a good thing because we
Speaker 1: need inflation. Right, how's what the economy grow? They say,
Speaker 1: how's what the economy grow? Never mind that you're still inflated,
Speaker 1: that you're still struggling. The key piece here to understand
Speaker 1: is that while inflation has come down, meaning the rate
Speaker 1: of increase has slowed, they're still paying more money. If
Speaker 1: you're just tune in you're listening to the Markmall Show.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the decentralized revolution, how the world is
Speaker 1: changing before our very eyes, and we're looking at through
Speaker 1: the lens of politics, finance, and technology. And I'm reading
Speaker 1: through some of the biggest breaking news of the week
Speaker 1: so you can stay on top of what is going on.
Speaker 1: I want to come back. I want to talk about
Speaker 1: some more decentralization of the world, how supply chains are
Speaker 1: are being rerouted. I want to talk about what's happening
Speaker 1: with potential nuclear war that we're facing, some threats that
Speaker 1: were made, and some other things about freedom of speech,
Speaker 1: a whole lots of ever want to come back, You
Speaker 1: don't want to miss this away. Hello, welcome back here,
Speaker 1: listening to the Market Mo Show. We're talking about the
Speaker 1: decentralized Revolution, and we are going through some of the
Speaker 1: biggest news headlines of the week, and there are some
Speaker 1: big ones and one thing I've been talking about quite
Speaker 1: a bit that I think is just insane. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's so many things that are insane, but one of
Speaker 1: the things that I'm talking about that are insane is
Speaker 1: that having grown up at the tail end of the
Speaker 1: Cold War, the Cold War, which was when the US
Speaker 1: was engaged in this standoff war with Russia and communism,
Speaker 1: and the USS are basically um Having grown up at
Speaker 1: the tail end of that, I never would have imagined
Speaker 1: that we are back here and really, for the first
Speaker 1: time in my life, actually facing a real nuclear war.
Speaker 1: You know, the Cold War and the standoff kind of
Speaker 1: started and ended when everybody got nuclear weapons because of
Speaker 1: something called mutually assured destruction. If we can both kill
Speaker 1: each other, than we're not going to do that, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: just like a free market, a free market only works
Speaker 1: when one party, well, each party has to believe they're
Speaker 1: getting the better deal. And a war would only happen
Speaker 1: if one side thought they could win. But if both
Speaker 1: sides know that no matter what happens, we both die,
Speaker 1: then what's the point. And so then it created peace, peace, violence,
Speaker 1: the threat of violence created peace. But yet here we
Speaker 1: are now and again for the first time in my life,
Speaker 1: with a real threat of nuclear war. And this is
Speaker 1: not a joke. As a matter of fact. This week
Speaker 1: we saw a Putin ally Warren's NATO of nuclear war
Speaker 1: if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. An ally of President
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin put out this message, he said. The quote
Speaker 1: he said, quote the defeat of a nuclear power and
Speaker 1: a conventional war may trigger a nuclear war. End quote.
Speaker 1: And this was by former Russian President Dmitri Metev med Medvedev,
Speaker 1: who serves as deputy chairman of Putin's powerful Security Council.
Speaker 1: He said, quote, nuclear powers have never lost major conflicts
Speaker 1: on which their fate depends. End quote. He's for it
Speaker 1: was the president from two thousand twelve. Let me let
Speaker 1: me let me say that again, nuclear powers have never lost.
Speaker 1: So he's saying, anybody who has nuclear powers, nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: a nuclear power has never lost a major conflict in
Speaker 1: which their fate depends. Why would it if you're going
Speaker 1: to die? It's like, uh, what's the saying about when
Speaker 1: you know, be afraid of the person who has nothing
Speaker 1: to lose, or backing a wounded animal into a corner, right,
Speaker 1: Like when you back the wounded animal into a corner,
Speaker 1: when you have somebody that has nothing left to lose,
Speaker 1: they're very, very dangerous. And if you have a nuclear power,
Speaker 1: who has wh who's losing, who's gonna die, then what
Speaker 1: do they care? Mutually assured destruction works because me either
Speaker 1: side want to die, right, but if one side is
Speaker 1: already dying and what do they care, Well, let's just
Speaker 1: kill the other side too. Who doesn't work like that?
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what he's saying here. Dmitri is saying
Speaker 1: that nuclear powers have never lost major conflicts on which
Speaker 1: their fate depends, and so he's basically saying, if the
Speaker 1: West attempt to defeat Russia and Ukraine were to work out,
Speaker 1: and if Russia was losing, and if Russia was dying,
Speaker 1: then nuclear doctrine would say that that could actually trigger
Speaker 1: a nuclear war, which makes sense. If Putin is half
Speaker 1: as psychotic as Western media would have you believe, then
Speaker 1: why wouldn't he do that? Right, Why wouldn't he do that? Now?
Speaker 1: Would NATO put him into that corner where he would
Speaker 1: be forced to do that, to force to die? Well,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but it sure seems like they're trying to.
Speaker 1: And we can just look at the facts. So and
Speaker 1: let me let me just let me just be clear
Speaker 1: before we dig in these facts a little bit. I'm
Speaker 1: not for war. I don't want anyone to die. I
Speaker 1: wish everyone could just stay in their corner of the world.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, that which most of these
Speaker 1: governments could just shut down and shut shut down all
Speaker 1: the nuclear programs, not have this anymore. But this is
Speaker 1: where we're at, UM, and I would like to prevent
Speaker 1: more war from happening. I would like to prevent nuclear
Speaker 1: war from happening. Not sure exactould like that, because I
Speaker 1: don't want to be caught up in that. And so
Speaker 1: if what he's saying is true, then we have to
Speaker 1: look at what's the possibility that we get to that point. Well,
Speaker 1: we know that um many people from the United States
Speaker 1: have gone over to Ukraine, including Nancy Pelosi, including the
Speaker 1: Adam Shift, and they've gone over there and said, we
Speaker 1: are committed to be with you and nothing short of
Speaker 1: victory will account right. They've they've made these outlandish statements,
Speaker 1: we guarantee victory like uh so they've they've made all
Speaker 1: these statements, they made all these claims that give them
Speaker 1: no way out. And we can see that through the
Speaker 1: amount of money, through the amount of weapons, through the
Speaker 1: amount of support that we contend to give Ukraine. We
Speaker 1: don't know exactly the amount of money going to Ukraine
Speaker 1: is very murky. We know that there's been over one
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars have been sent to Ukraine just from
Speaker 1: the last month, but we're not very clear on exactly
Speaker 1: how much, nor are we anywhere clear on where that
Speaker 1: money actually went. We know it's over hunter billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Now that's just from the US. Now we have Germany
Speaker 1: and the rest of Europe and NATO cinem weapons, so
Speaker 1: we could say maybe it's a hundred and fifty billion dollars.
Speaker 1: How much has Russia spent so far? It's rumored about
Speaker 1: sixty about less than half, so they spent less than
Speaker 1: half the money. So they're facing basically the world is
Speaker 1: coming at them, committing to spending and doing whatever it
Speaker 1: takes to annihilate them, to kill them. And so if
Speaker 1: they're facing sudden death, like Dmitri says, why would they lose?
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't they just fire off nular weapons. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's good. I don't think it's right, and I
Speaker 1: certainly don't want to happen. I would hope, and I
Speaker 1: would hope that you would feel the same way that
Speaker 1: these leaders would come and they would use calm, cool,
Speaker 1: collected heads. We'll come to some sense. Can we find
Speaker 1: some middle ground, can we find some peace. There's not
Speaker 1: any winners here. There's never going to be a winner here.
Speaker 1: It's like an argument. Nobody wins. Nobody wins an argument.
Speaker 1: If you're married, you know what I'm talking about. Nobody
Speaker 1: wins an argument you don't have them. And here we are,
Speaker 1: we're in a war. There's no winners here. People have died,
Speaker 1: money has been lost. So now at this point we
Speaker 1: have to stop thinking about winning and losing because there
Speaker 1: are no winners, but have to think about how is
Speaker 1: the best way we get out of this today without
Speaker 1: causing more death and destruction. Now part of me, as
Speaker 1: an American, wants to say, why do we even care?
Speaker 1: As the president of the United States, he should be
Speaker 1: concerned about the safety of his own people first and foremost.
Speaker 1: Why is he putting my life and my family's life
Speaker 1: and your family's life and jeopardy over whatever he's trying
Speaker 1: to achieve. We're trying to stop putting from taking over
Speaker 1: a country that used to be part of Russia, that
Speaker 1: has Russian citizens, in a world far away, in a
Speaker 1: country that we don't even know or care about that
Speaker 1: most people couldn't even put on a map. We're doing
Speaker 1: it to save democracy a country Ukraine that's arguably one
Speaker 1: of the most corrupt countries in the world, a country
Speaker 1: where the president used to be a TV actor and
Speaker 1: jailed the democratically elected president that was there before him.
Speaker 1: We're trying to save that country. And again, look, I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to say there's good or bad here. There's
Speaker 1: no good out of this. But the good that we
Speaker 1: can do from here on out is to make sure
Speaker 1: that you and I don't die in nuclear war. I'm
Speaker 1: for that now, But it doesn't look like that's the
Speaker 1: path that we're going down. We can see that the
Speaker 1: Pentagon just they have They're just given over another eight
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars for the Pentagon in this one point
Speaker 1: seven troy dollar omnibus bill, with a good chunk of
Speaker 1: that going to Yes Ukraine. But of course we don't
Speaker 1: know where that money goes, not even the Pentagon knows.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, in November two, a few
Speaker 1: months ago, the Pentagon admitted that it can't account for
Speaker 1: two trillion dollars again. Again. It's lost two trillion dollars before,
Speaker 1: and it lost two trillion dollars again. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, the Pentagon says that it's failed it's fifth
Speaker 1: audit in a road. It's fifth audit. They have no
Speaker 1: idea where the money goes. The Pentagon can't account for
Speaker 1: roughly two hundred and twenty billion dollars in equipment that
Speaker 1: it gave the contractors. So your six hundred dollars in
Speaker 1: your VENMO accounts that they're gonna audit you over could
Speaker 1: potentially terrorism. But they lost two billion dollars in equipment,
Speaker 1: you know, weapons they gave to contracts and they don't
Speaker 1: know where they are. This is what we're facing and uh,
Speaker 1: it's atrocious and at this point we're facing nuclear war.
Speaker 1: You should be alarmed, UM, alarmed, read the information, call
Speaker 1: right your your senators or lawmakers and do something about it.
Speaker 1: If you're just tuning and listen to the Mark Mo Show,
Speaker 1: we're talking about the decentralized Revolution and this is showing
Speaker 1: how the world is breaking apart. This is really big news. UM.
Speaker 1: I got a lot more to cover when I come back.
Speaker 1: Some big things that are happening, UM, coming out of
Speaker 1: the WF that you need to know about. Be back
Speaker 1: with that morning a minute. Don't go away, I'll be back.
Speaker 1: Hello and welcome back to another episode of the Markma Show.
Speaker 1: We're still talking about some of the latest breaking news
Speaker 1: headlines of the week talking about how the world is
Speaker 1: changing from a world of centralization to decentralization. Of course,
Speaker 1: we look at it through the lens of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology. That technology is a bitcoin. It's decentralized technology
Speaker 1: that's changing the world. And a lot has been happening
Speaker 1: in the bitcoin ecosystem, the bitcoin space this week. Specifically,
Speaker 1: it's back from the dead. Every time the bitcoin price tumbles,
Speaker 1: another obituary is written and bitcoin has died again. I
Speaker 1: don't know. There's h there's sites that track how many
Speaker 1: times it's died. I think it's died like four hundred
Speaker 1: times at this point. But every time it dies and
Speaker 1: then resurrects, every time it comes back from the dead,
Speaker 1: it only signals not much stronger, that it's resilient, that
Speaker 1: it's not going to die, that's come back. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, many many of the some of the
Speaker 1: biggest and most wealthy investors in the world have actually
Speaker 1: said that's why they decided to buy bitcoin. And when
Speaker 1: I saw it crashed all the way down to this
Speaker 1: price and come back, I knew it was legit. A
Speaker 1: lot times people want to compare a bitcoin to the
Speaker 1: tulip bulemania, right, the tulip mania at Holland, where everybody
Speaker 1: bought these tulips so feverishly that the price went up
Speaker 1: so high, which was ridiculous. It was a flower, and
Speaker 1: then it, you know, spectactually crashed. It never came back.
Speaker 1: Tulip bubble prices never came back. It went up and
Speaker 1: it went down. That's like a pump and dump. You
Speaker 1: can look at tho cryptocurrencies and they've all gone up
Speaker 1: and they've gone down, and they've never come back. Bitcoin
Speaker 1: comes back over and over and over again, and so
Speaker 1: that it really builds into it. Now, let let me
Speaker 1: go back. I said something about crypto that you might
Speaker 1: not believe. I said that crypto has its pump like
Speaker 1: the like the Toolia bubble, and then it crashes that
Speaker 1: it never comes back. And you're probably saying, Mark, that's wrong.
Speaker 1: And now I question everything that you say, Mark, and
Speaker 1: that's good. You should question everything I think. But let
Speaker 1: me clarify what I mean by that. Um, if you
Speaker 1: look at any other if you look at all the
Speaker 1: cryptocurrencies and you priced them in bitcoin, not in dollars,
Speaker 1: if you look at any crypto priced in bitcoin, so
Speaker 1: just go to your favorite trading app like Trading View
Speaker 1: and put in the pair you know, H E T
Speaker 1: H slash BTC, So instead of measuring in dollars, you're
Speaker 1: measured in bitcoin, or cardano, measured in bitcoin or um whatever, ah, Cardano, Ethereum, Cosmos,
Speaker 1: the polka dot, you name it. None of them have
Speaker 1: ever made a second all time high a second. So
Speaker 1: if you're priced it bitcoin, they've all made one pump,
Speaker 1: and they've all come back down like a table. But
Speaker 1: Bitcoin keeps coming back, and so Bitcoin has been very stable.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, it's become the most stable
Speaker 1: it's ever been at any point in his career for
Speaker 1: the last dozen or so years, where it's been sitting
Speaker 1: in this like kind of sixteen thousand dollar price rings
Speaker 1: for a long time, which down from its sixty nine
Speaker 1: thou dollar high in November is quite a tumble. And
Speaker 1: so while it's been sitting there, a lot of people
Speaker 1: think it's dead, and this week it roared back to
Speaker 1: over twenty one thousand and sitting in this kind of
Speaker 1: twenty one dollar price point today, and that's good for
Speaker 1: a lot of reasons. It's up about thirty bitcoin Um
Speaker 1: derivatives like coin based stock, for example, or up over
Speaker 1: eight Bitcoin miners like Mara are up over a hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty percent, and so we're seeing life come back
Speaker 1: into the ecosystem. Now a lot of people are wondering
Speaker 1: why this is happening. Is this sustained rally? Is this
Speaker 1: going to be another uh bull trap they call it,
Speaker 1: meaning suck all the bulls in and trapped them and
Speaker 1: then and crushed them out? Or is this legit? And
Speaker 1: so I think we want to look at that from
Speaker 1: a couple of ways. I think what's happening, in my
Speaker 1: opinion is that bitcoin Bitcoin is what we would call
Speaker 1: like the canary in the coal mine. And so I'm
Speaker 1: a coal miner, if from from like North Carolina, I
Speaker 1: think where they get the coal out of the ground,
Speaker 1: you probably no better than me. But going in there,
Speaker 1: there's lots of gases and things that would kill people.
Speaker 1: And I believe the story goes that they would carry
Speaker 1: like they would carry a canary in there with them
Speaker 1: because the bird was much more susceptible to those gases
Speaker 1: and it would die. And if you saw the bird die, like,
Speaker 1: oh shoot, I better get out of here. Nowadays, I'm
Speaker 1: sure they have like electronic quid measures it. That's that was,
Speaker 1: and so Bitcoin is sort of like that, where Bitcoin
Speaker 1: is this very volatible asset that moves very quickly. And
Speaker 1: so we saw in November when Bitcoin hit its all
Speaker 1: time high, as did the NASDAC, all the tech stocks,
Speaker 1: the fang stocks, as did everything. Um we saw, the
Speaker 1: FED came out and said they were going to start
Speaker 1: raising rates next year. But Bitcoin started selling off immediately,
Speaker 1: started moving first, Then naz DAC and the tech starts.
Speaker 1: Tech stocks started coming down a couple weeks later, and
Speaker 1: then the SMP five started coming down a couple of
Speaker 1: months later. Now Bitcoin is going up first, the tech
Speaker 1: stocks and the NAZDAC are starting to move a little
Speaker 1: bit after And to me, it looks like Bitcoin is
Speaker 1: sniffing out another move. Now what another move could that be? Well,
Speaker 1: it looks like what it's sniffing out is that the
Speaker 1: FED is getting towards the end of their tightening cycle.
Speaker 1: We know this for a number of reasons, but that's
Speaker 1: what it looks like is happening. I think that potentially
Speaker 1: the worst for Bitcoin could be over now. In one
Speaker 1: of the previous segments, I talked about the sentiment and
Speaker 1: the surveys that we're done, forty seven percent of people
Speaker 1: in the United States think the markets will still fall further,
Speaker 1: so about half, but that means about half think it won't. Now,
Speaker 1: I know you don't like that fifty fifty, but that's
Speaker 1: about where the sentiments at. Nobody has a crystal ball.
Speaker 1: I think it looks like bitcoin is sniffing this move out.
Speaker 1: The Feds paused, now, is this good for the economy?
Speaker 1: Does this mean that, um, the economy is gonna be strong. No,
Speaker 1: the economy is horrible and economy is gonna get worse.
Speaker 1: But the markets, the asset prices could be doing better. However,
Speaker 1: there are some big bombs that could go off inside
Speaker 1: the market, especially inside the cryptocurrency market. We can see
Speaker 1: one of the big bombs that everybody's been focusing on
Speaker 1: is what's going on over at Genesis. Genesis is the
Speaker 1: giant in the room. Genesis is one of the biggest
Speaker 1: companies in the crypto ecosystem that's kind of behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: They're not really a forward facing customer company, and they
Speaker 1: were really supplying a lot of equity for a lot
Speaker 1: of these companies that we're doing these yield products. So
Speaker 1: like with Gemini. For example, you could park your bitcoin
Speaker 1: of your cryptocurrency with Gemini and they would offer you yield,
Speaker 1: they would give you a return, they would borrow that
Speaker 1: and pay you back whatever six percent they were paying you.
Speaker 1: They weren't actually doing it, was actually going to Genesis.
Speaker 1: Genesis was the company behind that. In Genesis, well, if
Speaker 1: you're with Gemini, you know very well who Genesis is,
Speaker 1: because your money has been locked up. You've been unable
Speaker 1: to get your money out of Gemini because of what's
Speaker 1: happened there. And it looks like now Genesis is potentially
Speaker 1: filing for bankruptcy. There's accusations of fraud coming out um
Speaker 1: and this is a pretty big deal. Part of the
Speaker 1: reason why it's the big deal is that Genesis is
Speaker 1: a sister company to Gray Scale Bitcoin Trust, both owned
Speaker 1: underneath the parent company, which is DCG Digital Currency Group.
Speaker 1: A lot of people are speculating that if Genesis goes down,
Speaker 1: it could potentially put Gray Scale Bitcoin Trust in danger.
Speaker 1: And if that goes down, then potentially hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of bitcoins could be released and dumped in the market,
Speaker 1: which would be very barish for bitcoin's price. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's going to happen. I think the fears of
Speaker 1: contagion happening from Genesis going bankrupt are overblown. I think
Speaker 1: that for a couple of reasons, we saw the price
Speaker 1: of bitcoin really get crushed when we saw Tara Luna
Speaker 1: go down and then Celsius go down, Three's Capital go down,
Speaker 1: and boom boo the domino effect. By the time it
Speaker 1: got to f t X, it didn't matter anymore. F
Speaker 1: t X was the largest bomb to go off. It
Speaker 1: was the second largest cryptocurrency exchange, but yet it didn't
Speaker 1: affect Bitcoin's price. Part of the reason why I didn't
Speaker 1: affect bitcoins prices they didn't have a lot of bitcoin. Now.
Speaker 1: On their books they said they had one point four
Speaker 1: billion dollars a bitcoin. In reality, they had less than
Speaker 1: twenty thousand dollars a bitcoins. There was no bitcoin to
Speaker 1: dump into the market. And I think this is probably
Speaker 1: another one of those events um where we could potentially
Speaker 1: see Genesis it was gonna file bankruptcy. They're doing that.
Speaker 1: You could potentially have some contagion and potentially put DCG
Speaker 1: group into instability, could potentially um cause lawsuits to be
Speaker 1: filed against gracecal bit Cointrust and even potentially cause a
Speaker 1: breakup of that trust. I think those are long shots.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's probably at all, but it could happen.
Speaker 1: But even if all that happened, I still don't think
Speaker 1: it's bearish for bitcoin's price. And so even though I
Speaker 1: see those bombs in the ecosystem, I don't think that
Speaker 1: it could cause the price a bitcoin to come down
Speaker 1: even more. Now on some good news for you if
Speaker 1: you're if you were involved in this whole f t
Speaker 1: X situation, it looks like regulators have found over five
Speaker 1: billion dollars in liquid assets. Just found them. I think
Speaker 1: maybe they're looking at the in the couch cushions or
Speaker 1: something like that. Somehow they just happened to find five
Speaker 1: billion dollars they didn't know about. Good news. If you're
Speaker 1: owed money from f t X, still it wouldn't be
Speaker 1: holding your breath. Still, probably not a lot of money
Speaker 1: to go around. If you're just tune in and listening
Speaker 1: to the Mark mo Show, we're talking about some of
Speaker 1: the latest breaking news in the end of the system
Speaker 1: this week, talking about the way the world is changing
Speaker 1: into a decentralized world. Hopefully that makes sense. I appreciate
Speaker 1: you tune in. We'll be back each and every week
Speaker 1: at the same time in the same channel, so put
Speaker 1: a calendar reminder. Make sure to follow me on social
Speaker 1: media at one Mark Moss. That's at one Mark Moss.
Speaker 1: And if you miss any of that, you can catch
Speaker 1: it on YouTube at Market Disruptors. And that's what I got.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening.