Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to another episode of The Mark
Speaker 1: Moss Show. Or talk about the decentralized Revolution each and
Speaker 1: every week. Of course, we look at it through the
Speaker 1: lens of politics, finance, and technology to give you context
Speaker 1: of what's happening. And I try to bring to you,
Speaker 1: you know, some big topics and big subjects to help
Speaker 1: you change the way you think about things, because, as
Speaker 1: I like to say, almost everything you've learned is wrong.
Speaker 1: Almost everything they're telling you is wrong. You have to
Speaker 1: learn how to think through that. I like to bring
Speaker 1: to you some of the latest breaking news headlines so
Speaker 1: you know exactly what's going on, and some guests so
Speaker 1: you don't have to listen to me talk all the time.
Speaker 1: And I want to talk about some of the latest
Speaker 1: breaking news headlines that happened this week to keep you
Speaker 1: in the know. And you know, my favorite thing to
Speaker 1: talk about, as we talked about the decentralized revolution is
Speaker 1: of course the technology that's bringing the decentralized revolution, which
Speaker 1: of course is bitcoin. And bitcoin has been all over
Speaker 1: the news the last two weeks because of course it's
Speaker 1: back from the dead again. Bitcoin has been dead I
Speaker 1: don't know four hundred times or six hundred times as
Speaker 1: long as I've been following it. It always dies, but
Speaker 1: yet somehow it always seems to come back from the dead.
Speaker 1: And that's kind of where we're at today, and that's
Speaker 1: part of why it's in the news. The price of
Speaker 1: bitcoin kind of woke up from a slumber. Since about November.
Speaker 1: It's been down in this kind of like fifteen sixteen
Speaker 1: thousand dollars range, and it just kind of basically sat there.
Speaker 1: It was that it was about twenty one thousand, so
Speaker 1: kind of in November we kind of were sitting at
Speaker 1: twenty thousand range. Then it dropped down into that kind
Speaker 1: of fifteen sixteen thousand all range when the FTX fiasco happened,
Speaker 1: and it just sat there for a couple of months.
Speaker 1: In November December. We saw in December it popped up
Speaker 1: to like seventeen thousand, back down to fifteen sixteen thousand,
Speaker 1: but finally it took off the first of the year
Speaker 1: and went up almost fifty percent, and so bitcoin's back
Speaker 1: from the dead. It's down a little bit right now,
Speaker 1: it's still up about thirty over thirty, with about thirty
Speaker 1: five sin since it really started making that move at
Speaker 1: the end of the year. But as it comes back
Speaker 1: from the dead again over and over and over, of
Speaker 1: course it starts making news headlines. And one of the
Speaker 1: news headlines I saw this week I wanted to talk
Speaker 1: about because it was just I just have to say
Speaker 1: something about it. And it's a shame because maybe one
Speaker 1: of my most often quoted people is not Warren Buffett,
Speaker 1: but his partner, Charlie Munger. Charlie Munger, A lot of
Speaker 1: people don't know him. Of course, everybody knows Warren Buffett,
Speaker 1: but it's been his partner forever. What he does talk
Speaker 1: about all the time drives me crazyas he talks about bitcoin.
Speaker 1: And the reason why it drives me crazy is because
Speaker 1: he's such a smart guy. He's done so much in
Speaker 1: his career. He he knows so much about things, more
Speaker 1: than I could ever even imagine. He's you know, he's
Speaker 1: written so many good things. He has, like I said,
Speaker 1: so many quotes I use all the time. But he's
Speaker 1: so wrong on his views on bitcoin for a couple
Speaker 1: of reasons. And nobody knows the future, so it's not
Speaker 1: like he's saying it's not going to say and I'm
Speaker 1: saying it's going to survive and I'm saying he's wrong.
Speaker 1: We don't know the future. He's wrong for a couple
Speaker 1: of reasons. One, he's wrong because he's calling for the
Speaker 1: United States government to ban it. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: he's gone on to praise China, being a communist country
Speaker 1: and how they've dealt with this, and that's wrong. So
Speaker 1: he may be right. Maybe bitcoin doesn't succeed, maybe it
Speaker 1: all falls apart, Maybe we don't know. Time will tell.
Speaker 1: But he's always going to be wrong. Anybody's always going
Speaker 1: to be wrong when they're calling for the government to
Speaker 1: come out and take away our free right to play
Speaker 1: with technology, to use technology, to do what we want
Speaker 1: technology or anything like. We're in America, We're the land
Speaker 1: of the Free. And for him to call out openly
Speaker 1: for the government to come in and make it illegal,
Speaker 1: that's wrong. He's also wrongs he hasn't really put any
Speaker 1: time into it at all. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: he said as much, Right, why would I spend any
Speaker 1: time studying that scam thing? Right, So he has put
Speaker 1: zero time into it, and so trying to pretend like
Speaker 1: you know what you're talking about, or trying to pretend
Speaker 1: that you're somebody that should be talking about it when
Speaker 1: you haven't put any time into it is intellectually dishonest.
Speaker 1: A better answer might be, you know what, if he
Speaker 1: was going to respond to the news is he might say,
Speaker 1: you know what, I haven't put any time into studying it,
Speaker 1: so I don't really have a comment. That could be
Speaker 1: a better one to say. Of course, that doesn't get
Speaker 1: the news headlines that they want. So as this has
Speaker 1: been kind of coming backing up, everybody's favorite proponent of bitcoin,
Speaker 1: Michael Sailor, he had something to say, and he said
Speaker 1: that if Munger were a business leader in South America
Speaker 1: or Africa or Asia, and he spent one hundred hours
Speaker 1: studying the problem, he'd be more bullish on bitcoin than
Speaker 1: I am. Now, this is Michael Sailor, who's put billions
Speaker 1: of dollars into bitcoin, and he's saying Munger would be
Speaker 1: even more bullish if he looked at it from the world,
Speaker 1: from a different world view, from being in a different country,
Speaker 1: and you'd put a little bit of time into studying it.
Speaker 1: What Sailor calls quote the plight of the common man
Speaker 1: is better illustrated by the recent events in Lebanon, Argentina,
Speaker 1: Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Venezuela, And what those countries all have
Speaker 1: in common is those currencies have completely collapsed. When you
Speaker 1: live in a country like Lebanon, Argentina, Sri Lanka, where
Speaker 1: your currency just disappears and all your life savings disappear
Speaker 1: with it, in the market's all going to turmoil because
Speaker 1: of that, what do you do. You just lose all
Speaker 1: your money and you're just okay with it. So what
Speaker 1: he's saying is that Charlie Munger has this very US
Speaker 1: centric viewpoint, and that's what I find all the time
Speaker 1: with bitcoin is a lot of people in the United
Speaker 1: States sitting at the bar in Manhattan drinking a twenty
Speaker 1: dollar cocktail, are like, why do we need a different
Speaker 1: form of money? But when you live in Nigeria or
Speaker 1: Sri Lanka, Argentina, or Lebanon or Venezuela, you know why
Speaker 1: we need a different form of money. It's not working
Speaker 1: for you. It's failed. And so if he was a
Speaker 1: business owner, a business leader in one of those countries
Speaker 1: watching his money disappear, knowing that any time it could
Speaker 1: basically just all evaporate, then he would be looking for
Speaker 1: another solution. Monger has a lot of money he wouldn't
Speaker 1: want it to disappear. But he's coming from a US
Speaker 1: centric viewpoint. So one, his viewpoint is wrong. Two, he
Speaker 1: hasn't put the research in. Three, when you're openly calling
Speaker 1: for the land of the Free and a free country
Speaker 1: to make things illegal, I'm sorry, you're just wrong. You're
Speaker 1: just wrong. Now, another big well known investor, Ray Dalio,
Speaker 1: of course, he has lots of things to say about bitcoins.
Speaker 1: He's come around a bitcoin. At first he was he
Speaker 1: didn't like bitcoin, that he was skeptical of bitcoin, that
Speaker 1: he was interested in bitcoin, then he liked bitcoin, and
Speaker 1: now this week he says that still doesn't like bitcoin,
Speaker 1: but thinks inflation beating coin could work. So he says, quote,
Speaker 1: it's not going to be an effective money. It's not
Speaker 1: going to be an effective money. What I like about
Speaker 1: these guys is that they don't maybe even understand what
Speaker 1: that means. So he says, it's not an effective medium
Speaker 1: of exchange. Why not? In order for a collectible to
Speaker 1: become a store value, to eventually become a medium exchange,
Speaker 1: it must have certain attributes. It must be portable, it
Speaker 1: must be durable, it must be divisible, it must be recognizable,
Speaker 1: salable and it must be fungible. So does it fit
Speaker 1: those Does it fit those attributes? Yes, And as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, I would happily argue with him or
Speaker 1: anybody else that it actually matches all of those attributes
Speaker 1: better than anything else. Gold emerged as the best form
Speaker 1: of money because it had the best attributes. You can't
Speaker 1: use bananas because they're they're not durable. You can't use
Speaker 1: old car that's collectible because it's not it's not divisible,
Speaker 1: and it's not portable. And gold is not portable either.
Speaker 1: Gold cannot be sent over to space and bitcoin can.
Speaker 1: So for Radali to say this, I mean again, maybe
Speaker 1: he should do a little bit of researchers or take
Speaker 1: a backseat and just say, hey, look I'm not the
Speaker 1: expert in this. I don't get it. But when he
Speaker 1: comes out and says things like this, it just shows
Speaker 1: that he just doesn't know what he's talking about. It's
Speaker 1: not an effective media exchange. Well, it has all the attributes.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, it has better attributes in
Speaker 1: regards to media exchange than anything else does. You can't
Speaker 1: send ten cents across the internet, you can't do it.
Speaker 1: The dollar doesn't work gold doesn't work. You can't send
Speaker 1: gold over the internet, so it's more portable. Now, it's
Speaker 1: not as recognizable. More people take dollars across the world
Speaker 1: than they will bitcoin, but it's in the top five
Speaker 1: and that's only in twelve years. It's on its way,
Speaker 1: so that's something to keep in mind. If you're just
Speaker 1: tuning in, you're listening to the Mark Moas Show, we're
Speaker 1: talking about some of the latest breaking news headlines that
Speaker 1: came out this week talking about bitcoin and what what
Speaker 1: some of these well known people like Charlie Munger and
Speaker 1: Ray dalily I had to say about it. I got
Speaker 1: a lot more to cover when I come back, some
Speaker 1: big stories on what's going on with China, the spy balloon,
Speaker 1: potential war, what's going on with FED, the economy, and more.
Speaker 1: A lots of cover when I come back. You don't
Speaker 1: want to miss it, so don't go away. I'll be
Speaker 1: right back. All right, Welcome back. If you just tune in,
Speaker 1: you're listening to the Mark Moas Show. We're talking about
Speaker 1: the Decentralized Revolution, and we're going through some of the
Speaker 1: biggest news headlines this week, and there is plenty to
Speaker 1: go around now. The news story that seemed to dominate
Speaker 1: the news headlines this week were can you guess it?
Speaker 1: Putting the comments down below what you think it is?
Speaker 1: Come on, it was the China spy balloon, right. It
Speaker 1: was all over the news. It was on every news website,
Speaker 1: on every news channel. Spy balloon, spy balloon, spy balloon.
Speaker 1: At Biden's State of the Union address this week, Rep.
Speaker 1: Marjorie from Florida was like carrying a balloon with her
Speaker 1: in there, just kind of mocking it. It's all over
Speaker 1: the place. A couple of things I want to talk
Speaker 1: about specifically in this that I don't think I haven't
Speaker 1: seen anybody else talk about. But what I want to
Speaker 1: talk about is why why are we all talking about
Speaker 1: the spy balloon? Have you thought about that? Now? You
Speaker 1: may not realize this, but you think about whatever they
Speaker 1: want you to think about. You think about whatever the
Speaker 1: current thing is. So when they don't want you to
Speaker 1: talk about something, they don't talk about it. So, for example,
Speaker 1: the Twitter files. I talked about the Twitter files here.
Speaker 1: I think it was a massive piece of news and
Speaker 1: everyone should have covered it, but yet nobody did. No
Speaker 1: news outlets except for Fox covered it at all. Because
Speaker 1: they don't want you to know about it. They don't
Speaker 1: want you to talk about it. So why do they
Speaker 1: decide to completely bury things that should be talked about,
Speaker 1: And then something trivial like a balloon and they talk
Speaker 1: about it all the time. Now, even more importantly, why
Speaker 1: are they talking about the balloon all the time right now? Now?
Speaker 1: Is it because it was such a big threat? Is
Speaker 1: it because China was actually using this to spy on
Speaker 1: us and this was a threat to our national security
Speaker 1: and we have to crack down on China with this
Speaker 1: a balloon? So we let China spy on us, We
Speaker 1: let them bribe our professors in college, we let them
Speaker 1: steal our secrets out of the university, We let them
Speaker 1: steal all our companies ips over in China. We let
Speaker 1: them buy up all the farm land, we let them
Speaker 1: buy the strategic land next to all the military bases.
Speaker 1: Listen to all of that, But the balloon is a
Speaker 1: big problem. And that's my point. There's way worse things
Speaker 1: that are being done every single day in the open
Speaker 1: that China is doing to damage the United States national
Speaker 1: security every single day, Massive things that never get one
Speaker 1: single mention. But you had a balloon harmless balloon. Now
Speaker 1: sure it's probably spine. Yeah, okay, so it's taking pictures
Speaker 1: and that's not good. I don't want that to happen.
Speaker 1: But they got da lights that do that. What's even
Speaker 1: worse is the spies here. What about their own police
Speaker 1: that they're running inside the United States to police their
Speaker 1: own citizens in our country. There's way worse things that
Speaker 1: should be talked about. Now. The question that I will
Speaker 1: bring you back to is, so, why are we talking
Speaker 1: about the balloon? Why are we not talking about all
Speaker 1: these other things? Now? Big news this week I saw
Speaker 1: was that a town in North Dakota council unanimously votes
Speaker 1: down Chinese company's local project. So City Council, North Dakota
Speaker 1: voted towards protecting national security and national sovereignty in just
Speaker 1: the latest move against taking a stand against the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party the CCP attempting to purchase control of the
Speaker 1: United States. So Grand Forks, North Dakota got cheers from
Speaker 1: all the attendees that were chanting USA USA. They to
Speaker 1: prevent this Chinese company from moving ahead with plans to
Speaker 1: develop a corn mill on land that they had purchased
Speaker 1: near Grand Forks. Air Force base. So the Chinese had
Speaker 1: already bought the land next to the Air Force base,
Speaker 1: a strategic military base. They spent two point three millions
Speaker 1: to take ownership of the three hundred acre plot twelve
Speaker 1: miles from the base, home to a top secret drone technology.
Speaker 1: This isn't just a base, this isn't one of our
Speaker 1: strategic bases working on top secret drone technology. Now, the
Speaker 1: CCP was offering, you know, millions of dollars of tax revenue,
Speaker 1: two hundred jobs to the town, all these things, but
Speaker 1: the town said, no, we're going to shut that down. Okay,
Speaker 1: those are stories we should be talking about. Why are
Speaker 1: they acquiring strategic land next to our top secret drone technology,
Speaker 1: Why are they acquiring our best farm land, etc. But
Speaker 1: we're not talking about that. You didn't hear about this
Speaker 1: story in Grand Forks, right, This is on small little
Speaker 1: news outlets. I had to dig this up under So
Speaker 1: why again are we talking about the balloon? Now? If
Speaker 1: you're asking me, I would say, well, they want us
Speaker 1: to think that China spying on us without really directing
Speaker 1: our attention to what's really going on. So then I
Speaker 1: would ask myself, well, why do they want us to
Speaker 1: get enraged about China spying on us. Well, so they
Speaker 1: can get public sentiment to not like China. Well why
Speaker 1: would they want public sentiment to not like China. Well
Speaker 1: maybe if we want to continue to sanction China and
Speaker 1: potentially go to war with China, they're going to need
Speaker 1: the public to not like China. So would this be
Speaker 1: a way for them to build sentiment towards potentially going
Speaker 1: to war with China. You know, things are escalating pretty quick. Obviously,
Speaker 1: we have the whole Taiwan situation. President he wants to
Speaker 1: take over Taiwan. You know, Biden and the US have
Speaker 1: said we will not let you take Taiwan. So we
Speaker 1: know that we're starting to build up a lot of
Speaker 1: tension right there. We have the Pentagon has announced now
Speaker 1: that we're moving military presence into the Philippines, trying to
Speaker 1: kind of get ready for this armed conflict in the
Speaker 1: Taiwan Straight. So there's lots of angling, There's lots of
Speaker 1: maneuvering that are being done with China between Taiwan, between
Speaker 1: the Taiwan Straight things like that. We also see that
Speaker 1: as things between Russia and the US get more heated
Speaker 1: and more focused, China is also getting more heated and focused.
Speaker 1: And so we saw that Beijing, China is investing in
Speaker 1: more nuclear weapons. They're getting ready as well. It's not
Speaker 1: just the United States moving people over there. China is
Speaker 1: also now building up its nuclear weapons. So again, what's
Speaker 1: going on here? If China's investing in nuclear weapons, they're
Speaker 1: investing in new long range missiles. They're not giving us
Speaker 1: any type of dialogue. There's no open communication, there's no
Speaker 1: transparent as to what they're doing. They know that NATO
Speaker 1: has been expanded in Europe and is looking to expand
Speaker 1: in the Indo Pacific region. So what's going on here?
Speaker 1: And like I said in my opinion, they're getting this
Speaker 1: ready for more war. Now, this should be a problem
Speaker 1: for everybody because, first of all, why are we continuing
Speaker 1: to go into these wars? The fact that we have
Speaker 1: this potential nuclear war hanging over our heads already between
Speaker 1: US and Russia over Ukraine. The fact that we have
Speaker 1: one guy Biden or a group of people, however, you
Speaker 1: want to look out at the neo cons that have
Speaker 1: the right to drag us into a potential nuclear war
Speaker 1: that could put my kids lives in danger because of
Speaker 1: who controls CRIMEA. Do you even know where Crimea is
Speaker 1: on a map, and do you care who controls it?
Speaker 1: Russia used to control it, now Ukraine controls it. Now
Speaker 1: Russia wants to control it again. What do you care?
Speaker 1: Do you care enough to put your kids and your
Speaker 1: grandkids and my grandkids lives in danger? But that's where
Speaker 1: we're app So this looks like more war rhetoric to me.
Speaker 1: I think that's why we're all hyped up on this balloon.
Speaker 1: Hopefully you have enough to see through that, But of
Speaker 1: course I'd love to hear your viewpoints on that. Hit
Speaker 1: me up on social media. I'd like to hear more
Speaker 1: from some of you guys. Hit me up on social
Speaker 1: media at one Mark Moss. You can hit me up
Speaker 1: on Instagram or on Twitter, ask me a question, tag
Speaker 1: me in it, or let me know what you think about.
Speaker 1: This is the balloon being angled to get us ready
Speaker 1: to build sentiment against China, to get us ready for war.
Speaker 1: I'd like to hear what you think. If you're just
Speaker 1: tuning in, you're listening to the Mark mo Show, we're
Speaker 1: going through some of the biggest breaking news headlines. This
Speaker 1: we can talk about the decentralized revolution. I had a
Speaker 1: lot more to cover when I come back. You don't
Speaker 1: want to miss it, all right, Welcome back. If you're
Speaker 1: just tune in, you're listening to the Mark Moa Show.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the decentralized revolution, talking about the way
Speaker 1: the world is changing right before our very eyes. We're
Speaker 1: talking about some of the latest breaking news headlines this
Speaker 1: week to show us how this is going down. Of course,
Speaker 1: we look at it through the lens of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology, because those are the three drivers, and we
Speaker 1: look at the where those three converge. Now, looking at
Speaker 1: the finance piece, we know that about every eighty years
Speaker 1: we have a financial revolution, the entire financial markets reset,
Speaker 1: and that's what we're witnessing. We're witnessing the end of
Speaker 1: a sovereign debt bubble. So all the big nations of
Speaker 1: the world have taken on too much debt. They're in
Speaker 1: a massive bubble and they're all crashing right now. And
Speaker 1: that's where we're witnessing right now. And we can see,
Speaker 1: of course, the biggest central bank in the world, the
Speaker 1: US Federal Reserve, and the head of that, Jerome Powell,
Speaker 1: has been busy trying to talk down markets and all
Speaker 1: eyes that have been on the Fed, because the Feds
Speaker 1: have been hell bent on bringing the markets down. When
Speaker 1: I say the markets, I'm talking about the asset prices,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the asset prices. So you have to
Speaker 1: understand there's a big difference between the economy and the
Speaker 1: asset prices. So you saw in twenty twenty all the
Speaker 1: businesses were shut down, the whole world was shut down,
Speaker 1: but yet asset prices went to new all time highs.
Speaker 1: So we don't have to look at the asset prices
Speaker 1: and the economy together. And the FED has been hell
Speaker 1: bent on bringing asset prices down because they want you
Speaker 1: to feel broke, because if you feel broke, you don't
Speaker 1: buy as many things. And if you don't buy as
Speaker 1: many things, their hope is that then prices or inflation
Speaker 1: comes back down. So the Fed's been hell bent on
Speaker 1: raising rates at the fastest rate in history to try
Speaker 1: to slow things down, and they've done a good job
Speaker 1: of bringing the markets down. The markets have come crashing down.
Speaker 1: The problem is that now we're at this point where
Speaker 1: the markets, the traders, the investors don't really believe the
Speaker 1: FED anymore. They don't believe the FED is capable of
Speaker 1: doing what they're going to do. And I say capable
Speaker 1: because I think at least for me and I would
Speaker 1: think for most people, we believe that the FED and
Speaker 1: Jerome Powell means what he says. We believe that he's serious.
Speaker 1: We believe that he he believes it. So when he
Speaker 1: says that he's going to raise rates and keep them
Speaker 1: there for a long time, I think he believes it
Speaker 1: and he means that. But he also said that they
Speaker 1: were going to lower rates and they wouldn't raise them
Speaker 1: for four years, and then they did after two. Now,
Speaker 1: when he said they wouldn't raise them for four years,
Speaker 1: I think he believed and meant that as well. But
Speaker 1: what happens is things change, conditions change, there's constraints, and
Speaker 1: they couldn't deal with this massive inflation, and so they
Speaker 1: were forced to raise rates. Inflation came on way faster,
Speaker 1: way harder, and ways way more sticky than they thought
Speaker 1: it was going to be. Remember, they kept saying its transitory, transitory, transitory,
Speaker 1: which it wasn't. And so when it was found to
Speaker 1: be sticky and it wouldn't go away, they were forced
Speaker 1: to raise rates sooner than the four years they had predicted.
Speaker 1: And so now Jerome Pale's committed to it. He's committed
Speaker 1: to continuing to crush the markets, and he's content, and
Speaker 1: he's committed to taking rates high and leaving them for
Speaker 1: a long time. The problem is, even though we believe him,
Speaker 1: we understand that there's constraints that will keep him from
Speaker 1: doing that. And so that's kind of where we're at,
Speaker 1: and we're already starting to see the signs of this
Speaker 1: being angled. There's a couple of signs to look at.
Speaker 1: I think one sign is that the government, the US
Speaker 1: government and the Treasury is at odds with the Federal Reserve,
Speaker 1: and so those two have different interests. The Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: wants to protect the monetary system, that's the dollar and
Speaker 1: the banking system, while the government wants to of course,
Speaker 1: not go out of business, not go broken, not default
Speaker 1: on their debt. The US government wants to continue to
Speaker 1: buy votes through social spending and not go bankrupt. They
Speaker 1: don't care about the dollar, really, and they don't care
Speaker 1: about the monetary system. That's not that's not their viewpoint.
Speaker 1: And so we have the Treasury being head by Janet Yellen,
Speaker 1: and we have the Fed head up by Jerome Powell,
Speaker 1: and they have different viewpoints, they have different goals and objectives.
Speaker 1: And throughout this interesting inflection point, and we've seen the
Speaker 1: government is starting to angle to force the Fed's hand.
Speaker 1: A couple things that happen. One, we saw the BLS,
Speaker 1: the Bureau of Labor Statistics, went and change the calculation
Speaker 1: on CPI, which is the way that we measure inflation.
Speaker 1: So if the FED is focused on bringing inflation down
Speaker 1: and they're going to commit to it until the inflation
Speaker 1: is backed down, well, the BLS the government just went
Speaker 1: and change the calculation, which just brings inflation down easy.
Speaker 1: We don't actually have to bring inflation down, let's just
Speaker 1: change the way we calculated. And that's exactly what they did,
Speaker 1: and that starts to push the Fed's hand. On top
Speaker 1: of that, Janet Yellen has been pivoting the treasury to
Speaker 1: play with the treasury market without the FED involvement. Now
Speaker 1: this kind of leaves them stuck. And now we're starting
Speaker 1: to see the FED starting to come around this. And
Speaker 1: so what we saw is that the FED meeting just
Speaker 1: happened for January and they decided to raise interest rates
Speaker 1: only twenty five basis points, when they had originally been
Speaker 1: expecting a fifty point basis hike. So what does that mean.
Speaker 1: That means they're not pivoting, but they're slowing to a pause.
Speaker 1: So as they're raising rates, a pivot would to me
Speaker 1: mean that they're now lowering rates. A pause means we're
Speaker 1: just gonna hold and we're gon we're gonna stay. We're wrapped.
Speaker 1: And so they decided to raise rates only twenty five
Speaker 1: basis points, and they said that there would be quote
Speaker 1: ongoing increases potentially, but because inflation has eased somewhat, they
Speaker 1: reserve the right to do more, but we'll see how
Speaker 1: it goes sort of thing. And so this is like
Speaker 1: a softening. The FED really wants to get this two
Speaker 1: percent inflation target, but they're already well on their way.
Speaker 1: And I think we're a combination of the direction that
Speaker 1: we're already headed, which is heading down to two percent,
Speaker 1: in addition to the way that it's been recalculated now,
Speaker 1: I think it very clearly shows you that they're about
Speaker 1: to obtain their goal. And we can have that pivot
Speaker 1: if we look at some of the things that the
Speaker 1: Fed said. A couple of things they talk about this
Speaker 1: thing called the terminal rate, and the terminal rate is
Speaker 1: how high do we need to raise the rates in
Speaker 1: order to get the markets or inflation to come down
Speaker 1: on its own. The problem is because inflation isn't like
Speaker 1: a light switch that can just be turned on and off.
Speaker 1: It takes a while, a long time for that inflation
Speaker 1: to come down. So how do they know that they
Speaker 1: haven't already achieved the terminal rate? What if they've already
Speaker 1: achieved the terminal rate, meaning the rates high enough now
Speaker 1: to bring SPA inflation down. What if they've already achieved
Speaker 1: that rate, but they keep hiking anyway, Well, that could
Speaker 1: be bad. As a matter of fact, that's my base case.
Speaker 1: Most likely there will continue to go too far, just
Speaker 1: like they always go too far. Just like they lowered
Speaker 1: rates too low and they kept them too low for
Speaker 1: too long. Now they probably raise them too high, and
Speaker 1: they probably keep them too high for too long, and
Speaker 1: they just go from breaking one thing to breaking the other,
Speaker 1: back and forth. And this is causing a lot of
Speaker 1: problems in the markets. It's also causing a lot of
Speaker 1: problems in the economy, and that's really where we want
Speaker 1: to look for things. A lot of people looking at
Speaker 1: the stock markets, but the stock markets are what we
Speaker 1: call lagging indicators. They tell us what's already happened. What
Speaker 1: we want to look at is like the leading indicators,
Speaker 1: So we want to look at the debt markets. Then
Speaker 1: we want to look at like the Producers Index, how
Speaker 1: much the manufacturers are paying to produce things, and then
Speaker 1: eventually we can look at the CPI, and then we
Speaker 1: can look at the stock market. Right. But let's say,
Speaker 1: for example, we're looking at the unemployment data. Right. Unemployment
Speaker 1: is also another lagging indicator because as an employer, the
Speaker 1: last thing I'm gonna want to do is let go
Speaker 1: of my employees. So my business is going to be
Speaker 1: bad for a long time. I can't get new debt,
Speaker 1: I can't expand I can't roll my debt over. My
Speaker 1: customer base is shrinking. I don't have enough money. I'm
Speaker 1: running out of money. Maybe I haven't paid my electricity
Speaker 1: bill this month. I keep hoping things gonna get better,
Speaker 1: and they don't, and then finally I have to lay
Speaker 1: somebody off. But things have already been bad for a
Speaker 1: long time for me. And then I lay somebody off.
Speaker 1: Now that person might get thirty days, sixty days, ninety
Speaker 1: days of severance, so they don't even show up on
Speaker 1: the unemployment numbers for months after the business already started
Speaker 1: having a problem. And so when we start looking at
Speaker 1: some of this economy data, it looks pretty bad. And
Speaker 1: it's one of the other reasons why I think the
Speaker 1: FED is going to continue to come off of this
Speaker 1: ease off of this and go into this pause reaction.
Speaker 1: If you're just tuning in and listening to the markmas Show,
Speaker 1: we're talking about the decentralized Revolution, talking about some of
Speaker 1: the latest breaking news headlines this week, and we got more.
Speaker 1: We have a big one. This story I'm super excited
Speaker 1: for because it's what free markets do. I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: back with this story and more in a minute. Don't
Speaker 1: go away, all right, Welcome back. If you just tune in,
Speaker 1: you're listening to the Mark Moss Show, we're talking about
Speaker 1: the decentualized revolution and the way the world is changing
Speaker 1: and breaking some of the latest breaking news, some of
Speaker 1: the biggest news headlines this week, and one that is
Speaker 1: big and it's troublesome and it's worrisome and it bothers me.
Speaker 1: But there's also another side to it that actually I'm
Speaker 1: happy about and it makes me hopeful and happy So
Speaker 1: what am I talking about. Well, I'm talking about the
Speaker 1: man Jordan Peterson, who is a very polarizing figure for
Speaker 1: a lot, meaning that people either love them or hate
Speaker 1: I'm like a magnet. One side attracts and one side
Speaker 1: pushes away. And that's sort of what Jordan Peterson is
Speaker 1: in the news about this week. There's two big stories
Speaker 1: that are different, but they involve him, almost like if
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson was the coin, and there's two sides to that.
Speaker 1: The first one is something that's very troublesome, and it's
Speaker 1: also telling of where we are in the world today,
Speaker 1: and that is that basically, Jordan Peterson has had his
Speaker 1: medical license been threatened to be stripped away the practice
Speaker 1: of psychology, and Ontario regulates people basically their essential government
Speaker 1: organization with a managed to protect the public from this conduct,
Speaker 1: all right, which is good, maybe they probably should. Now
Speaker 1: anyone anywhere in the world can levy a complaint to
Speaker 1: these regulatory bodies for any reason, regardless if they've ever
Speaker 1: had to direct contact with the person or anything doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: and the complaints can be deemed frivolous and dispensed with
Speaker 1: if they want. But if the college decides to move
Speaker 1: forward with it. They consider that a very serious move.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, it's so serious it's equivalent
Speaker 1: to a lawsuit. And according to the Ontario College of Psychologists,
Speaker 1: they recommend actually that you get legal counsel if you
Speaker 1: actually get one of these, So it's as serious as
Speaker 1: a lawsuit, and the Ontario College of Psychologist recommends that
Speaker 1: you get legal counsel if you have that. Well, the
Speaker 1: Ontario College of Psychologists has levied multitude of lawsuits against
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson since he started rising to a public figure
Speaker 1: about six years ago. Now, he had zero in the
Speaker 1: twenty years that he was practicing as a psychologist, So
Speaker 1: when he was actually practicing as a psychologist seeing individual
Speaker 1: people patients, doing what his license provides for and being
Speaker 1: regulated by them, he had zero complaints. But now that
Speaker 1: he's not seen people anymore, now that he's just a
Speaker 1: public figure, now the levies are piling up, which is
Speaker 1: pretty weird, right, he hasn't seen any clients and his
Speaker 1: treckerder has been good now. Jordan Peterson says that it's
Speaker 1: very difficult to communicate with as many people as he
Speaker 1: does and say anything of substance without rubbing at least
Speaker 1: a few of them the wrong way. So he's reaching
Speaker 1: I don't even know, tens of millions, potentially hundreds of
Speaker 1: millions of people on a regular basis. So when you're
Speaker 1: reaching hundreds of millions of people, and to his point,
Speaker 1: you're saying anything of substance, some people just aren't going
Speaker 1: to like it. There's this meme. It's basically four pictures
Speaker 1: and it's like a quad, four different pictures, and the
Speaker 1: first picture is a man and a wife, a man
Speaker 1: and a man and a woman walking with a donkey,
Speaker 1: And then it's a man walking with a donkey and
Speaker 1: the woman riding it. And then it's the woman riding
Speaker 1: it I'm sorry, walking with a man riding it, and
Speaker 1: then both of them riding And basically the gist of
Speaker 1: the meme is that both of them are walking next
Speaker 1: to the donkey and somebody, somebody's gonna go, what idiots,
Speaker 1: Why would they be walking when they have the donkey there?
Speaker 1: They should be riding the donkey. So somebody he has
Speaker 1: a problem with that. I can't believe these idiots, right,
Speaker 1: So then there's a picture of the man walking with
Speaker 1: the donkey and letting the woman ride it, and somebody.
Speaker 1: When you read out of one hundred million people, someone
Speaker 1: is gonna go, what an idiot? Why would that man
Speaker 1: be walking when he has a donkey? He could be
Speaker 1: riding the donkey with the woman, or he should make
Speaker 1: the woman walk. Someone's gonna say that. So then there's
Speaker 1: the opposite where the man's riding and the woman's walking,
Speaker 1: And then someone's gonna say why would that man be
Speaker 1: riding instead of letting the woman ride? And then finally
Speaker 1: they're both riding the donkey, and someone's like, how cruel
Speaker 1: these people are putting all this weight on a donkey.
Speaker 1: They should be walking. The point is is that no
Speaker 1: matter what they do in that situation, somebody is going
Speaker 1: to criticize it. And when you reach one hundreds of
Speaker 1: millions of people to what he says, if you say
Speaker 1: anything of substance, you're gonna rub a couple of people
Speaker 1: the wrong way. It's just the way it is. And
Speaker 1: so what since when did people become so sensitive? Now?
Speaker 1: We know when? In this modern world that we live in. Now,
Speaker 1: I can tell you because I traveled a lot to Mexico,
Speaker 1: Central America and other third world countries. They don't care
Speaker 1: about these stupid social issues like we do here in
Speaker 1: the US. These are like made up problems. When you've
Speaker 1: solved every other problem in society, then you have to
Speaker 1: invent new problems to be worried about. They don't care
Speaker 1: about that in those countries, I can tell you that.
Speaker 1: But for his crimes of rubbing a few people the
Speaker 1: wrong way, he's been sentenced to a course of mandatory
Speaker 1: social media communication training with the colleges quote unquote experts. Now,
Speaker 1: he says, this is not a scientific or a clinical
Speaker 1: specialty of any standing. There's been no training at this.
Speaker 1: He's supposed to do it at his own expense for
Speaker 1: an undisclosed length of time. Just whenever they think that
Speaker 1: being his training has been good, then they'll let him out.
Speaker 1: And when those re educators, those experts have convinced themselves
Speaker 1: that he's learned his lesson, and we don't even know
Speaker 1: what that is. Now, if he agrees to this, then
Speaker 1: he has to admit that he's been unprofessional in his
Speaker 1: conduct and he has said mean things. He retweeted a
Speaker 1: comment made by the Conservative leader Pierre Polivier about the
Speaker 1: unnecessary severity of COVID lockdowns. He retweeted a comment by
Speaker 1: a political leader in Canada. He criticized the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: of Canada, Justin Trudeau, he criticized other people in politics.
Speaker 1: How dare he do that? So that's where we're at today.
Speaker 1: They want him to either stand up and publicly admit
Speaker 1: that he made a mistake and apologize and subject himself
Speaker 1: to go through re education to keep his license. Now,
Speaker 1: this is what they do in communist countries when there's
Speaker 1: times of change, right when there's a cultural revolution going on.
Speaker 1: They bring the people out and they make them public
Speaker 1: spectacles and they make them publicly apologize to everybody to
Speaker 1: basically set a precedent for everybody. And that's what they're
Speaker 1: trying to do. They want him to publicly humiliate himself
Speaker 1: and apologize for this. That's the state of the world.
Speaker 1: Out On the flip side of the coin with Jordan
Speaker 1: Peterson is that we have the World that Economic Forum
Speaker 1: that's pushing these things, so equality for all and equity
Speaker 1: and all those fancy words, and the World Ecomic Forum,
Speaker 1: which is the an NGEO non government organization of non
Speaker 1: elected leaders who are somehow kind of controlling, not so
Speaker 1: much controlling, but certainly influencing the world. Klaus Schwab brags
Speaker 1: about installing all these politicians across all these governments, and
Speaker 1: he has all these corporation and business leaders there and
Speaker 1: they're using this public private partnership and he's doing all
Speaker 1: these things to influence politics and policies. And now Jordan
Speaker 1: Peterson announced that he's going to open up another one
Speaker 1: to counterbalance that. So he announced the formation of an
Speaker 1: international consortium that would serve as a kind of populist
Speaker 1: alternative to the elitist World Ecomic Forum. So a populist alternative,
Speaker 1: so it's one for the people instead of the elites.
Speaker 1: He wants to have the people have a voice and
Speaker 1: to provide a counter valian force against globalist aims and narratives.
Speaker 1: He laid all this out on appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast,
Speaker 1: telling him if there's an inaugural event it's being planned
Speaker 1: for this year twenty twenty three, sometime in October or
Speaker 1: November in London. About two thousand businesses, cultural political figures
Speaker 1: will be invited to take part in the consortium, which
Speaker 1: puts it almost on the same scale as the WEF,
Speaker 1: which is about twenty seven hundred leaders. He says they
Speaker 1: don't have an official name yet, but it's going to
Speaker 1: be to provide quote, an alternative vision of the future
Speaker 1: and an alternative to that kind of apocalyptic narrative. And
Speaker 1: what I love about this is this is what free
Speaker 1: markets do. If you don't like what the WEF is doing,
Speaker 1: if you don't like what they're trying to achieve and
Speaker 1: what they're teaching, then you have the right to go
Speaker 1: and create a competitor to that, a counterbalance. And that's
Speaker 1: exactly what Jordan Peterson is doing now. Who gives him
Speaker 1: the right to do that. Nobody gives him the right.
Speaker 1: He gives himself the right. And if you want the right,
Speaker 1: you can do the same thing too. Nobody stood up
Speaker 1: and asked Cloud Schwab to do this, and nobody's standing
Speaker 1: up and asking Jordan Peterson to do it. You can
Speaker 1: take part of it, or you can abstain from it.
Speaker 1: But either way, this could have ramifications and you should
Speaker 1: know about it. I am, for one, happy about it.
Speaker 1: Not that I'm saying this is gonna be the best
Speaker 1: thing in the world, but I'm happy to have a
Speaker 1: counter balance. If you're just tune in, you're listening to
Speaker 1: the Mark Mos show, we're talking about the decentralized revolution
Speaker 1: and as globalization is breaking apart now we have Jordan
Speaker 1: Peterson coming in to push it off the proverbial cliff.
Speaker 1: That's what I got for you today. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for listening. Until next time,