Speaker 1: Here comes the battle over CBDCs and the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 1: Now today you're hearing about central bank digital currencies everywhere.
Speaker 1: It's all over the New cycle, and of course news
Speaker 1: that the Federal Reserve wants to roll out their own
Speaker 1: central bank digital currency. It's such a hot topic that
Speaker 1: it seems like it might be one of the main
Speaker 1: talking points between presidential candidates in the next election. We
Speaker 1: see lawmakers passing bills to prevent central big digital currencies
Speaker 1: from happening.
Speaker 2: But do they really have the power to do that?
Speaker 1: And that is the topic of this conversation I'm having
Speaker 1: with presidential candidate Vivic Ramaswami.
Speaker 2: We're going to dig into.
Speaker 1: The censorship industrial complex and if he could be elected president,
Speaker 1: what would he do about this. Now, Vivic is a
Speaker 1: young candidate, but I'm hopeful that he might have a chance.
Speaker 2: At doing this.
Speaker 1: He's bringing a new sense of urgency. He is crazy smart,
Speaker 1: and once you listen to this conversation you might agree.
Speaker 1: But I'd like to hear We're going to talk about
Speaker 1: the censorship industrial complex, talk about the censorship of not
Speaker 1: just speech but also money through central bank digital currencies.
Speaker 1: How he thinks the power of the president could control,
Speaker 1: potentially stop central bank digital currencies, how the power of
Speaker 1: the president could stop and limit the surveillance of the state,
Speaker 1: what he would do to overhaul social media. We're going
Speaker 1: to talk about FED policy, what he could do to
Speaker 1: manage inflation, the debt ceiling, his plan to bring economic
Speaker 1: prosperity back to the United States. We're going to find
Speaker 1: out what his viewpoint is on bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, and
Speaker 1: so much more. It's an amazing interview, a very short one,
Speaker 1: a fast one, because he is crazy smart and articulate.
Speaker 1: So let's go ahead and just jump right in with Vivic.
Speaker 1: All right, Vivic, thanks thanks for taking the time from
Speaker 1: your campaign trail to come talk to me. I know
Speaker 1: you've been super busy. I see you everywhere. You're definitely
Speaker 1: getting the reps in and I love what you're saying.
Speaker 1: You're hitting a bunch of data points. So let's just
Speaker 1: go ahead and just jump right into some of the
Speaker 1: questions that I kind of have and some of the
Speaker 1: things that I think I'm kind of concerned with and
Speaker 1: my audience concerned with, and so the big topic that
Speaker 1: I see and I actually recorded an episode of my
Speaker 1: radio show the other day saying that, I think this
Speaker 1: is the single most important issue of our generation and
Speaker 1: maybe multiple generations, and that is censorship. And we're being
Speaker 1: censored in a bunch of ways, from communication, speech, our money,
Speaker 1: all different types of things. So I want to start
Speaker 1: with that, the censorship industrial complex.
Speaker 2: Amen, it's a big topic.
Speaker 1: I think it's one of the most important topics. Like
Speaker 1: I said, it seems like we went from enlightened liberalism
Speaker 1: to now woke totalitarianism. Speech, like I said, financial transactions, movement.
Speaker 1: So let's just start with the surveillance state that we
Speaker 1: have and what you're thinking about that. We saw the
Speaker 1: Biden administration put together this DHS Disinformation Governance Board. Obama
Speaker 1: has been on board, you know, in Stanford, calling for
Speaker 1: a regulation of online speech. Now there's this restrict AC
Speaker 1: that's been put forth. I think twenty five high ranking
Speaker 1: Republicans and Democrats on this bill, which to me seems
Speaker 1: like the single most dangerous piece of legislation period. What
Speaker 1: are your thoughts on that? What do you think about
Speaker 1: that moving forward?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I mean, obviously very big topic.
Speaker 4: I think that the number one unique threat to free
Speaker 4: expression in the twenty first century, particularly today is not
Speaker 4: just government directly silencing speech.
Speaker 3: Through the front door.
Speaker 4: I think the real threat is now when the government
Speaker 4: is deputizing private mechanisms to action, private actors to do
Speaker 4: through the back door what government never could get done
Speaker 4: through the front door under the constitution. So it says, oh,
Speaker 4: we're the government, we can't censor your speech. But guess
Speaker 4: what they'll do now, They'll threaten internet companies. We can
Speaker 4: go through the banking version of this in the ESG movement,
Speaker 4: but let's just stick to the social media version of
Speaker 4: this for now. We'll just threaten a private company to
Speaker 4: say that we wanted to take down certain forms of
Speaker 4: disfavored speech or misinformation or hate speech and so on,
Speaker 4: to implement through the back door what it could not
Speaker 4: get done through the front door under the constitution. That's
Speaker 4: state action in disguise. It is lurking state action. That's
Speaker 4: actually the real threat that we face. And then they
Speaker 4: go further. They give them an attaboy on the back.
Speaker 4: They give them a little bit of a special wrapper
Speaker 4: in the form of for example, social media companies, Internet
Speaker 4: companies getting a special form of federally endowed immunity Section
Speaker 4: two thirty C two protection that gives them a special
Speaker 4: cloak of immunity. So one of the ways I like
Speaker 4: to explain this to people is people get lost in
Speaker 4: the present right and then they take their partisan stance,
Speaker 4: and a very have a lot of difficulty separating themselves
Speaker 4: from their partisan perspective. History offers some interesting lessons where when, say,
Speaker 4: a bookstore owner in a case called Bantam Books to
Speaker 4: sell a book but a local prosecutor didn't like the book,
Speaker 4: what did the prosecutor say? He said, I'm going to
Speaker 4: prosecute you unless you take down that book.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: Customer who wanted to buy that book.
Speaker 4: Later sued the bookstore owner and said, you took down
Speaker 4: this book I wanted to buy. Normally, that would have
Speaker 4: been laughed off the stage because that's just a private
Speaker 4: bookstore owner deciding what he does and doesn't want to sell.
Speaker 4: But the Supreme Court said, not so fast. That was
Speaker 4: actually state action in disguise, because it was the government
Speaker 4: censoring that customer for being able to buy the book,
Speaker 4: not the bookstore owner doing it directly. If it's state
Speaker 4: action in disguise, the Constitution still applies, and there's an
Speaker 4: analogy to the immunity that government uses to coax these
Speaker 4: private companies into taking action that the otherwise wouldn't have
Speaker 4: taken to censor content. Except this related to the war
Speaker 4: on drugs. When the government wanted to fight the war
Speaker 4: on drugs, they would rather have searched and seized, you know,
Speaker 4: drugs or potential drugs off of every person they could find.
Speaker 4: But this pesky thing called the Fourth Amendment gets in
Speaker 4: the way. So they passed a law that gave railroads
Speaker 4: a special form of immunity that immunize those railroads from
Speaker 4: being sued by passengers if those passengers were searched by
Speaker 4: the railroad, even against their consent. They said, oh, that's
Speaker 4: just a private company. Again, the Supreme Court said, not
Speaker 4: so fast. If they're inducing a private company, even a
Speaker 4: railroad company, through immunity, to do what the government couldn't
Speaker 4: directly do to accomplish a government objective, that was still
Speaker 4: a situation where the private actor's conduct, the railroad company
Speaker 4: in this case, was subject to the constraints of the
Speaker 4: Fourth Amendment. So I bring that back because the threats
Speaker 4: to censorship today are mostly implemented not directly through the
Speaker 4: front door, shown up at your doorstep with the police
Speaker 4: saying you can't say something. That's what allows them to
Speaker 4: get away with saying that. Oh yes, Joe Biden speaks
Speaker 4: at the White House correspondence to dinner a week and
Speaker 4: a half ago or whatever, and I was there waxing
Speaker 4: eloquent about protecting the First Amendment. They're able to get
Speaker 4: away with the Fars because they're just doing their dirty
Speaker 4: work through the back door.
Speaker 3: Instead.
Speaker 4: Part of what I'm looking to do as US President
Speaker 4: is to disabuse ourselves of that farce and actually recognize
Speaker 4: that state action in disguise is still state action, and
Speaker 4: that means the Constitution still applies. So, you know, I
Speaker 4: know we got pretty thick there pretty quickly, but you know,
Speaker 4: time is scarce, and I wanted to get into the substance.
Speaker 4: That's how I look at it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's always that pesky document called the
Speaker 1: Constitution that seems to get in the way. As you said,
Speaker 1: I like that reference, you know, in regards to that specifically,
Speaker 1: we saw through the Twitter files it got blown wide
Speaker 1: open that the government is working directly with these corporations
Speaker 1: to do just kind of what you're saying. And so
Speaker 1: you think it's the two thirty that if you were
Speaker 1: able to repeal that take away those protections, then that
Speaker 1: would help protect the platforms and being able to give
Speaker 1: that privacy back, or not the privacy, but the ability
Speaker 1: to kind of freely speak.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would.
Speaker 4: I would make section So there's two parts of section
Speaker 4: through two thirty. There's section two thirty C one, which
Speaker 4: is not relevant to this discussion. That's the part that
Speaker 4: says these platforms aren't liable for what individual users post.
Speaker 3: Put that to one side.
Speaker 4: Section two thirty c two says that even if there
Speaker 4: are states, and there are states in this country that
Speaker 4: prevent you from discriminating based on political expression or whatever else,
Speaker 4: that nonetheless the company can't be sued under those state
Speaker 4: laws because Section two thirty C two gives them a
Speaker 4: special blanket of immunity to the company. Well, what I
Speaker 4: say is, let's make that an opt in statue. If
Speaker 4: you want that special form of immunity, you can have it,
Speaker 4: but then you're subject to the same constraint as the
Speaker 4: federal government itself, which is the First Amendment. You can't
Speaker 4: have both ways to say, you get the special governmental
Speaker 4: form of community without being subject to the First Amendment
Speaker 4: in the standards of what you do and don't take down.
Speaker 3: So that's where I land on.
Speaker 4: That is, if something is truly not protected speech like
Speaker 4: spam or hardcore pornography, fine, you could take it down.
Speaker 4: That's what section two thirty c two allows you to
Speaker 4: do without being sued. But if it's protected by the
Speaker 4: First Amendment, if it's political expression, then you can't take
Speaker 4: it down and not expect to be sued for it
Speaker 4: under states that protect that form of expression.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean it gets tricky when you say, well,
Speaker 1: what is protected and what is and so now they're saying,
Speaker 1: first it was a threat to the democracy or a
Speaker 1: threat to national security, and now it's a threat to people,
Speaker 1: you know, hate speech and things like that, and so
Speaker 1: who calls that line on what hate speech is?
Speaker 4: We have good doctrine on this, We have good doctrine
Speaker 4: on this. I think that I do hear that.
Speaker 3: Response a lot.
Speaker 4: The expression of an opinion is always protected under the
Speaker 4: First Amendment. That's the hard I mean, you can't you
Speaker 4: can't say something fraud you know, there's fraud laws that
Speaker 4: prevent you from uttering words that are false for commercial gain.
Speaker 4: There's all kinds of speech that is not constitutionally protected speech.
Speaker 4: But the shorthand version is if you're expressing an opinion
Speaker 4: it is protected. That means hate speech goes away as
Speaker 4: a category.
Speaker 1: I like that, So on the next form of censorship.
Speaker 1: And you know, I think that money is communication and
Speaker 1: expresses my communication of value for that good or service
Speaker 1: that I want. And I believe that all freedom comes
Speaker 1: from the freedom to transact. So even though the Constitution
Speaker 1: guarantees me a freedom of assembly, if I can't pay
Speaker 1: to put gas in my vehicle, I can't go assemble.
Speaker 1: If I can't buy food when I'm there, I can't
Speaker 1: assemble speech, etc. And so then another form of communication
Speaker 1: would become censorship of financial transactions. We're already seen a
Speaker 1: lot of that in the banking sector today through types
Speaker 1: of capital controls. I know, trying to send wire transfers
Speaker 1: over six figures gets a lot of problems for.
Speaker 2: Me all the time already.
Speaker 1: And now we're starting to see this get really ramped
Speaker 1: up with central bank digital currencies, and this seems to
Speaker 1: be potentially a topic that's going to be on this
Speaker 1: next platform. We see lawmakers like Ron DeSantis, Ted Cruz,
Speaker 1: Tom Emmer, etc. Kind of aggressively trying to prohibit these
Speaker 1: federal CBDCs from coming in.
Speaker 2: I guess what's your stance on that?
Speaker 4: So I'm dead set against cbdc's. I was talking about
Speaker 4: this long before it was popular to be a talking
Speaker 4: point in political circles. You know, as much as I
Speaker 4: respect a governor who wants to take action against this,
Speaker 4: this is you know, fiat currency is a federal issue, right,
Speaker 4: so I think anything short of the right actor, which
Speaker 4: is to say, the federal government putting a stop to it,
Speaker 4: you're not going to be able to do anything other
Speaker 4: than make a political point by trying to take this
Speaker 4: on at the state level. Though I don't blame someone
Speaker 4: for trying. It needs to be done at the federal level,
Speaker 4: because the federal government is where backstops our currency. So
Speaker 4: converting that currency into a digital currency, I think is
Speaker 4: something that is downright dangerous. Why is it dangerous? It
Speaker 4: allows the government to implement a social credit scoring system
Speaker 4: into how they actually erase value from your own bank accounts. Now,
Speaker 4: this is not made up stuff. I mean, look at
Speaker 4: those truckers in Canada that participated in a protest last
Speaker 4: year expressing an opinion they had their bank accounts or
Speaker 4: credit cards. Ultimately credit deny to them losing money. Government
Speaker 4: is weaponizing the financial system to implement what it couldn't
Speaker 4: necessarily do through the usual mechanisms. The usual argument that
Speaker 4: we hear in this country for central bank digital currencies
Speaker 4: is that China's doing it and that we have to
Speaker 4: keep up with the Joneses, or as I sometimes joker
Speaker 4: and keep up with the Jinpings. I think that that
Speaker 4: doesn't make sense because China's reason for adopting it is
Speaker 4: exactly what should concern us, which is power, dominion, control
Speaker 4: and punishment. It is the ability to punish individual citizens
Speaker 4: for what they say by using their wallets as the
Speaker 4: way to get them to conform. That should cause us
Speaker 4: to run in the other direction, not to say that
Speaker 4: we want to copy China and to the people who
Speaker 4: will say, well, that's going to make the dollar less
Speaker 4: competitive or less strong relative to you on if we're
Speaker 4: not as technologically advanced and having a digital option, I
Speaker 4: argue it the other way. I say, the dollars should
Speaker 4: be stronger if it can't be confiscated at the whim
Speaker 4: of a partisan government that's in power. That's exactly what
Speaker 4: CBDCs are designed to do. And so that's why I
Speaker 4: stand unapologetically and firmly against it, and I think we
Speaker 4: require a US president in this country that actually understands
Speaker 4: those issues deeply to be able to actually guard and
Speaker 4: hold the line against that excess and that over reach.
Speaker 2: H Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now, you know, with President Trump, we saw really increase
Speaker 1: in kind of this rhetoric against the Federal Reserve and
Speaker 1: sort of kind of pressure in the Federal Reserve to
Speaker 1: ease policies for the economy and things like that. And
Speaker 1: so the Federal Reserve is this quasi semi private institution
Speaker 1: that's supposed to be somewhat independent, and it seemed like
Speaker 1: Trump really started pressuring that. And so if you have
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve, that would be the central bank, would
Speaker 1: be the central bank digital currency. How does the independent
Speaker 1: central bank, that the Federal Reserve be influenced by a
Speaker 1: potential potential presidential candidate or president for that matter, if
Speaker 1: it does have the independence, Well, a lot of.
Speaker 3: That could be done through the Treasury.
Speaker 4: So the US Treasury Department is actually what's advancing some
Speaker 4: of the plans for central bank digital currencies as well.
Speaker 4: I think that the printing of money happens at the
Speaker 4: US Treasurer's the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury work together,
Speaker 4: so I think that the Treasury is in one mechanism.
Speaker 4: But then the deeper point is the Federal Reserve. The
Speaker 4: independence of the Federal Reserve is really just an artifice,
Speaker 4: you know. I think the President meets with the Chairman
Speaker 4: of the Federal Reserve regularly.
Speaker 3: I think he selects who's.
Speaker 4: Appointed into that position when terms expire. So I think
Speaker 4: this idea of independence is usually designed to I don't
Speaker 4: want to say, dupe the public, but to create a
Speaker 4: form of independence and legitimacy that doesn't actually exist.
Speaker 3: I'm not even saying that I think that independence is
Speaker 3: a good thing.
Speaker 4: I think that I don't love unaccountable bureaucrats being accountable
Speaker 4: to no one in that federal government.
Speaker 3: But I think.
Speaker 4: That that idea of independence itself is a bit illusory.
Speaker 3: And then Treasury plays a role here as well.
Speaker 4: So it's not the kind of thing that's somehow immunized
Speaker 4: from political interference. To the contrary, we see political influence
Speaker 4: all the time, and I think we could be in the.
Speaker 3: Worst of all worlds where people believe that the reason their.
Speaker 4: Money's being wiped out into their bank acount had nothing
Speaker 4: to do with politics, when in fact it absolutely did.
Speaker 4: And that's really that would be a version of the
Speaker 4: Chinese model right here in the United States, and it's
Speaker 4: not going to happen under my watch.
Speaker 3: And that's why I've.
Speaker 4: Been pretty vocal about that as part of my play
Speaker 4: form for US President.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, it's a big deal.
Speaker 1: All it all works in there together, you know, just
Speaker 1: for the audience. The head of the BIS and I
Speaker 1: want to get into some more of the global stuff
Speaker 1: in a minute, but ahead of the BIS was out
Speaker 1: and saying, you know, we don't know who used the
Speaker 1: Hunter bill today or the thousand paces today, but with
Speaker 1: CBDCs that would change, will have total control. Christine Leguard,
Speaker 1: head of the ECB, said that, you know, we could
Speaker 1: give some privacy for transactions of a few hundred dollars,
Speaker 1: but even that could be its problem because even one
Speaker 1: hundred dollars transaction.
Speaker 2: Could lead to protests.
Speaker 1: And what is she saying there, right, She's saying, we
Speaker 1: can't allow even people to control a hundred because they
Speaker 1: might not like something we're doing. It might have something
Speaker 1: to say about that. And so the total control and
Speaker 1: so it's is a very very dangerous thing talking about
Speaker 1: the FED and the quasi semi independence of that. You know,
Speaker 1: you kind of have this FED policy right now. It's
Speaker 1: sort of insane that we look to Jerome Poud these
Speaker 1: FOMC meetings every single you know, every single time, sort
Speaker 1: of like punk Saddani Phil like this groundhog. He's going
Speaker 1: to come out and tell us what the weather's like.
Speaker 1: And now we have to look at the FED and
Speaker 1: he's going to tell us what the future of what
Speaker 1: our fate is. Are they going to ease restrictions or are
Speaker 1: we going to go into recession and lose everything? Right,
Speaker 1: He's trying to crush demand, so to speak. I guess
Speaker 1: what would be your policy in dealing with the FED?
Speaker 2: I mean should it seems like they're trying to hold
Speaker 2: firm right here.
Speaker 1: They're trying to reduce demand, keep inflation down while the
Speaker 1: FED while the government is trying to increase the debt ceiling,
Speaker 1: which would only be more inflationary. But we're sort of
Speaker 1: in this damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Speaker 1: Not a very good situation to come on board and
Speaker 1: have to deal with.
Speaker 2: What's your view on that?
Speaker 4: What I propose is deeper structural reform of the Federal
Speaker 4: Reserve system itself.
Speaker 3: I mean, we have over twenty two thousand employees in there.
Speaker 4: I've said I would implement an over ninety percent headcount reduction.
Speaker 3: But not just for its own sake.
Speaker 4: It's to put the Federal Reserve back in its place,
Speaker 4: which is to have one narrow function stabilize the US
Speaker 4: dollar period not anything more than that. Stabilize the dollar
Speaker 4: as a unit of measurement. You know what, We've had
Speaker 4: our biggest GDP growth in this country during periods when
Speaker 4: actually the dollar was pegged to the gold standard, and
Speaker 4: then was actually at least kept stable by the Federal
Speaker 4: Reserve even after we went off the gold standard. But
Speaker 4: when the dollar's volatile, that's an impediment to GDP growth.
Speaker 3: The number of minutes in an hour varied.
Speaker 4: You and I probably wouldn't be talking to each other
Speaker 4: at the same time because one of us would be
Speaker 4: on the Skype interface at one point, the other one
Speaker 4: to be on a different one. That's what happens to
Speaker 4: capital allocation and economy. It's inefficient when the dollar is
Speaker 4: this volatile. And so I could go on and talk
Speaker 4: about in some level of detail, how when the FED
Speaker 4: tries to hit two targets with one arrow, inflation and unemployment.
Speaker 4: It misses both. It's been a disastrous twenty five year experiment.
Speaker 4: But what I would do the punchline, is put the
Speaker 4: FED back in its place, stabilize the US dollar as
Speaker 4: a unit of measurements, period, nothing more. I don't need
Speaker 4: twenty two thousand of year to do that. I probably
Speaker 4: don't even need two thousand of you. That's an over
Speaker 4: ninety percent head count reduction. And it's also a lesson
Speaker 4: in administration, which is that when you have thousands of
Speaker 4: people show up to do a job that they shouldn't
Speaker 4: have been doing in the first place, they find things
Speaker 4: to do and usually mess it up. And I think
Speaker 4: that's a deeper cancer in the administrative state overall. It's
Speaker 4: definitely a problem with the Federal Reserve, and that's part
Speaker 4: of why I've been crystal clear as US President. I
Speaker 4: would fix that in a heartbeat. And that's a big part.
Speaker 1: I'd like to ask a little bit more detail on
Speaker 1: how you might actually do something like that, because from
Speaker 1: my viewpoint, and I think a lot of people's viewpoint,
Speaker 1: maybe from a more of an Austrian lens, anytime you're
Speaker 1: manipulating the money supply, you're going to get this volatility.
Speaker 1: So how would you go about stabilizing the currency that way.
Speaker 4: Take a basket of commodities and peg the dollar to it.
Speaker 4: So it's like the equivalent of going back to the
Speaker 4: gold standard, except instead of just gold, you use basket
Speaker 4: of commodities, including commodities like gold, silver, nickel, and so on,
Speaker 4: but also farm based commodities, a broad.
Speaker 3: Basket of commodities. Stabilize the US dollar against that period.
Speaker 3: That's how I do it.
Speaker 2: It could work.
Speaker 1: I mean, it would put the government back into some
Speaker 1: form of austerity, which is never popular.
Speaker 4: Yes, no, but I think it would be actually reasonably
Speaker 4: popular if explained to the American people in the context
Speaker 4: of my GDP growth agenda. So I'm talking about unshackling
Speaker 4: the US energy sector. I say no to this climate cult. Drill, frack,
Speaker 4: burn coal, embrace nuclear. We're going to take the straight
Speaker 4: jacket off the American economy, put people back to work,
Speaker 4: stop paying people to stay back home. So a lot
Speaker 4: of what I'm doing elsewhere is part of a radical
Speaker 4: pro growth agenda in this country measured against that backdrop.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, this kind of reform of the federal reserve.
Speaker 4: Stabilizing that dollar against the basket of currencies actually feeds
Speaker 4: into more of that GDP growth. So I think it
Speaker 4: will be quite popular as part of a broader pro
Speaker 4: growth policy.
Speaker 1: So then the argument would be that it would be
Speaker 1: it would be somewhat of an austerity measure because you
Speaker 1: can't increase the money supply arbitrarily. However, if you go
Speaker 1: into some pro growth policies, then you could increase the
Speaker 1: growth and then you would be able to offset it
Speaker 1: that way. The unfortunately, the American more than offset it.
Speaker 4: I think that actually this would further foster that growth itself,
Speaker 4: because a lot of that spending from the government are
Speaker 4: themselves anti growth policies, directed towards, for example, subsidizing people
Speaker 4: to stay home, which itself is an impediment to GDP growth.
Speaker 3: So I don't think it's just an offset.
Speaker 4: I think it's part of a broader pro growth Agenda's
Speaker 4: an amplifier of that pro growth agenda itself.
Speaker 1: A lot of the a lot of the well, I
Speaker 1: was going to say, you know, unfortunately, I hate to
Speaker 1: say this, but a lot of the public is somewhat
Speaker 1: let's say uneducated. If not ignorant about these types of policies.
Speaker 1: They don't understand how the sausage is made. They don't
Speaker 1: understand how value is created or transferred. And so to
Speaker 1: sell this to the public at a time when that
Speaker 1: would be pulling back incentives or i just say, entitlements
Speaker 1: to them in light of a trade off of having
Speaker 1: a better future of having this pro growth would.
Speaker 2: Be very difficult.
Speaker 1: I've often thought that any candidate running on a campaign
Speaker 1: to reduce benefits to anybody's probably gonna have a slim
Speaker 1: chance of being elected.
Speaker 2: Does that, well seem like it's a threat to you.
Speaker 3: Well, look, that's why I kind of frame it a
Speaker 3: little bit differently.
Speaker 4: Democrats talk about dealing with national debt through tax increases,
Speaker 4: Republicans talk about express spending cuts. I'm framing what I'm
Speaker 4: doing is offering a better third way economic growth itself,
Speaker 4: which means we all make more money. And so I
Speaker 4: think that actually that message in a bipartisan way has
Speaker 4: been resonating quite a bit. I mean, I'm talking mostly
Speaker 4: to Republican audiences since we're in the middle of a primary,
Speaker 4: but even Independence and Democrats, I think, come along with
Speaker 4: a message where the plan is we all make more money.
Speaker 3: Through what we actually produce.
Speaker 4: And I think that that's the right way to handle this,
Speaker 4: rather than the way Republicans might otherwise handle it, which
Speaker 4: is just talking about which spending cuts we need to
Speaker 4: get the House in order. Put that to one side.
Speaker 4: Do that against the backdrop of GDP growth. You then
Speaker 4: have actually much more consensus around which to deliver that.
Speaker 3: So I think it's actually gonna be a political winner
Speaker 3: for us.
Speaker 1: We'll see, yeah, I mean, instead of having to choose
Speaker 1: one negative over another, maybe you can kind of have both,
Speaker 1: to your point, a third option in the middle that
Speaker 1: could drag it forward. So it seems like, you know,
Speaker 1: anytime a nation has gotten this high of a debt
Speaker 1: to GDP, it's always spelled disaster or a sort of
Speaker 1: teen you read on that on the brink of that
Speaker 1: at one hundred and twenty hundred, twenty percent debt to
Speaker 1: GDP level really want to get over like a ninety
Speaker 1: percent debt to GDP.
Speaker 2: The debt just drags down the economy so much.
Speaker 4: Again, there's two ways. There's two ways to play with
Speaker 4: that ratio. One of them is to make GDP go up.
Speaker 4: So that's a big part of the unleashing the energy
Speaker 4: sector putting people back to work that I'm talking about.
Speaker 3: But you're hit, You're saying it exactly the right way.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to remind you debt to GDP, there's
Speaker 4: still an ingredient there called GDP.
Speaker 3: Ye we're able to use to control for that.
Speaker 1: Sure, you know, even with the FED policy right now
Speaker 1: where they're trying to crush demand, right, And that's one
Speaker 1: side of the equation. If inflation was too high, you
Speaker 1: could also add more goods and services to the economy. Yes,
Speaker 1: you don't have to energy demand oil.
Speaker 3: Gas, etc. That's a big driver of that inflation too.
Speaker 4: So yes, we're purposefully constricting supply in the name of
Speaker 4: some climate agenda, and I think that's a big part
Speaker 4: of the problem.
Speaker 1: And then and then on top of that, what about
Speaker 1: the regulations, because regulations themselves are inflationary. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think Trump had run on a campaign of repealing three
Speaker 1: regulations for every new one that was imposed, which I
Speaker 1: think he had actually exceeded. I would imagine you must
Speaker 1: have some policy to pull back lots of regulations.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, I mean, I mean pro growth and deregulatory
Speaker 4: go handed glove together. I just think in certain cases
Speaker 4: we have to take some of these government agencies and
Speaker 4: shut them down because I think the problem is, long
Speaker 4: after the president is gone, the managerial class and that Leviathan,
Speaker 4: that beast in the administrative state lives on. That's why
Speaker 4: I'm not just focused on reforming the administrative state. I
Speaker 4: want to gut it. We will be shutting down many
Speaker 4: of those government agencies we've already I don't know finalist
Speaker 4: that we have to shut down and agencies that frankly
Speaker 4: will never come back, and I think that'll be for
Speaker 4: the better of the country.
Speaker 1: What about you, know, you are a very young president
Speaker 1: presidential candidate, which I'm in favor for. I've seen what's
Speaker 1: happened to Nel Salvador with President Bukaylee.
Speaker 2: He's done an amazing job. I feel like you kind
Speaker 2: of get this new energy.
Speaker 1: I'm afraid that we have seventy five and eighty year
Speaker 1: olds in office that are making policies on cutting edge
Speaker 1: technology that would be that the would be a massive
Speaker 1: mistake restricting these policies, specifically around cryptocurrencies and AI. I mean,
Speaker 1: you got Elizabeth Warren literally running on an anti crypto policy.
Speaker 2: Now Kamala is going to regulate AI.
Speaker 3: Oh my goodness.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I can think of no greater disaster for humanity
Speaker 4: than putting Kamala Harris in charge of AI. But let's
Speaker 4: think about, you know, the AI debate for a second.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is where I get people to just pause.
Speaker 4: What do you think happens if we apply handcuffs to
Speaker 4: the United States but China still rems free. You think
Speaker 4: you've actually, let's take legitimate risks, did you've controlled those
Speaker 4: risks or do you think you've actually made them worse? Well,
Speaker 4: if China's not adopting those same constraints, why on earth
Speaker 4: would we adopt those constraints either. Now, I think there
Speaker 4: are risks, but it's like gain of function research. It
Speaker 4: didn't stop a global pandemic, it created one. Yet in
Speaker 4: the name of stopping a global pandemic, and even the
Speaker 4: name of even having banned here in the United States,
Speaker 4: who went to China and you know, at least hell
Speaker 4: on the world thereafter. So I think people need to
Speaker 4: just think a little bit more clearly about some of
Speaker 4: these more complex threats rather than just engaging in the
Speaker 4: virtue signaling of saying something about it.
Speaker 3: I think that cryptocurrency regulation is.
Speaker 4: I mean, our existing financial markets are already burdened by
Speaker 4: a cumbersome regulatory regime. That crypto and bitcoin offer at
Speaker 4: least an alternative scaffold that we could actually learn from
Speaker 4: to understand how broken our existing security and commodities regulation
Speaker 4: infrastructure is in this country. Instead, they're running in the
Speaker 4: other direction to say we're going to ensnare or the
Speaker 4: new thing in that existing framework as well.
Speaker 3: I think it should be the other way around.
Speaker 4: I think that having an opt out system actually takes
Speaker 4: us back to the first principles that you govern the
Speaker 4: way we regulate other securities and commodities already under a
Speaker 4: broken regime.
Speaker 3: So that's where I land on that.
Speaker 1: Now, I know our times running short, so I don't know,
Speaker 1: Maybe we have time for one more question, but I'm
Speaker 1: curious your stance. You mentioned crypto bitcoin with the incumbents,
Speaker 1: as I already kind of mentioned Elizabeth Warren, I'm throwing
Speaker 1: out some name Christin Laguard, etc. And even Trump. Unfortunately
Speaker 1: we're not friends of bitcoin. And you mentioned that you're
Speaker 1: very pro making the dollar strong, and so of course
Speaker 1: having a challenger potentially would weaken the dollar, at least
Speaker 1: in their viewpoint. So I'm curious your stance on bitcoin.
Speaker 1: Are you running on a pro freedom, pro choose, pro
Speaker 1: opt out, pro bitcoin platform or do you see.
Speaker 2: That as a threat to the dollar.
Speaker 3: No, I don't see this as a threat to the dollar.
Speaker 4: And I said stabilize the value of the US dollar
Speaker 4: is what I said, So anti volatility there. I actually
Speaker 4: think that more freedom is good, and I think that
Speaker 4: this is an occasion to actually cause the existing establishment
Speaker 4: financial system to look ourselves in the mirror and ask
Speaker 4: ourselves why we're so threatened by alternatives. Instead, competition breeds innovation.
Speaker 4: I think that's actually that's actually something that those who
Speaker 4: are even strong proponents of the dollars should actually invite you,
Speaker 4: don't you know. Hardship is I say this in sort
Speaker 4: of cultural contexts, that hardship is not the same thing
Speaker 4: as victimhood. Right, Hardship is what helps you rediscover who
Speaker 4: you really are. I think that applies equally.
Speaker 3: In this context.
Speaker 4: Right, if you're having competition could be a form of
Speaker 4: hardship that's not victimhood.
Speaker 3: That can help you rediscover who.
Speaker 4: You are or should be too, in the way we
Speaker 4: run our monetary and financial system here. So that's my
Speaker 4: broad my broad posture, and I think that actually having
Speaker 4: the opt out, I think is a valuable disciplining function. Now,
Speaker 4: I think that gets complicated when you have people who
Speaker 4: have engaged in the opt out, but people who have exchanged,
Speaker 4: et cetera. Say I want to opt back in but
Speaker 4: under selective circumstances and have the best of both worlds.
Speaker 4: That's where the discussion gets cost complicated on on crypto
Speaker 4: policy and bitcoin policy. But in terms of first principles,
Speaker 4: I'm all in for having a parallel opt out. I
Speaker 4: think that's actually what holds the existing system's feet to
Speaker 4: the fire for the better.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know when you started Strive asset management
Speaker 1: and went on the went went kind of on the
Speaker 1: offensive with that, It's one thing that really brought me
Speaker 1: to you and and really having that like, let's just
Speaker 1: build the world we want kind of we can build, uh,
Speaker 1: through through a competitive landscape. Through through through, I think
Speaker 1: is a is a competitive capitalist system we can continue
Speaker 1: to push and progress and provide better and so I
Speaker 1: think bitcoin can work in that way. You know, stable
Speaker 1: coins have pushed US dollars dominance all around the world,
Speaker 1: and so it's innovation in the private market, but it's
Speaker 1: actually done a lot to accelerate and really cement the
Speaker 1: dollars position globally. We don't really need a CBDC because
Speaker 1: the US dollars stable coin market has already gotten there.
Speaker 2: So I think that's a good, good take.
Speaker 1: I know we're kind of out of time, so I
Speaker 1: guess we can cut it off there. I enjoyed it
Speaker 1: making the time, you know, so I think that.
Speaker 4: Look as a thirty seven year old and the first
Speaker 4: millennial ever to run for US president as a Republican,
Speaker 4: I've come from innovative backgrounds of having built a biotech
Speaker 4: built a multillion dollar biotech company. I you know, started
Speaker 4: Strive asset Management to compete against the ESG cartel. I
Speaker 4: don't believe that government is the only solution. I happen
Speaker 4: to be running for president, but I'm not a politician.
Speaker 4: It's part of why I actually have been trying to
Speaker 4: deliver most of the solutions I've worked.
Speaker 3: On through the market itself.
Speaker 4: Compete with Blackrock win that way, and you know, Strive
Speaker 4: aggregated over five hundred million dollars in AUM and its
Speaker 4: first three months after the launch of its first fund
Speaker 4: last year. So I believe in innovation, I believe in competition,
Speaker 4: I believe in market solutions, and I believe in winning.
Speaker 4: I just happened to be running for US president this
Speaker 4: time because I think we live in a moment where
Speaker 4: the next US president is well positioned to lead a
Speaker 4: national revival in a way that I don't think I
Speaker 4: could or anyone else could in just the private sector alone.
Speaker 4: And so I think it's the uni moment we live
Speaker 4: in that calls me into this, and I think we
Speaker 4: share a lot of your bitcoiners and otherwise, I think
Speaker 4: we share deep seated instincts about how reform of the
Speaker 4: monetary system is right over the target. And I'm not
Speaker 4: going to be hiding from that. I'm going to make
Speaker 4: this election in part, a referendum on that very set
Speaker 4: of issues. And so you know, for folks who want
Speaker 4: to support me, I appreciate that we're going to actually
Speaker 4: look into adding crypto and bitcoin as ways that people
Speaker 4: can even contribute to the.
Speaker 3: Campaign, even if it's a dollar.
Speaker 4: I want to be at the center of that debate stage,
Speaker 4: driving this conversation in the Republican Party. And so if
Speaker 4: people go to vivek twenty twenty four dot com even
Speaker 4: if you give a dollar, that would supercharge this movement
Speaker 4: and put me in a position to really elevate the
Speaker 4: conversation you and i've been having mark to the center
Speaker 4: of that Republican GOP debate stage. If people go to
Speaker 4: the website and give a dollar today, I appreciate it,
Speaker 4: So thank you for that.
Speaker 2: Man, shift the window, put some support. Let's get this
Speaker 2: conversation going. All right.
Speaker 1: With that, We'll let you go. I appreciate you taking
Speaker 1: the time, and I'm paying attention. I'm supporting you all
Speaker 1: along the way.
Speaker 3: Thank you, I appreciate it. Take care, all.
Speaker 2: Right, that's a rap.
Speaker 1: Hopefully enjoyed this conversation with Vivic like I did. Boy,
Speaker 1: he certainly brings a young energy that I think this
Speaker 1: country could use. And he is crazy smart and he's
Speaker 1: got good ideas, and of course he's not from the establishment.
Speaker 1: He's from the outside. But do you think an outsider,
Speaker 1: a young outsider like this, has a chance. I'd like
Speaker 1: to hear your thought. Leave me a comment down below.
Speaker 1: Does he have a chance?
Speaker 2: Yes or no? Would you vote for him? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: Let me know in the comments, of course, as always,
Speaker 1: give me thumbs up if you like it. If you
Speaker 1: don't give me thumbs down, that's okay, but leave a
Speaker 1: comment let me know. Subscribe to the channel so you
Speaker 1: know when I put new videos out, and that's what
Speaker 1: I got to your success.
Speaker 2: I'm out.