Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of The Mark Mass Show,
Speaker 1: where we're talking about the decentralized revolution. Each and every week,
Speaker 1: the way the world changes from centralization to decentralization, and
Speaker 1: we talk about that because if you don't understand the
Speaker 1: way the world is working, then you don't understand how
Speaker 1: to stay one step ahead. Now, while most people are
Speaker 1: wondering what the heck just happened as they watch their
Speaker 1: wealth and their freedom and their.
Speaker 2: Way of life change and disappear.
Speaker 1: Others can prepare and can benefit from what's going on.
Speaker 2: And that's exactly what I want for you. That's exactly
Speaker 2: what I'm doing.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, it's why I have been
Speaker 1: so focused on this for the last about twelve years now.
Speaker 1: And it really started as more of a selfish I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna be honest with you, from a selfish perspective,
Speaker 1: trying to watch out for me, myself and my family.
Speaker 1: But then I figured, hey, I might as well talk
Speaker 1: about it and share with the rest of the world
Speaker 1: so every people can get prepared as well. Now, like
Speaker 1: I said, we look at this world changing, and we
Speaker 1: try to look at it through the lens of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology and I like to look at some the
Speaker 1: latest breaking news headlines so you can start to see
Speaker 1: how the world is changing.
Speaker 2: So I want to run through some of those.
Speaker 1: We're going to look at what is going on from
Speaker 1: a global standpoint, specifically with NATO and how that relates
Speaker 1: to Europe, but not just Europe, how it even relates
Speaker 1: to China, what's going on over in Taiwan, and so
Speaker 1: much more, Sweeten, etc. We're going to run through the
Speaker 1: latest breaking news headlines in bitcoin and crypto. There's a
Speaker 1: lot going on there. What's going on with the new
Speaker 1: government central bank digital currency that just came out. We're
Speaker 1: going to look at some lawsuits that are happening in
Speaker 1: the tech space that have some big implications of what's
Speaker 1: going on moving forward.
Speaker 2: Of course, we're going to look at what's.
Speaker 1: Going on in the economy, specifically around job numbers with inflation.
Speaker 2: And then we're gonna look at some big.
Speaker 1: News that show how the world has changed in the
Speaker 1: United States ptifically around businesses, corporations, FTC, regulations and what
Speaker 1: I like to call the administrative So we got a.
Speaker 2: Lot to cover.
Speaker 1: Well, let's just you know, and it's important to look
Speaker 1: at these detailed headlines and.
Speaker 2: The big one.
Speaker 1: I like to start at the top because it's what
Speaker 1: influences everything else, and it's really what's going on in
Speaker 1: the world with the war. You know, however you want
Speaker 1: to look at it. You know, I know there's a
Speaker 1: bunch of different viewpoints on this, but it really comes
Speaker 1: down to NATO, right. This is where it really seems
Speaker 1: to be hinging on because you know, obviously there's the
Speaker 1: Russia Ukraine thing. The United States is the NATO's in
Speaker 1: with Ukraine, but really it comes down to Russia not
Speaker 1: wanting Ukraine to be part of NATO. And it makes
Speaker 1: sense because we wouldn't want Russia or China to put
Speaker 1: a bunch of nuclear weapons along our Mexico or Canadian border.
Speaker 2: We wouldn't want that.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, we already had a war
Speaker 1: where Russia tried to do that in Cuba and we
Speaker 1: didn't want that in Cuba. And now we have China
Speaker 1: now trying to move into Cuba and we don't want
Speaker 1: that either. And Cuba is not even on our border,
Speaker 1: although it's very nearby. But the reason why it's important
Speaker 1: to understand that is because as all of this is
Speaker 1: going on, it puts a lot of stress onto those relationships.
Speaker 1: And specifically this week we saw NATO have a summit.
Speaker 1: They met in Lithuania, and Sweden was asking to join NATO.
Speaker 1: They wanted to become part of that, but Turkey is
Speaker 1: strongly opposed in Sweden joining NATO.
Speaker 2: These things get.
Speaker 1: Pretty messy, so I try to keep them somewhat simple.
Speaker 1: But in Sweden people are opposed to kind of the
Speaker 1: Muslim movement that's been happening inside Sweden. There was some
Speaker 1: Kuran Qurans that were being burned there and so Turkey
Speaker 1: took offense to that and oppose that.
Speaker 2: Which is that mean?
Speaker 1: It's understandable, It's understandable. You know, a lot of this
Speaker 1: has to do with cultures that just don't align properly
Speaker 1: and trying to force square pegs.
Speaker 2: Into round holes, so to speak.
Speaker 1: Right, you have like George Soros is nonprofit called Open Societies,
Speaker 1: and he really wants all these different people to move
Speaker 1: all in together. But the problem is that they just
Speaker 1: don't all get along. And while I believe that, you know,
Speaker 1: I believe Jesus told us that the number one commandment
Speaker 1: is to love God and love other people more than yourself.
Speaker 1: So I believe in loving everybody. It doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: we have to hang out with everybody all the time.
Speaker 1: We should treat everybody with love and respect, everybody from
Speaker 1: the homeless drug addict to the maniac that you don't
Speaker 1: agree with whatever. We should treat everybody with love and respect.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't mean we have to hang out with everybody.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you just want to hang out with people that
Speaker 1: are just sort of like you, with the same interests
Speaker 1: as you, same you know, desire, same values, things like that,
Speaker 1: And I think that's okay in my opinion.
Speaker 2: The shouldn't benthing wrong with that.
Speaker 1: But the problem is when you have this, you know,
Speaker 1: these these forced policies pushing mass migration, and you bring
Speaker 1: cultures that are opposite of each other and try to
Speaker 1: force them together, and then it causes clashes. And that's
Speaker 1: sort of like what we've been seeing happening in Sweden,
Speaker 1: I think is and and I'm not saying it's right
Speaker 1: by any means, but it's important to understand that because
Speaker 1: if you understand that, then you also understand what's happening
Speaker 1: in the United States right now. You know, we've had
Speaker 1: millions of people come across the southern border with the
Speaker 1: same thing happening in the United States that happened in Europe,
Speaker 1: right You had all that destabilization in Syria in the
Speaker 1: Middle East that pushed millions of migrants up into Germany.
Speaker 1: France and Sweden have now caused a lot of problems.
Speaker 1: We look at what's happening in France right now. In
Speaker 1: France they've been having the riots. French President Emmanuel Macron
Speaker 1: announced I think forty five thousand, you know, additional troops
Speaker 1: to go in there and try to try to slow
Speaker 1: things down.
Speaker 2: You know, we have the situations in Sweden and that's
Speaker 2: sort of like what we're probably.
Speaker 1: Going to see at some point in the United States.
Speaker 1: I pray that we don't, but unfortunately that's where things
Speaker 1: are going. But back to the NATO thing, you know,
Speaker 1: it's really taking a turn because now not only are
Speaker 1: we seeing countries not want to be part of NATO
Speaker 1: and be the you know then it's this alliance over there,
Speaker 1: but we have Russia saying, hey, if these nations do
Speaker 1: join NATO like then we really have to step up
Speaker 1: what we're doing. And the Russian Foreign Ministry said that
Speaker 1: NATO wants to return to these Cold War schemes. Then
Speaker 1: Moscow will quote respond in a timely and appropriate manner.
Speaker 1: The Krimlin spokesperson, Dmitri Peskov, said that it was potentially
Speaker 1: very dangerous for the West to give Ukraine security guarantees.
Speaker 1: The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the summit showed that
Speaker 1: NATO was reverting to cold war schemes cold war schemes
Speaker 1: and added that it would respond in a timely and
Speaker 1: appropriate manner using all means and.
Speaker 2: Methods at our disposal.
Speaker 1: So they're escalating this to points that just don't need
Speaker 1: to be raised. I mean, the United States is now
Speaker 1: offering to send like cluster bombs over to Ukraine to
Speaker 1: continue to escalate the situation. This is a losing proposition
Speaker 1: for everybody on the planet Earth. This is potentially going
Speaker 1: to a nuclear war level, which is devastating, not just
Speaker 1: for the people that is inflicted on it's.
Speaker 2: Devastating for everybody on Earth.
Speaker 1: It's devastating for the land and Earth itself. There's nobody
Speaker 1: that wins from this except for the industrial military complex.
Speaker 1: The only one that's winning from this is the people
Speaker 1: selling the weapons.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 1: Who else is benefiting from this war? You can't say
Speaker 1: that we're going in there and saving you know, people
Speaker 1: living in some harsh authoritarian dictator regime because we're not.
Speaker 1: That's the situation they're living in. Now we're I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess the argument is that somehow maybe Putin is
Speaker 1: worse than Zelenski. But the bigger problem is that now
Speaker 1: over in China they see the same thing. And now
Speaker 1: China is looking at NATO, and NATO said that the
Speaker 1: People's Republic of China is challenging its interest and security
Speaker 1: values with its quote ambitious and coercive policies, and now
Speaker 1: this has starting to escalate how China is looking at
Speaker 1: the United States and NATO in specifically in regards to Taiwan.
Speaker 1: They said that the Chinese Mission said that China opposes
Speaker 1: NATO's quote eastward movement into the Asia Pacific region and
Speaker 1: warned that any action threatening Beijing's rights would be met
Speaker 1: with a resolute response as well. So now they're saying, hey, NATO,
Speaker 1: like you're overstepping your bounds and if you even think
Speaker 1: about coming over here, then we're going to.
Speaker 2: Have to respond.
Speaker 1: And so all of this is escalating to a point that,
Speaker 1: like I said, this doesn't benefit anybody. I was listening
Speaker 1: to Tulsi Gabbard speak at this Freedom Fest where I'm
Speaker 1: speaking at tomorrow, and she said that founding Fathers James
Speaker 1: Adams said that permanent war is always a threat to liberty,
Speaker 1: and so this permanent war that we're in is the threat.
Speaker 1: It doesn't do any good for anybody at all. You're
Speaker 1: listening to the Marcromas Show talking about the decentralized Revolution.
Speaker 2: We back with more in a minute.
Speaker 1: Don't go away, We're back, all right, Welcome back. If
Speaker 1: you're just tune in, you're listening to the Markomas Show
Speaker 1: talking about the decentralized Revolution, running through some of the
Speaker 1: latest breaking news headlines this week, so you know what
Speaker 1: the heck is going on, so that you can sound
Speaker 1: like you know, like you're smart and tuned in when
Speaker 1: you go to that cocktail party this weekend or whatever
Speaker 1: it is that you're doing. And you know, of course,
Speaker 1: we'd like to look at the world through the lens
Speaker 1: of politics, finance, and technologies. We can get a really
Speaker 1: comprehensive view, a holistic view of what's going on. And
Speaker 1: of course the technology is always a thing that's changed
Speaker 1: the world the most, and the technology the folk we
Speaker 1: like to focus on is bitcoin. It's the decentralized technology
Speaker 1: that's decentralizing the world. But as Bitcoin is decentralizing the world,
Speaker 1: we have I guess you know what they say, each
Speaker 1: force has that equal and opposite reaction. The equal and
Speaker 1: opposite reaction is the centralizing forces want to come out
Speaker 1: with their own answer to Bitcoin, their counter to bitcoin,
Speaker 1: a digital version of bitcoin that they can control. And
Speaker 1: of course that is a cb DC we talk about
Speaker 1: all the time. Of course, that's a generic term for it,
Speaker 1: right it's a central bank digital currency. But in the
Speaker 1: United States, the Land of the Free, I might add,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of pushback to central bank digital currencies
Speaker 1: because the people already know thanks to people like myself
Speaker 1: and lots of other people pounding the table about the
Speaker 1: dangers and how bad these things are. Now you know,
Speaker 1: I've been talking about how because everybody is starting to
Speaker 1: wake up to how bad these things are, because we're
Speaker 1: starting to see, you know, I mean, now we're seeing
Speaker 1: presidential candidates running out against this, like RFK, like Vivid Ramaswami,
Speaker 1: even Ronda Santist, et cetera, passing laws like in Florida
Speaker 1: and South Carolina and Texas banning central bank digital currencies,
Speaker 1: so you know, the government just will just call them
Speaker 1: something else, like CBDC sounds so bad. People have so
Speaker 1: much pushback to that, so let's just call them something
Speaker 1: else that nobody will know what that means. Now, now,
Speaker 1: I believe over eighty percent of all financial transactions, you know,
Speaker 1: are already done digitally anyway, So we sortady already have
Speaker 1: a digital dollar.
Speaker 2: And how do you know.
Speaker 1: What software, what back end, what rails that that those
Speaker 1: dollars are moving on and you don't. And so the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve in the United States has now created something
Speaker 1: called fed Now, and fed now has been going through
Speaker 1: this you know, this pilot, this testing program, and now
Speaker 1: it's been released into the wild. Now it's not totally
Speaker 1: a CBDC as most people think about a CBDC in
Speaker 1: a sense where when we think about a CBDC essenter
Speaker 1: by digital currency, it's where you and I have these
Speaker 1: new payment tokens, these new currency tokens or you know
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call them, digital asset tokens that
Speaker 1: we trade back and forth in the place of dollars,
Speaker 1: sort of like you do with cryptocurrency. But this and
Speaker 1: then we have those accounts directly with the central bank.
Speaker 1: So the central bank has the ledger. You and I
Speaker 1: use the currency units of that ledger. But in this
Speaker 1: case fed now is not that right, it's not a
Speaker 1: unit for retail consumption. This is only for the banks
Speaker 1: to be using, and it's a way for them to
Speaker 1: send money back and forth faster between themselves, to have
Speaker 1: settlement back and forth between themselves to be faster.
Speaker 2: And some of the.
Speaker 1: Ways it's faster is like, for example, right now, banks
Speaker 1: using the fed wire system can only send money during
Speaker 1: normal banking hours, which, as you know, bankers hours are
Speaker 1: like the easiest, the lightest hours that you can have,
Speaker 1: and only during those banking hours can money move. But
Speaker 1: what about when you need to send money at night,
Speaker 1: or on a weekend or on any of the numerous
Speaker 1: holidays at bank support And the answer is you can,
Speaker 1: And so fed wire is a very slow system and
Speaker 1: archaic old system. The settlement times are slow, and so forth.
Speaker 1: And now you've won from fed wire to fed now,
Speaker 1: which means you can send money now it's faster, and
Speaker 1: it happens twenty four to seven, and so On one hand,
Speaker 1: I don't believe personally that this is the big, bad,
Speaker 1: dangerous CBDC. And I know you'll see a lot of headlines,
Speaker 1: you know, the Glenn dex of the world are really
Speaker 1: pushing this to kind of scare you. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: just going to tell you as honest as I know
Speaker 1: that in my opinion, this is not a central bank
Speaker 1: digital currency, but this opens up the door to it,
Speaker 1: all right, And so you have to understand that typically
Speaker 1: these types of things, especially in the United States, where
Speaker 1: we have a say so, where the people still have
Speaker 1: a little bit of a voice, we can push back
Speaker 1: and states can ban this, right, and so it slows
Speaker 1: things downs and forcesn't reconsidered, whereas in China. Of course,
Speaker 1: China was the first country to roll out of central
Speaker 1: bank digital currency because it's communist. They don't care what
Speaker 1: people say. People have no voice. If you say something
Speaker 1: they don't like, they just give you a low social
Speaker 1: credit score and you're taking out of the system anyway.
Speaker 1: But in the US they have to do it different.
Speaker 1: So I think it's not a central big digital currency,
Speaker 1: but it's certainly opening up the door to that.
Speaker 2: It's like it's like the first stage of this.
Speaker 1: Now some of the pros of having this are that
Speaker 1: businesses could receive funds from their customers and pay their
Speaker 1: workers immediately. So it could it could simplify cash management.
Speaker 2: Some of the.
Speaker 1: Cons or it could cause some serious liquidity risks. So
Speaker 1: like for example, we saw on the you know, the
Speaker 1: banking crisis, or I say, some of the banking collapse,
Speaker 1: like with the Silicon Valley Bank. I believe like one
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars was taken out of the bank like
Speaker 1: in a day. And so with things like social media,
Speaker 1: news travels very fast, and with banking apps, like literally
Speaker 1: I can hear the news on Twitter, open up my
Speaker 1: banking app, and with a click of a button, I
Speaker 1: could just transfer my money from bank A to bank B.
Speaker 1: And it was all those people pulling their funds out
Speaker 1: at a rapid rate that caused the banking collapse. And
Speaker 1: so now if you can move money faster from bank
Speaker 1: to bank, it only increases the risks of that happening.
Speaker 1: So then what are they going to do. Well, then
Speaker 1: they have to fix that somehow. How can they fix that? Well,
Speaker 1: they fix that by putting gates and checkpoints in to
Speaker 1: slow it down. They ultimately don't want the money to
Speaker 1: move that fast, not from bank to bank anyway. And
Speaker 1: so now, well for transactions over one hundred thousand and
Speaker 1: those have to go through manual view, we're going to
Speaker 1: slow those down. And so at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: what it does is it sort of just introduces.
Speaker 2: It just introduces more control methods.
Speaker 1: But at the same time as they're fighting against, you know,
Speaker 1: the decentralized money like Bitcoin, trying to push their centralized
Speaker 1: money like a CBDC or in this case FED. Now
Speaker 1: we can see that it's really there's a there's a
Speaker 1: new case that's really exposing this. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: Kitlyn Long, who's a head of Custodia Bank, who I've
Speaker 1: also had on my show, and we have a podcast
Speaker 1: talking about this. So again search Caitlyn Long on the
Speaker 1: Mark Mas Show podcast and if you want to, if
Speaker 1: you want to check this out. But Custodia Bank had
Speaker 1: this bright idea of not doing a fractional reserve, and
Speaker 1: what that means is that instead of taking your money
Speaker 1: and then loaning it back out, they would actually hold
Speaker 1: your money, so anytime you wanted, you could go withdraw
Speaker 1: your money and it wouldn't collapse the bank. Sounds like
Speaker 1: a pretty good idea. And the Federal Reserve denied their
Speaker 1: banking charter denied it. Why well, they don't want anybody
Speaker 1: to do a full reserve bank. Why not because if
Speaker 1: there was a bank offering full reserve, then everybody would
Speaker 1: want that, and they would pull all their money from
Speaker 1: the fractional reserves and put it into full reserve, and
Speaker 1: it it would destroy the entire banking system. So of
Speaker 1: course they denied it. Well, Custodia has now filed a lawsuit,
Speaker 1: a groundbreaking lawsuit against the Federal Reserve. They filed that
Speaker 1: in June of twenty twenty two, and it is exposing
Speaker 1: this whole regime, which is pretty amazing. It's going to
Speaker 1: be interesting to watch that. Another thing I want to
Speaker 1: talk about quickly is that bitcoin has been on the move.
Speaker 1: And as much as bitcoin has been on the move,
Speaker 1: the bitcoin miners have been absolutely crushing it. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, Bitcoin is up in the last thirty
Speaker 1: days about twenty five percent, and at the same time,
Speaker 1: we've seen publicly traded bitcoin miners that have gone up
Speaker 1: by one hundred to two hundred and fifty percent, Riot
Speaker 1: Blockchains up one hundred and eighteen percent, hut Eights up
Speaker 1: one hundred and forty six percent, Mars up one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty five percent. I mean we saw Core scientifics
Speaker 1: up two hundred and twenty five percent in the same
Speaker 1: thirty day period. Bitcoin's on the move. The free market
Speaker 1: is speaking, we don't want CBDCs, we want bitcoin money.
Speaker 1: The markets are voting, people are voting with their money.
Speaker 1: Hopefully at some point the powers that be will is
Speaker 1: recognize that we're in a democracy. Well, we're not a
Speaker 1: democracy in the republic, but the people have a voice,
Speaker 1: and this is they voice their opinion with their money,
Speaker 1: and that's the way it should go. If you're just
Speaker 1: tuned in, you're listening to the Mark mass Show, running
Speaker 1: through some of the latest breaking news headlines of this week,
Speaker 1: so you can understand how the world is changing right
Speaker 1: before you varize it more importantly, so you can navigate
Speaker 1: it properly. I got to take a very quick break,
Speaker 1: but I'll be back with more stories in a minute
Speaker 1: that you don't want to miss, So don't away.
Speaker 2: I'll bear back, all right, Welcome back.
Speaker 1: If you just tune in, you're listening to the Mark
Speaker 1: Moss Show, and we are talking about the decentralized revolution.
Speaker 1: Of course, each and every week we're running through some
Speaker 1: of the latest breaking news headlines so.
Speaker 2: You can understand what is going on.
Speaker 1: And you know, in this thesis of moving from you know,
Speaker 1: big globalized central planning, centralization globalization, moving towards this more smaller,
Speaker 1: decentralized world, it's important to look at it from a
Speaker 1: bunch of perspectives, in one of which is these like
Speaker 1: very large multinational corporations and companies.
Speaker 2: And it's interesting.
Speaker 1: Because on one hand, you see, you know, specifically in
Speaker 1: the United States, you see in the European Union as well,
Speaker 1: like the government's trying.
Speaker 2: To break up what they would call monopolies.
Speaker 1: And I talk about this because we just saw this
Speaker 1: week that Microsoft, who has been.
Speaker 2: You know, accused, h sued.
Speaker 1: Many times by the government for or having a monopoly,
Speaker 1: must suit again, you know, for have another monopoly. But
Speaker 1: this time Microsoft won, and it won its case against
Speaker 1: the FTC in a bid to buy Activision Blizzard. Now,
Speaker 1: Microsoft and Activision, you know, struck up a deal about
Speaker 1: eighteen months ago where Microsoft wanted to buy them out,
Speaker 1: and then the FTC came in and tried to break
Speaker 1: them down and prevent that from happening. What happened is
Speaker 1: a district Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the FTC's request
Speaker 1: for an injunction, so the FTC tried to stop it
Speaker 1: from happening by fonn injunction. She said that the quote,
Speaker 1: the FTC has not shown it is likely to succeed
Speaker 1: on its assertion that combined firm will probably pull Call
Speaker 1: of Duty from Sony PlayStation, or that its ownership of
Speaker 1: Activision content will be substantially less competitive in the video game.
Speaker 2: Library, subscription and cloud gaming markets.
Speaker 1: So she said, look, sec, we don't think that this
Speaker 1: is true. What you're asserting to be true. We don't
Speaker 1: see that, and so we're going to just go ahead
Speaker 1: and pull this.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: The FTC, you know, the government has just gone to
Speaker 1: a point where it's just so big. There's just so
Speaker 1: many different factions, uh and and so many different interests
Speaker 1: and so many different things going on, and that's that's
Speaker 1: sort of a problem. So there's there's really no congruency there.
Speaker 1: We've seen, you know, the FTC has sued lots of
Speaker 1: people for doing things like this, and the FTC is
Speaker 1: really one of these deep state, bureaucratic administrative states, you know,
Speaker 1: agencies inside the government that really needs to be disbanded.
Speaker 1: You hear a lot about the administrative state, and the
Speaker 1: administrative state is a is a bunch of different sectors
Speaker 1: regulatory bodies in the United States of non elected.
Speaker 2: People that.
Speaker 1: Are basically there for life and have all the power.
Speaker 1: So while you have the illusion of voting for, you know,
Speaker 1: a politician, because you think that politician is going to
Speaker 1: go and change things, what you realize is that, you know,
Speaker 1: whether they're a senator or congressman or president, they have
Speaker 1: different terms two years, four years, et cetera. They're there
Speaker 1: for a couple of years to do whatever they're going
Speaker 1: to do. The administrative state is there before they got there,
Speaker 1: they're there while they're there, they're there after they're there,
Speaker 1: and they're the ones that have all the power now.
Speaker 1: Vivik Ramaswami is a presidential candidate on the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: He's been very very, very very outspoken about this. I've
Speaker 1: actually had Vivic on my show to talk about this.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to check that out, just go back
Speaker 1: to the Mark mass Show on your favorite podcast app
Speaker 1: and find their Vivic Ramaswami interview. But you know, he
Speaker 1: is a kind of approaches date head on. Now, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump talked about taking on the deep state, but I
Speaker 1: don't think he really understood what he was dealing with.
Speaker 1: Where Vivic understands what this administrative state is. And this
Speaker 1: is exactly what's going on with this FTC case. Now,
Speaker 1: what's interesting about this is at the same time as
Speaker 1: that happened, we saw that there was another case. It
Speaker 1: was miss versus Biden, and the Missouri versus Biden proved
Speaker 1: that big tech and the federal government colluded to suppress
Speaker 1: millions of people of protected free speech, you know, an American.
Speaker 1: So they basically slapped an injunction on the federal government,
Speaker 1: on the Biden administration, and said you can't go coerce
Speaker 1: these big tech companies to do your bidding anymore. And
Speaker 1: the reason why I like these two stories and why
Speaker 1: it's important to think about this is that on one hand,
Speaker 1: you see like the FTC apparently seems to be wanting
Speaker 1: to break up monopolies and prevent these monopolies from forming.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, it looks like what the
Speaker 1: government bodies and regulations are doing are creating these monopolies,
Speaker 1: and they actually want to create these monopolies. So what
Speaker 1: do I mean by that? Won't just look at the pandemic.
Speaker 1: They were literally shutting down mom and pop businesses everywhere,
Speaker 1: deeming them non non essential. At the same time, the
Speaker 1: big box stores, the national the multinational corporations got bigger
Speaker 1: and bigger and bigger. So the small decentralized mom and
Speaker 1: pop stores and businesses everywhere shut down.
Speaker 2: The big stores got.
Speaker 1: Bigger, bigger, and bigger and more powerful. Now why is
Speaker 1: that important? Well, it's much harder to control one hundred
Speaker 1: or a thousand or one hundred thousand small independent business
Speaker 1: people than it is to squeeze one single national or
Speaker 1: multinational company.
Speaker 2: It's much easier to control that. You know. One of
Speaker 2: the things that the government's trying.
Speaker 1: To achieve, a very very stupid plan that they're trying
Speaker 1: to achieve, is equal outcome. Now, I believe in equality,
Speaker 1: and we should all be treated equally, we should all
Speaker 1: have equal opportunity.
Speaker 2: But you can't have equal outcome, and.
Speaker 1: You can't have equal outcome for any number of reasons,
Speaker 1: one of which is because the outcomes that we have
Speaker 1: are based on the decisions that we make.
Speaker 2: So you have two twins come from.
Speaker 1: The the exact same family, in the exact same neighborhood,
Speaker 1: go to the exact same school, go to the exact
Speaker 1: same teachers, with the exact same.
Speaker 2: Parents, and yet end up completely different.
Speaker 1: Why because of the choices that they made. So if
Speaker 1: you really wanted to get people to an equal outcome,
Speaker 1: then what do you have to do. We have to
Speaker 1: make sure they only make the same choices.
Speaker 2: Well, how do you do that. We have to limit the.
Speaker 1: Choices they can make so that either choices they make
Speaker 1: end to the same place. And you do that by
Speaker 1: eliminating all those small choices. The other thing that I
Speaker 1: think is interesting about is is that while on one hand,
Speaker 1: as I said, the government looks like they're trying to
Speaker 1: break up monopolies, on the other hand, they want the
Speaker 1: monopolies to be there. The other thing is that it's
Speaker 1: actually the government regulations that create the monopolies in the
Speaker 1: first place.
Speaker 2: You see, it's the government.
Speaker 1: It's as I was going to talk about, with the
Speaker 1: administrative state, it's not really the elected politicians that you
Speaker 1: send to Washington that make the laws. They basically spend
Speaker 1: their time fundraising. What they do is they sponsor bills
Speaker 1: that turn into laws. Where do the bills come from
Speaker 1: where they come from lobby groups. Who are the lobby groups,
Speaker 1: that's the corporations. So what corporations do, like Amazon, is
Speaker 1: they work with the government to pass regulations that build
Speaker 1: moats that prevent other people from.
Speaker 2: Coming and challenging them.
Speaker 1: Without the government and without regulations that built these regulatory
Speaker 1: motes for big businesses, we wouldn't have things like monopolies now.
Speaker 1: In the old days of you know, railroads and oil
Speaker 1: companies and factories, maybe there was a little bit more
Speaker 1: there because it took a lot of capital to do that.
Speaker 1: But in today's digital age, we're full of decentralized small
Speaker 1: internet businesses. A guy can spin up a line of
Speaker 1: code in a couple hours using AI today and go
Speaker 1: compete against an other companies. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: Google put out a release saying that they can no
Speaker 1: longer compete with these decentralized businesses. And so big businesses
Speaker 1: move very slow. There's lots of people, lots of regulations,
Speaker 1: they move very very slow. As new people can instantly
Speaker 1: jump on a new hot idea and develop it with
Speaker 1: almost no cost today and compete, and so monopolies would
Speaker 1: automatically go away if the government would stop regulating them.
Speaker 1: But the problem is they continue to do both. So
Speaker 1: we're seeing it happen from both sides. And this again
Speaker 1: just highlights how the world is changing, really moving from
Speaker 1: these large multinational companies and we'll continue to decentralize down
Speaker 1: into smaller and smaller companies. And we're literally witnessing this
Speaker 1: happening in real time and in the FTC, in the SEC,
Speaker 1: in all of these regulatory bodies, these deep administrative state.
Speaker 1: I'm actually hosting a Twitter space with presidential candidate RFK
Speaker 1: Junior next week. Check me out on Twitter at one
Speaker 1: Mark Moss and you can join that. One of the
Speaker 1: questions I'm asking them specifically is this, I'm going to
Speaker 1: ask them spetificlarly, how do you think you're gonna ge
Speaker 1: anything done with the administrative state in place. I'm interested
Speaker 1: to hear what his answer is to that. If you'd
Speaker 1: like me to ask any other questions that you have,
Speaker 1: hit me up on Twitter at one Mark Moss and
Speaker 1: let me know what questions you'd like me to ask
Speaker 1: RFK Junior and then tune into the space live to
Speaker 1: check that out. Now, if you're just tune in, you
Speaker 1: are listening to the Mark Mass show, of course talking
Speaker 1: about the decentralized Revolution. I got a whole lot more
Speaker 1: to cover when I come back. We're going to dig
Speaker 1: into the economy, what the new inflation numbers are, the
Speaker 1: new CPI ratings, and what that actually means because the
Speaker 1: numbers are not what they appear to be. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about what's happening with the economy and so much more.
Speaker 2: I gotta take a quick break.
Speaker 1: But it'll be right back, so don't go away.
Speaker 2: I'll be back.
Speaker 1: All right, Welcome back. If you're just tune in, you
Speaker 1: are listening to the Mark Mass Show. I just took
Speaker 1: a quick break, but I'm back with more late breaking
Speaker 1: news so you can hear directly as it comes out,
Speaker 1: so you can understand what is going on in the
Speaker 1: world today. And of course we've covered a lot, but
Speaker 1: don't worry if you're missing it, just go back and
Speaker 1: check out the podcast.
Speaker 2: You can hear me over there. But you know, I
Speaker 2: want to talk about what is going on.
Speaker 1: Big news this week, the new CPI, the Consumer Price
Speaker 1: Index numbers came out. Everything is great, right, the Fed
Speaker 1: is doing its job, it's getting inflation down. Everything's amazing,
Speaker 1: right right right, I mean inflation's coming down right right, Well,
Speaker 1: inflation is measured by CPI Consumer Price Index, but there's
Speaker 1: also other things that we can measure inflation prices with CPI.
Speaker 1: Consumer price index first of all, is a very heavily
Speaker 1: manipulated number. What do I mean by that, Well, it
Speaker 1: means that over the last really since the eighties, the
Speaker 1: last several decades, the BLS, the Bureau Labor Statistics, which
Speaker 1: is who sets the CPI basket, has continued to change
Speaker 1: the basket of goods. So you didn't like the old numbers,
Speaker 1: so let's just recalculate to give you a new number.
Speaker 1: The other thing is that the FED, trying to bring
Speaker 1: inflation down, doesn't really care so much about CPI.
Speaker 2: They really care, well, they care about like.
Speaker 1: Core CPI, so it's important to understand what they're really
Speaker 1: looking at. But in regards to the CPI, which is
Speaker 1: the kind of the published number that everybody pays attention to,
Speaker 1: you know, the headline that came out is that this
Speaker 1: headline figure, this headline number shows that we're now down
Speaker 1: to three point one percent of inflation. The CPI is
Speaker 1: now three percent. It was anticipated to be three point one.
Speaker 1: It came out to be three point zero.
Speaker 2: Now why does that matter?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, the Fed has a target of
Speaker 1: two percent, and the problem was for years they couldn't
Speaker 1: get it.
Speaker 2: They couldn't get it. They couldn't get it. We had
Speaker 2: no inflation, no inflation, no inflation. They won one one
Speaker 2: on one. We have to get it up, get it up,
Speaker 2: get it up, get it up. We gotta get to
Speaker 2: two percent.
Speaker 1: Well they overshot it. They got to nine nine point one. Well,
Speaker 1: oh shoot, well we overshot it. Now let's bring it
Speaker 1: back down. So they've been trying to bring it back
Speaker 1: down two percent. The target worth three percent. So we're
Speaker 1: getting closer there. But the reason why you have to
Speaker 1: dig in a little bit deeper is because if you
Speaker 1: look at if you look at the CPI basket.
Speaker 2: What you'll see is that.
Speaker 1: Of all the things they're tracking, really the only thing
Speaker 1: that came down inside that basket was energy.
Speaker 2: Energy came down.
Speaker 1: And the reason why that's important is because what the
Speaker 1: FED really cares about isn't isn't the headline CPI. It's
Speaker 1: really caring about the core CPI. And what core CPI
Speaker 1: does is it takes that out of the equation.
Speaker 2: And so if you.
Speaker 1: Look at what they really care about.
Speaker 2: You understand that the numbers really actually aren't even that good.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, the inflation is still very
Speaker 1: high if you take the energy component out. Now, why
Speaker 1: is the energy component going down so much? Well, because inflation.
Speaker 2: Is measured year over year.
Speaker 1: So what they do is they go, well, energy was
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty dollars a barrel, oil was one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty dollars a barrel this month last year,
Speaker 1: and now it's this price this year, so they measure
Speaker 1: it from that point. And of course they're measuring from
Speaker 1: when oil was its high price.
Speaker 2: Now they redid it.
Speaker 1: As I said, the BLS changes a CPI calculation on
Speaker 1: a regular basis, and they changed it in January of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three this year, I did a video on
Speaker 1: my main YouTube channel, Mark Moss.
Speaker 2: If you'd like to.
Speaker 1: See these videos where I have charts and graphs and
Speaker 1: I outline explain this and I show you the data
Speaker 1: behind it in a visual way, just go to Mark
Speaker 1: Moss on YouTube and just you can check all.
Speaker 2: Those videos out there.
Speaker 1: But I made a video in January explaining that the
Speaker 1: BLS has once again changed there's CPI calculation basket, and
Speaker 1: that if nothing else changed, let's just say that all
Speaker 1: prices stay the same, inflation would start coming down because
Speaker 1: of that. And the reason why I start coming down
Speaker 1: because of that is because now instead of measuring from
Speaker 1: a two year comp we're only going to measure it
Speaker 1: from a one year comp. And so because last year
Speaker 1: was the peak September, we're two months away from the
Speaker 1: very peak. If you measure from a higher.
Speaker 2: Point, it looks lower. It's not a big surprise.
Speaker 1: And so as we're measuring from the high point energy
Speaker 1: oil prices inflation, it's automatically going to come down and
Speaker 1: look less. So it's important to understand, Now, what does
Speaker 1: that mean. Well, it means a couple things. One, it
Speaker 1: means that I think we're about at the bottom of
Speaker 1: where this inflation is going to be.
Speaker 2: Now I've been pretty vocal.
Speaker 1: I believe that we're seeing some of the lowest inflation
Speaker 1: we'll see for the rest of the decades. So I
Speaker 1: think inflation is still going to go way higher, at
Speaker 1: least real inflation. And I say real is because of course,
Speaker 1: like I said, they're manipulating it. We have other sources
Speaker 1: that track inflation back to how they used to calculate it,
Speaker 1: so like for example, shadow Stats tracks it, and we
Speaker 1: can see that, you know, when they were showing that
Speaker 1: it was you know, nine percent, it was really about
Speaker 1: eighteen percent, right, And that's why I say real inflation.
Speaker 1: The other thing to kind of keep in mind is
Speaker 1: that the CPI calculation is pretty stupid overall in my opinion.
Speaker 1: And the reason why I say that is because inflation
Speaker 1: affects us all differently. We're all affected differently. And what
Speaker 1: do I mean by that. Well, if you live in
Speaker 1: your parents' basement and you watch Netflix and you eat
Speaker 1: you know, frozen pizza, like, inflation hasn't even affected you
Speaker 1: at all. But if you live in like Miami Beach
Speaker 1: in a high rise condo and you send your kids
Speaker 1: to private school or you know, private college, inflation has.
Speaker 2: Hit you really, really, really hard.
Speaker 1: So it affects all of us differently, and so trying
Speaker 1: to kind of measure it in a single number doesn't
Speaker 1: really seem to make a lot of sense anyway. But
Speaker 1: in my opinion, this is some of the lowest inflation
Speaker 1: we'll see for the rest of the decade. I think
Speaker 1: energy has pretty much bottomed out at this point, and
Speaker 1: we'll probably start going higher from here, so we definitely
Speaker 1: have to keep an eye on that. But I think
Speaker 1: now is a good time to get back in on
Speaker 1: energy and plan for prices going higher. What would you
Speaker 1: do a plan for prices going higher? Well, for one,
Speaker 1: if prices are going higher, that means that you're purchasing
Speaker 1: power is going to go down. So you're gonna need
Speaker 1: more money to have the same quality of life that
Speaker 1: you have right now.
Speaker 2: So what do you do about that?
Speaker 1: Well, one, you can think about making more money. That
Speaker 1: could be one, But two, you probably want to put
Speaker 1: your money, your savings, your stored money into some sort
Speaker 1: of asset that can at least keep up with but
Speaker 1: hopefully beat the inflation rate. So what are those Well,
Speaker 1: it depends certain certain market cycles. Right now, I like energy,
Speaker 1: as we've just talked about, I think energy prices are
Speaker 1: bottoming out.
Speaker 2: Energy prices got hammered.
Speaker 1: As particularly hard because of the Russia Ukraine War, and
Speaker 1: most people thought that the Ukraine War would really put
Speaker 1: a crimp into the global supply of energy, and so
Speaker 1: prices shot way higher, right But what we found out
Speaker 1: is that that's not actually what happened. And as a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, and as a matter of fact, Uh, there
Speaker 1: wasn't much of a disruption at all. There's almost no disruption.
Speaker 1: Russia continuous sell or oil, the continue to sell to
Speaker 1: you know, India continue to find its way into the
Speaker 1: global markets regardless. And now we you know, we find
Speaker 1: out we have plenty of oil. And so I think
Speaker 1: that was a big shock that never seemed to materialize.
Speaker 1: So I would plan on, like I said, trying to
Speaker 1: divers find assets that could keep up with or beat inflation.
Speaker 1: I like energy, I like commodities. I've been talking about
Speaker 1: commodities a lot lately. I know real estate, you know,
Speaker 1: has getting has been getting hammered, particularly around the interest rates,
Speaker 1: which I think the interest rates will be coming back down.
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna be a really big opportunity there,
Speaker 1: specifically around multi family you know, commercial properties, watching those
Speaker 1: as well. So not financial advice, not financial advice, but
Speaker 1: these are some things that I'm watching and kind of
Speaker 1: waiting for h and some other news that kind of
Speaker 1: continues to hit on that which is this inflation. If
Speaker 1: you think of about inflation, really inflation is the increase
Speaker 1: in the money supply prices going up. Is the effect
Speaker 1: of the increases in the money supply, and so we
Speaker 1: can see that the US national debt has now increased
Speaker 1: by over one trillion dollars just since the debt ceiling
Speaker 1: was suspended last month, just last month, we're going from
Speaker 1: thirty one point four to six to thirty two point four.
Speaker 2: To seven in a month.
Speaker 1: Those with the recession looming, you know, workforce disability claims hitting.
Speaker 1: I mean, all of this happening, inflation raging, and yet
Speaker 1: here we are adding another cool trilli in just a month.
Speaker 1: So I like to say, you know, or the old
Speaker 1: saying is that there's only two things in life that
Speaker 1: are certain, and that's death in taxes. I'll say that
Speaker 1: there's three things in life that are certain. Now it's death,
Speaker 1: it's taxes.
Speaker 2: And it's money printing.
Speaker 1: Those are the three things that you can count for.
Speaker 1: And money printing, of course leads back to more inflation.
Speaker 2: Now we've been.
Speaker 1: Running through some of the latest breaking news headlines this week.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the markms Show. If you missed any
Speaker 1: of it, check me out on the podcast at the
Speaker 1: Mark Moss Show. And that's what we got.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for listening.