Speaker 1: All right, welcome back here 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, of course, each and every week,
Speaker 1: from a centralized world of globalism and centralization to a
Speaker 1: world of decentralization that's happening before I. Of course, we
Speaker 1: look at it through the lens of politics, finance, and technology.
Speaker 1: We're covering all of those who can have context to
Speaker 1: what's going We're looking at some of the latest breaking
Speaker 1: news this week. Some of the big news has been
Speaker 1: dominating all the headlines. You've been seeing it all over
Speaker 1: the place. Um, and I'm gonna give you a different
Speaker 1: perspective on it. But some of those news that we've
Speaker 1: been seeing coming out is of course from the big
Speaker 1: meetings in the world economic form that's been going on,
Speaker 1: and they've been talking about a lot of things. We
Speaker 1: already talked about a lot of this stuff. But one
Speaker 1: of the things that I keep seeing coming out over
Speaker 1: and over and over, and I think it's one of
Speaker 1: the more important, one of the most important things going on,
Speaker 1: is this continued pounding the table on disinformation disinformation over
Speaker 1: and over and over, and they're calling for censorship they're
Speaker 1: calling for control, they're calling for power because they want
Speaker 1: to stop this misinformation or this disinformation that we suffer from.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, New York Times publisher A. G.
Speaker 1: Sulzberger described disinformation as quote the most excess existential problem
Speaker 1: the world is facing today. That's the biggest problem in
Speaker 1: the world's facing today. Not the nuclear war that's about
Speaker 1: to happen Russia's threatening. Not not the nuclear war, not
Speaker 1: the potential nuclear war with China and Taiwan, Not the
Speaker 1: the u n s that a billion people will starve
Speaker 1: to death potentially the next two years, and not none
Speaker 1: of that. That's not a problem. No, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: that the biggest problem that the world is facing today
Speaker 1: is disinformation. Apparently. Uh. CNN host Brian Stelter was was
Speaker 1: a host for some of the panels of the World
Speaker 1: Look on mc forum and uh basically sound there. Um.
Speaker 1: And of course he's a fan of this. He's previously
Speaker 1: called for censorship under what he called a quote harm
Speaker 1: reduction model. And they led this panel on on on
Speaker 1: how Democrats could reshape the news. He's a news guy
Speaker 1: from CNN. Now I'll let you know that CNN's host
Speaker 1: Bryan Stelter is no stranger to this in this information.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, he's been confronted, accused, and
Speaker 1: actually substantiated that. He has been disseminated his own false
Speaker 1: stories many times, many, many, many times. So it's it's
Speaker 1: a kind of kind of ironic for him to be
Speaker 1: sitting there having hosting his panels where they're talking about
Speaker 1: disinformation being the most existential problem the world is facing today.
Speaker 1: Sulzburger insisted that disinformation is the reason why. I can't
Speaker 1: say without laughing. Sulzbgger insisted that the disinformation is the
Speaker 1: reason why there's a loss of trust today. He ignored wars,
Speaker 1: his own history and eroding that trust in the media
Speaker 1: through flagrantly biased decisions in the New York Times. So
Speaker 1: never mind that I lied to you over and over,
Speaker 1: and never mind that people found out I was lying
Speaker 1: to and so you don't trust them anymore. That's not
Speaker 1: the reason why. The reason why there's a loss of
Speaker 1: trust today is because of disinformation. And if you believe that,
Speaker 1: then maybe I have a bridge to sell you. Look,
Speaker 1: we know that humans naturally gravitate towards freedom and truth, right.
Speaker 1: We know that the truth find is always found out.
Speaker 1: We know that the truth will set you free. Humans
Speaker 1: are smart enough to know the truth. The truth it
Speaker 1: must be found through open, honest discussion and dialogue. The
Speaker 1: truth is found through transparency. But they're saying the reason
Speaker 1: why there's no trust is because of disinformation. No no,
Speaker 1: no no. The reason why there's no trust is because
Speaker 1: of constant lies. The reason why there's no trust is
Speaker 1: because there's no transparency. Um. The panel that they added
Speaker 1: was titled a Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation, which
Speaker 1: is pretty interesting. UM on the European Commissioner Vera Jover
Speaker 1: was on there and she was talking about how, UM,
Speaker 1: in the United States there was going to be new
Speaker 1: laws based off of disinformation. Now, I don't know how
Speaker 1: a politician from Europe has any say over what would
Speaker 1: happen inside of the United States, but yet here we
Speaker 1: are they want to say that disinformation and the broader
Speaker 1: set of misinformation of conspiracy, propaganda and clickbait, the mix
Speaker 1: of bad information is corrupting information ecosystem and what it
Speaker 1: attacks is trust. The problem is is, uh, what is misinformation?
Speaker 1: What is disinformation? And how and who verified is that?
Speaker 1: Now there's some things that are factual, sure, right M
Speaker 1: two plus two is four, although in schools they want
Speaker 1: to tell you two plus two is five. So what
Speaker 1: is fact anymore? But there are things that are fact.
Speaker 1: A lot of things are just information. A lot of
Speaker 1: things our opinion. What is hate speech? People saying mean things?
Speaker 1: What if my daughter hates chocolate ice cream and I
Speaker 1: talked about chocolate ice cream, but she hates chocolate ice cream.
Speaker 1: Is that hates speech? I know that's a little bit silly,
Speaker 1: But where does that line get drawn? Who draws that stance? Well,
Speaker 1: apparently they want to draw that line. One of the
Speaker 1: most one of the biggest proponents of cracking down on
Speaker 1: disinformation was New Zealand Prime Minister Ardine. You send to Ardin.
Speaker 1: A couple of months ago, she went to the u
Speaker 1: N calling for She made this whole presentation to the
Speaker 1: inn of why the entire world needs to crack down
Speaker 1: on disinformation and how we need to put in um
Speaker 1: we need to take away the ability for people to
Speaker 1: use the web anonymously and we need this global cooperation
Speaker 1: to stop this problem. Interesting enough, at the same time
Speaker 1: as the WF is having this meeting calling for more
Speaker 1: of this, she all of a sudden, unexpectedly announces her resignation.
Speaker 1: I'll clap for that. We'll go ahead and clap for that.
Speaker 1: She is one of the best known and longest spaces
Speaker 1: for globalism, especially when it comes to totalitarian governments. I
Speaker 1: think she was trying to win the award of being
Speaker 1: the most like Hitler, probably through pandemic. There's been a
Speaker 1: bunch of of of articles. I've seen them come out
Speaker 1: where they've shown pictures of her, like the day that
Speaker 1: she was selected in the office, and what she looks
Speaker 1: like now. It looks like she's aged like twenty years.
Speaker 1: Is it because of the guilt that she feels. Is
Speaker 1: it because of the evil is wearing her out? Has
Speaker 1: it been too much on her? Is that why she's
Speaker 1: stepping down. We don't know. I find it interesting. I
Speaker 1: find it encouraging at the same time, you know what
Speaker 1: I like to look at um, I'd like to look
Speaker 1: at the cause and effect here. Right, Each force has
Speaker 1: an equal opposite reaction. So the more governments tend to squeeze,
Speaker 1: the more people tend to push back, and the more
Speaker 1: they push back is the more the governments have to squeeze,
Speaker 1: And the more that squeeze, the more people push back
Speaker 1: and so it's apparently been too much for her. She's
Speaker 1: decided to step down. Is that a good thing? I
Speaker 1: guess we'll find out when the next person gets elected.
Speaker 1: We'll see, we'll see who's next after that. I also
Speaker 1: saw this article from the West that says that um
Speaker 1: NGOs non government organizations quote must hit back against right
Speaker 1: wing groups that we can public trust in them. Don't
Speaker 1: take it, they say, don't take it. So a world
Speaker 1: like on my foreign panelists said that in geos, non
Speaker 1: government organizations must hit back against right wing groups that
Speaker 1: we can public trust in them. I think they do
Speaker 1: that on their own. I don't think they need any
Speaker 1: right wing groups to uh two we can trust in them.
Speaker 1: They do that on their own by being caught lying,
Speaker 1: by trying to force policies that people don't want, by
Speaker 1: hiding transparency. I think they do that on their own.
Speaker 1: Richard Edelman, he's the CEO of global communications firm Edelman.
Speaker 1: He spoke Tuesday at the VENT Davos, Switzerland during a
Speaker 1: panel about disrupting trust, and he said that the recent
Speaker 1: sadness he's endured has been the deterioration of trust. Oh
Speaker 1: boo hoo. My hypothesis on that is right wing groups
Speaker 1: have done a really good job of disenfranchiseing NGOs. He said,
Speaker 1: they're challenging the funding sources they've associated with Bill Gates
Speaker 1: and George Soros. They said that your world people as
Speaker 1: opposed to actually what you are, which is local. So
Speaker 1: they've challenged the funding sources Bill Gates and George Soros. Yes,
Speaker 1: we have. We've looked at George Soros. We've looked at
Speaker 1: Bill Gates, and we've looked at their funding sources. Not
Speaker 1: the funding sources, but what they've done with their money.
Speaker 1: You don't want to be associated with those people, then
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be associate with those people. If you're just
Speaker 1: tuning and you're listening to the Markma Show, we're talking
Speaker 1: about the decentralized Revolution. We're running through the latest news
Speaker 1: headlines of the week, talking about the play by play
Speaker 1: of how the world is being reshaped. I got more
Speaker 1: headlines coming up when I come back. We're gonna be
Speaker 1: talking about more things happening in the cryptocurrency space, specifically
Speaker 1: in the financial sector, UM and fence and charges that
Speaker 1: are happening there. I got some stuff happening in the
Speaker 1: tech side of things, a lot of stuff that you
Speaker 1: needn't know about. We'll be back with that in a minute.
Speaker 1: All right, welcome back. If you just tune in, you're
Speaker 1: listening to the Mark Moa show. We're talking about, of course,
Speaker 1: the decentralized revolution. We're talking about the latest news headlines
Speaker 1: that have been going through the ecosystem this week that
Speaker 1: show us where we're going, what track we're on. You know,
Speaker 1: I saw some big news this week that I thought
Speaker 1: was pretty pretty big. It was a regarding the bitcoin
Speaker 1: cryptocurrency space overall, and a report came out of research
Speaker 1: paper UM at the Digital Assets firm, and they say,
Speaker 1: how UM circle and unit swap can solve a two
Speaker 1: trillion dollar effects risk problem. What are they talking about? Circle,
Speaker 1: as you may know, is a US dollar back stable coin.
Speaker 1: Unit swap is a decentralized exchange. So how does circle
Speaker 1: and unit swap solve a two trillion dollar risk problem?
Speaker 1: Was a big deal a lot of people. You're gonna
Speaker 1: hear people all over not you, of course, but you're
Speaker 1: gonna hear other people tell you that what does bitcoin?
Speaker 1: You know, what what use case does bitcoin have? What
Speaker 1: do we need cryptocurrency for all of those things? But
Speaker 1: here we can see that it can solve a two
Speaker 1: trillion dollar problem. It's a pretty big problem. How big
Speaker 1: of a problem does your business solve? Probably not two trillion.
Speaker 1: So what am I talking about here, Well, every day
Speaker 1: about two point two trillion dollars in foreign exchange FEX
Speaker 1: foreign exchange transactions happen, and those foreign transactions FicT transactions
Speaker 1: carry a risk that they yet to be settled side
Speaker 1: of the agreement won't meet its upgation. So every single
Speaker 1: time that transaction is made, there's a risk that the
Speaker 1: other side won't settle their transaction. But there's research paper
Speaker 1: that came out from Circle talking about Circle and unit swap,
Speaker 1: finds that a distributed ledger could solve that problem with
Speaker 1: simultaneous settlement. To see, bitcoin is trust lists. When you
Speaker 1: deal with bitcoin, you don't have to trust another third party.
Speaker 1: You can have instantaneous settlement, and that's exactly what they're
Speaker 1: talking about. And so using a combination of bitcoin and
Speaker 1: a stable coin and a decentralized exchange, we could send
Speaker 1: money through these FX markets instantly for free, nearly free,
Speaker 1: and without a counterparty, no counterparty risk, without the risk
Speaker 1: of the other side not meeting their obligation. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, we can see that there's um thirty
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year of cross border remittances happening. So
Speaker 1: people from Central America move up to the United States,
Speaker 1: they get a job, they send money back home. They
Speaker 1: send money all over the world back to their people
Speaker 1: at home, their family at home where they don't have
Speaker 1: enough money. Thirty billion dollars a year in cross border remittances. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe you don't know how this works, so let me
Speaker 1: let me fill you in. If I have family member
Speaker 1: in somewhere in another part of the world, for example,
Speaker 1: now depends on where they're in the world. For example,
Speaker 1: if they're in Afghanistan, I may not have to send
Speaker 1: them money because the Taliban might intercept it before they
Speaker 1: even get it. So that's a problem if I send
Speaker 1: it through the normal banking system or money remitted system.
Speaker 1: If they're in let's say El Salvador, for example, I
Speaker 1: would have to get in the car and drive to
Speaker 1: my bank and stand in line and pull out cash.
Speaker 1: I could take thirty forty minutes easy. Then I have
Speaker 1: to drive to the grocery store of Walmart standard line
Speaker 1: at Western Union, fill out the forms to send the
Speaker 1: money that's another thirty minutes. Let say it's a round trip,
Speaker 1: it takes me an hour and a half and that's
Speaker 1: a lot of hassle. Then um, in Al Salvador, they
Speaker 1: need to go to the Western Union or whatever to
Speaker 1: get the money. So now they got to hop on
Speaker 1: bus and they got to go to three four hours
Speaker 1: on a bus to the nearest town where they have
Speaker 1: a Western Union of money for men's office, and then
Speaker 1: they have to get to cash, and then they have
Speaker 1: to get back on the bus and ride three or
Speaker 1: four hours back with cash with a good chance they
Speaker 1: get robbed, with an entire day out of their out
Speaker 1: of their way. So here we have hours on my
Speaker 1: end um a day on their end, the risk of
Speaker 1: getting robbed, and on top of that potentially fees that
Speaker 1: they have to pay. And it sounds like a very
Speaker 1: good system, doesn't. Using bitcoin stable coins, we could just
Speaker 1: transfer them that instantly and for basically free, And I
Speaker 1: could do it from my bed, in my underwear. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't have to go anywhere, I wouldn't have to stand
Speaker 1: in line, it wouldn't cost me any money. The receiving
Speaker 1: end could receive that money immediately without having to ride
Speaker 1: a bus without having to get risk of being stolen,
Speaker 1: without having to give up. Now that's a noo savot.
Speaker 1: Or again, back in Afghanistan, they can't even get it
Speaker 1: at all because most likely Taliban will steal that money
Speaker 1: before they even get it. But using bitcoin or stable coin,
Speaker 1: I could transfer them the money directly, directly to them
Speaker 1: without anybody able to transit or transact or I'm sorry
Speaker 1: to intercept that transaction. This is a big deal and
Speaker 1: this is exactly what this research paper is saying. That's
Speaker 1: a two trillion dollar problem. Now, look, I say it
Speaker 1: all the time. We get paid for the value we provide.
Speaker 1: So if you can solve a bigger problem that affects
Speaker 1: more people, you get more money for it. If you
Speaker 1: can solve a two trillion dollar problem that affects a
Speaker 1: big majority of the world, that's a very valuable solution.
Speaker 1: But but why does bitcoin have any value? What purpose
Speaker 1: does bitcoin have? What utility doesn't have? I don't even
Speaker 1: know why we need it. You may not. You may not.
Speaker 1: To the four billion people living under harsh authority and
Speaker 1: regimes that have money trying to be sent to them
Speaker 1: on a regular basis, they understand, they care and there's value.
Speaker 1: It's a pretty big deal. It's a good, good paper
Speaker 1: that just came out. But while all we have positive
Speaker 1: progress on one side, we have negative progress on the other.
Speaker 1: We saw the Justice Department, the Department of just in
Speaker 1: the United States. They made an announcement of an announcement
Speaker 1: that came out this week and said we're going to
Speaker 1: have a big announcement. It's always so stupid when people
Speaker 1: make an announcement of announcement. Last they did UM. Finally
Speaker 1: we had announcement came out and it was major international
Speaker 1: crypto enforcement action. The Department held a press conference basically
Speaker 1: saying that there was a major international cryptocurrency enforcement action
Speaker 1: happening UM and they were cracking down on a crypto
Speaker 1: exchange called bit bits latto because they laundered apparently allegedly
Speaker 1: laundered seven hundred million dollars seven million dollars of laundering
Speaker 1: and they potentially allegedly had ties to elicit Russian finance.
Speaker 1: So the Department of Justice made this big deal Global
Speaker 1: Cooperation announcement of announcement, held a big press conference. They
Speaker 1: went in and they arrested the founder of bits Lato,
Speaker 1: um Cufftam made a big spectacle of it, hauled him
Speaker 1: in arrest of them made this big press release because
Speaker 1: allegedly they laundered about seven million dollars allegedly for some Russians,
Speaker 1: allegedly we'll see, but this was this was being prosecuted
Speaker 1: by the Treasuries Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Finnsin and I
Speaker 1: want to bring this into light because there was something
Speaker 1: known as the fencin files that were released. I've talked
Speaker 1: about it before on the show. And so there was
Speaker 1: this massive reporting project, sweeping revelations about some of the
Speaker 1: roles some of the biggest banks in the world using
Speaker 1: to facilitating international money laundering. This there was four hund
Speaker 1: journalists that that participate in this research, eight eight countries.
Speaker 1: They were nominated for a Pulitzer Prise. This is like
Speaker 1: the Legit deal. Five global banks JP, Mortgage Chase, HSBC,
Speaker 1: Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank and Bank of New York
Speaker 1: Mellon profited continue to profit from suspect transactions even after
Speaker 1: they paid fines to the u S. They used the
Speaker 1: laws that were intended to stop them, but instead it
Speaker 1: allowed them to flourish. We can see that the banks
Speaker 1: moved over to trillion dollars two trillion dollars they laundered
Speaker 1: UM in transactions UM and that were flagged by financial
Speaker 1: institutions That included five fourteen billion at JP Morgan and
Speaker 1: a hundred and one point three trillion at Deutsche Bank.
Speaker 1: They laundered for legal operations with known Russians two trillion?
Speaker 1: And who was handcuffed, who was marched out? What press released?
Speaker 1: Was there? Two trillions? Okay, but seven hundred million. We're
Speaker 1: gonna make a big deal about it. I bring that
Speaker 1: to your attention, and you can tell um. You can
Speaker 1: tell who the States trying to protect by how they
Speaker 1: prosecute crimes as the crime against the people at the
Speaker 1: crime against themselves. I'll let you be the decider of that.
Speaker 1: If you're just tuning in and listening to the Markma Show,
Speaker 1: we're talking about the Decentralized Revolution. I'm going through some
Speaker 1: of the latest breaking news headlines of the week. I
Speaker 1: got more to cover one. I come back in a minute.
Speaker 1: You don't want to miss what I have, so don't
Speaker 1: go away. All right, Welcome back. If you're just tuning in,
Speaker 1: you're listening to the Markma Show, we're talking about the
Speaker 1: Decentralized Revolution, talking about the way the world is changing
Speaker 1: right before our very eyes. And of course it's changing fast,
Speaker 1: and we're looking at through lends of politics, finance, and technology,
Speaker 1: and we're looking at some of the latest breaking news
Speaker 1: this week so we can see how the world is changing.
Speaker 1: And like I said, it's changing fast. Some of the
Speaker 1: news that I saw this week that really caught my
Speaker 1: eye is in the money system itself, and really we're
Speaker 1: looking at money, finance, and of course technology and and
Speaker 1: bitcoin and cryptocurrencies is something that's really reshaping the world.
Speaker 1: I saw this week that Russia is working with Iran
Speaker 1: on creating a gold backed stable coin. So we have
Speaker 1: stable coins that are typically pegged or backed by dollars.
Speaker 1: So um certain companies like Circle for example, Tether for example,
Speaker 1: I give them a dollar, they give me back token
Speaker 1: that represents a dollar. Any given time, I could give
Speaker 1: them back the token and they give me back my dollar.
Speaker 1: That's how the dollar and the goals were supposed to work.
Speaker 1: I put my gold into a bank, at the bank
Speaker 1: gave me a token, a certificate back, and then whenever
Speaker 1: I want to give that certificate back, I get my
Speaker 1: gold back. That's not how it works anymore. But they're
Speaker 1: trying to return back to that type of a system
Speaker 1: where I give them gold, they give me a token.
Speaker 1: I could use that token wherever I want, and in
Speaker 1: they given time, I could redeem that token back for gold. Now,
Speaker 1: the reason why it's important is because Russia and Iran
Speaker 1: are starting to be some major players in the world,
Speaker 1: especially when it comes to energy. Lots of countries in
Speaker 1: the world want their energy, and so by providing this
Speaker 1: gold back token, they could really help facilitate global trade
Speaker 1: a lot faster. He says. The token will be used
Speaker 1: as a means of payment in foreign trade settlements instead
Speaker 1: of the dollar, because of course Russia can't use the dollar.
Speaker 1: Russia has been sanctioned, I Ran has been sanctioned. So
Speaker 1: all these nations are sanctioned. But they're not just gonna die.
Speaker 1: They're going to continue to do trade. They just have
Speaker 1: to do it in some other than the dollar. And
Speaker 1: so here they have something they've created on their own,
Speaker 1: a gold backed token. It says that the Russian ruble
Speaker 1: or the Iranian real um could be settled with that
Speaker 1: instead of the dollar. Now, this is part of the
Speaker 1: Russian Cryptocurrency Blockchain Association that's that's trying to push this through,
Speaker 1: and we've seen other gold stable coins already before. This
Speaker 1: isn't something new. Paxso's Gold has one. It's the largest
Speaker 1: backed stable coin on the market with five and twelve
Speaker 1: million market capitalization, Tether which is the largest stable coin um.
Speaker 1: They also have what's called Tether gold. It's the first
Speaker 1: goal back stable coin, and they have a market cap
Speaker 1: of four seventy one millions. We have almost about a
Speaker 1: billion dollars in gold back stable coins just with those
Speaker 1: two alone right there. While this seems okay, it seems
Speaker 1: kind of cool if you're a gold guy, I kind
Speaker 1: of get why you would kind of like it, the
Speaker 1: reality is it's still a big problem. In my opinion,
Speaker 1: going back to a gold standard, like a sound money supply,
Speaker 1: sounds good. The problem is is that who holds the
Speaker 1: gold That's the problem. So, um, we're gonna have a
Speaker 1: gold back stable coin. I'm gonna give you a dollar,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you goals. Is gonna be back token,
Speaker 1: and you should be able to giving back my gold
Speaker 1: when I want it. But who holds the goal How
Speaker 1: do I know if they really have it? How do
Speaker 1: I know it's not faith gold? How do I know
Speaker 1: that they'll give it to me if I ask for it. Now,
Speaker 1: we all not we I wasn't alive. Americans trusted that
Speaker 1: the US government and the US banking system would hold
Speaker 1: their goal and not lie about how much gold they had,
Speaker 1: and would give them their gold back when they wanted.
Speaker 1: But in the three they found out the hard way
Speaker 1: that wasn't the case. Under Executive Order two, they seized
Speaker 1: all the gold. They made it illegal for you to
Speaker 1: own gold. Why. The reason why is because they lied
Speaker 1: about how much gold they had. They printed way too
Speaker 1: many of these paper gold certificates and they needed the gold,
Speaker 1: so they had to steal everybody's so we can go
Speaker 1: to another system like that where we have another goldback
Speaker 1: token system instead of paper, and now it's a token.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing. The problem is this, who are
Speaker 1: we trusting. We're trusting the Chinese, were trusting the Russians.
Speaker 1: We're trusting somebody to hold that gold, not lie or
Speaker 1: manipulate how much they have, and we're trusting them to
Speaker 1: give it back to us when we want it. But
Speaker 1: you know, if I've touched the stove one time and
Speaker 1: burn my hand, I probably don't want to touch the
Speaker 1: stove again, why would I want to trust another goldback
Speaker 1: system that's already been known to fail? And of course
Speaker 1: the answer is I wouldn't, which is why I don't
Speaker 1: really see this as being a good solution, potentially temporary solution,
Speaker 1: but not a good long term solution. Some other tech
Speaker 1: news I saw this week, we saw TikTok, which is
Speaker 1: potentially on its way to being banned in the United States.
Speaker 1: I don't have enough of opinion one way or another.
Speaker 1: Apparently it's a big spy network for the CCP Common
Speaker 1: Chinese Party. Apparently they're using it dumbed down UM the
Speaker 1: people in the United States. UM. In China they only
Speaker 1: show them good educational, uplifting content, but in the US
Speaker 1: they show them horrible, degrading, dumbing down content. Apparently, on
Speaker 1: top of that, they turn everybody's phone into a spy
Speaker 1: network phone, which is why I believe all members of
Speaker 1: the government now are banned from installing TikTok on their phone.
Speaker 1: Under President Trump, they tried to ban TikTok, make it
Speaker 1: legal for United States citizens, and it's still being kicked around.
Speaker 1: Of Course, TikTok, the Chinese company, doesn't want to be banned.
Speaker 1: They probably want to continue spying on people. UM. I
Speaker 1: do have a TikTok account, by the way, UM so
Speaker 1: if you're on TikTok, go ahead and give me a follow.
Speaker 1: Just search Mark Moss on TikTok. I do not have
Speaker 1: TikTok installed on my phone on my phone, however, so UM,
Speaker 1: I let my team deal with that. I haven't looked
Speaker 1: into it enough, but I'm not taking the risk. However,
Speaker 1: TikTok says that they've changed their ways. They want to
Speaker 1: be better, they want to comply. They want to make
Speaker 1: sure that they are transparent, they want to make sure
Speaker 1: that they are trustworthy, and so they've proposed a one
Speaker 1: point five billion dollar plan to US lawmakers to ease
Speaker 1: their national security concerns. So apparently they want to spend
Speaker 1: a billion and a half dollars to increase transparency. They
Speaker 1: want to reorganize how it operates in the United States,
Speaker 1: and so they can address these national security concerns. Um.
Speaker 1: So we'll see if that happens. Um. You know, these
Speaker 1: are these are tricky situations right there, tricky situations. It's
Speaker 1: like we're supposed to be the land of the free.
Speaker 1: I should be free to download an app and use
Speaker 1: it if I want, the US government shouldn't get involved
Speaker 1: and tell me what I can and can't have on
Speaker 1: my phone. On the same time, I suppose the government
Speaker 1: should be protecting us from you know, harm, They should
Speaker 1: be protecting us from foreign invasion from sure is spine
Speaker 1: through our phones? Is that a national security breach? I
Speaker 1: don't know. These are These are tough questions that I
Speaker 1: don't have the answers for, but I do think it's
Speaker 1: I think I do think it's interesting that, uh, they're
Speaker 1: they're trying to spend this money to see if they
Speaker 1: can stay in the country. So we'll see how that
Speaker 1: plays out. Um And other news that I saw this
Speaker 1: week that I thought was very interesting is something I
Speaker 1: haven't quite talked about here much on the radio. What's
Speaker 1: what's happening with his chat GPT? Now? I did do
Speaker 1: a video on my main YouTube channel talking about open
Speaker 1: AI and chat GPT. So if you want to know
Speaker 1: a whole my whole thought process on this and including
Speaker 1: very specific ways on how you can use it, including
Speaker 1: prompts and so forth, check out my main YouTube channel,
Speaker 1: Mark Moss, and just look at that video I did
Speaker 1: on chat GPT. You'll find it on AI UM. But
Speaker 1: I think what's interesting is that Microsoft is betting really, really,
Speaker 1: really big on this. They've invested already a few billion
Speaker 1: dollars to trying to invest another ten billion dollars in
Speaker 1: this open AI. And I think with open AI, or
Speaker 1: any AI for that matter, is it's only as good
Speaker 1: as the information that it's been fed. And so all
Speaker 1: it does is it learns from its experiences what it's
Speaker 1: been fed, just like anybody learns. Right If your kid
Speaker 1: has only learned, has only grown up in this area
Speaker 1: and only ever known this, then that's all they can
Speaker 1: draw experiences from, which is part of the reason why
Speaker 1: we should continue to broaden our horizons and read books
Speaker 1: and so forth. But who controls the AI, Who's the
Speaker 1: one that's fed up the information? What type of information
Speaker 1: has been given? Is it right leaning? Is it left leaning?
Speaker 1: Is it woke? Is it not woke? And these are
Speaker 1: all important questions. If everybody is using this AI to
Speaker 1: write content, to write articles, to write blogs, to be experts,
Speaker 1: but it was all written from one viewpoint, how does
Speaker 1: that start to shift the world. These are important questions
Speaker 1: that need to be figured out. And it doesn't make
Speaker 1: me feel warm and fuzzy inside to see Bill Gates,
Speaker 1: Microsoft wanting to be the largest shareholder. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, if they get the ten billion dollars in,
Speaker 1: there will be approximately fifty owners of the open AI.
Speaker 1: Something to keep an eye on. Will be covering more
Speaker 1: in detail. If you just tune in, you're listening to
Speaker 1: the Mark Mo Show. We're talking about the decentralized revolution.
Speaker 1: AI is centralized. Bitcoin is decentralized. There's a big difference.
Speaker 1: I got more news headlines coming up when I come back,
Speaker 1: talking about um Man, some of these things the Biden
Speaker 1: administration is doing, um and what's happened over in Britain.
Speaker 1: You don't want to miss this. We're back with more
Speaker 1: in a minute. Don't go away. I'll going back, all right,
Speaker 1: Welcome back. If youre just tune in, you're listening to
Speaker 1: the Mark Mo Show, we're talking about the decentralized revolution.
Speaker 1: Of course, each and every week, make sure to tune
Speaker 1: in with me. If you're not driving, you could pull
Speaker 1: out your phone and put a calendar reminder in right
Speaker 1: now to join me each and every week at the
Speaker 1: same time on this same channel. And if you miss me,
Speaker 1: don't worry. I got your back. You can check me
Speaker 1: out on the podcast. Just go to your favorite podcast
Speaker 1: player and search the Mark Moa show. You'll find me there.
Speaker 1: And if you'd like to see me, you can watch
Speaker 1: me on my on YouTube to search Market Disruptors and
Speaker 1: you can watch all these archive there. You can watch
Speaker 1: it and listen to it at the same time. I
Speaker 1: have more stories coming up. Oh, by the way, and
Speaker 1: uh for the daily play by play. If you missed
Speaker 1: me throughout the week, you can catch them on social
Speaker 1: media at one Mark Moss. That's at one Mark Moss.
Speaker 1: You know a couple of things I saw this week
Speaker 1: talking about this decentralized revolution, talking about how centralization continues
Speaker 1: to get bigger and bigger and bigger. Rothbard framed it
Speaker 1: up in his book called The State. And in the
Speaker 1: book The State, which by the way, is a booklet
Speaker 1: and you can read it in about an hour, and
Speaker 1: I think you can buy it on Amazon for like
Speaker 1: five or six bucks. You could probably download it for
Speaker 1: free on mesas dot org and my scs dot org,
Speaker 1: or you can buy it on Amazon five six bucks.
Speaker 1: I would highly recommend you read it. It's five or
Speaker 1: six bucks, it's an hour, it's worth your time. But
Speaker 1: he talks about the state. What is the state? And
Speaker 1: he says that the state. First of all, the state
Speaker 1: is nothing. Uh that we are individuals collectively as individuals
Speaker 1: were the state, but the state is nothing on its own.
Speaker 1: It's just a collection of individuals. But he says that
Speaker 1: the state, once it starts to grow, the goal and
Speaker 1: the purpose of the state is to get bigger. The
Speaker 1: goal and the purpose of the state is to protect
Speaker 1: itself and defend itself and again, always get bigger. What's
Speaker 1: the purpose of a business to grow, It's purpose of
Speaker 1: the state to grow. And so as the state continues
Speaker 1: to grow, it continues to become more oppressive. You hire lawmakers.
Speaker 1: What do lawmakers do? Oh, that's right, they make laws. Well,
Speaker 1: if they're doing a good job, they have to be
Speaker 1: making laws, right, So we get more and more laws
Speaker 1: of state has to get more oppressive until the point
Speaker 1: where they control every single aspect of your life. Arbitrary laws,
Speaker 1: stupid laws, laws that don't even make any sense, but
Speaker 1: their lawmakers. So in order to do their job, they
Speaker 1: gotta make laws. And so we saw this week some
Speaker 1: of some of the big news that we're going around,
Speaker 1: two big ones that were just insane? Is Biden the
Speaker 1: Biden admins war on gas stoves? Yeah, gas stoves? Are
Speaker 1: you kidding me? Like they don't want us to have
Speaker 1: an open flame to cook on it anymore. I believe
Speaker 1: the oldest way in the history of the world that
Speaker 1: we've ever cooked was on fire, and we still use
Speaker 1: fire today. I believe cooking. I'm not a chef, but
Speaker 1: I believe that cooking on fire is still the best
Speaker 1: way to cook today. My grill uses fire, and my
Speaker 1: stove uses fire. My my wife hates the electric stove
Speaker 1: because it doesn't get hot enough, it doesn't heat up
Speaker 1: fast enough, and it's not efficient. We have natural gas.
Speaker 1: It's natural, it's abundant, and it's cheap. Gas seems to
Speaker 1: be the best way to cook on the flame. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna sit here and talk about the technical
Speaker 1: differences of electric versus heat flame. I don't really care
Speaker 1: about that. The point that I want to make here
Speaker 1: is if you have a government that wants to get
Speaker 1: so big and they want to tell you what type
Speaker 1: of heat you can cook your food over, that government
Speaker 1: has gotten too big. That's the point. Now. I don't
Speaker 1: care what the reason it is. And I've seen a
Speaker 1: bunch of different reasonings. You got AOC saying it's because
Speaker 1: that the that the gas flame is bad for you. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: heart disease is the number one killer in America, the
Speaker 1: number one killer in America, and that's mostly because of
Speaker 1: our food. We could talk about the glyphosate, we could
Speaker 1: talk about the GMOs, we could talk about the pesticides
Speaker 1: on our food that are killing people. Oh no, let's
Speaker 1: not talk about let's just talk about the gas being bad.
Speaker 1: They're talking about it's for the environment. Look again, I'm
Speaker 1: not here to debate the intricacies of gas versus electric heat.
Speaker 1: I'm not here to talk about the intricacies of is
Speaker 1: it good or bad? Is it good or bad? Is
Speaker 1: it is it better or worse for your health than
Speaker 1: glypha states spread on our foods. What I am saying
Speaker 1: is that if you have a government that wants to
Speaker 1: tell you what type of heat you're allowed to use
Speaker 1: for your food, that government is too big. And it's
Speaker 1: not just in the United States. I saw this week.
Speaker 1: We saw in Britain. The British foods are they have
Speaker 1: a foods are so just like in the United States.
Speaker 1: Under Obama's first presidency, he appointed these oars industries ares.
Speaker 1: These are non elected individuals who basically are the administrative
Speaker 1: state that take over every single industry. So your vote
Speaker 1: to vote in a representative to go vote on your
Speaker 1: behalf means nothing because he appointed administrative state these ares
Speaker 1: that have the power over each one of these. Well,
Speaker 1: Britain also has the same thing. So Britain has a
Speaker 1: foods Are and the Britain foods Are says that they
Speaker 1: want to have a cake band at the office. Yeah,
Speaker 1: a cake band, meaning it would be illegal for you
Speaker 1: in Britain to bring cake with you to the office. Now,
Speaker 1: I know a lot of times I don't need a
Speaker 1: lot of sweets, So a lot of times, you know,
Speaker 1: we'll get a gift basket, we'll get cookies, we'll get
Speaker 1: you know, we'll have a cake. Whatever'll take it to
Speaker 1: the office. Maybe people eat it right. Um, they want
Speaker 1: to ban that. They what they say that it compares
Speaker 1: to the same as smoking in the office. So by
Speaker 1: bringing a cake to the office would be the same
Speaker 1: as smoking in the office. It says that Professor Sue
Speaker 1: and Jeb, chairwoman of the Food Standards Agency, Why would
Speaker 1: even have that? I don't know. F s A said
Speaker 1: that she only needs cake during the day because colleagues
Speaker 1: give her the opportunity to do so. She then called
Speaker 1: on office workers to refrain from the practice to help
Speaker 1: the fight against obesity. So the professor Susan Jeb who's
Speaker 1: the chairwoman of f S, a food stand agency, the
Speaker 1: person who's making decisions, is admitting so she's responsible for
Speaker 1: policy over food and she's admitting that she has no
Speaker 1: control over her own body. She has no personal agency.
Speaker 1: And she says, quote, only eats cake because colleagues give
Speaker 1: her the opportunity to do so. How dare those colleagues
Speaker 1: be willing to share stuff with her? How dare they
Speaker 1: offer her those things? And she has no agency on
Speaker 1: her own, And so because she has no agency, she
Speaker 1: needs to pass laws to protect you because you also
Speaker 1: have no agency. You see, that's how this works. All
Speaker 1: of these laws are really a projection because they're insecure,
Speaker 1: because they're done lazy, stupid or fat or whatever. Because
Speaker 1: they have no self control, they need to pass laws
Speaker 1: they wish they had on themselves because they have no
Speaker 1: control and they want to pass them on you. Have
Speaker 1: you seen what the health ministers look like? Have you
Speaker 1: seen what the health ministers of the US and other
Speaker 1: countries look like. Have you seen what the health ministers
Speaker 1: of the counties look like? It came widely, it became,
Speaker 1: we came pretty widely known throughout the COVID pandemic. They
Speaker 1: are all atrocious. I would not take health advice from
Speaker 1: any one of these people. Just like her, who is she?
Speaker 1: The chair one of the food center agency admitted here
Speaker 1: that she only cake because people bring it to her
Speaker 1: and they give her the opportunity to do so. And
Speaker 1: now she wants to make a law so people are
Speaker 1: not allowed to bring cake to the office anymore. Now, look,
Speaker 1: this is one of those things where you have to
Speaker 1: think even further. So, know what, I guess there's no
Speaker 1: reason people need to bring cake to the office, right,
Speaker 1: I mean that's like dessert food. I mean, well maybe
Speaker 1: on birthdays? Should we bring you cake on birthdays? Okay,
Speaker 1: only on birthdays? But whose birthday? Only managers or employees? Okay?
Speaker 1: You know what? How about this? No cake at all?
Speaker 1: Can we can we all go to a work party
Speaker 1: afterwards the celebrated birthday? Could there be cake there? Well?
Speaker 1: And if it's not cake, then what other types of people? Well,
Speaker 1: what about food that has a lot of butter or salt.
Speaker 1: Should we be in stuff with butter? What about if
Speaker 1: it has to have fashould we also be on that. Okay,
Speaker 1: how about we only allow cricket protein? Then like, where
Speaker 1: does this go when they start allowing telling you what
Speaker 1: type of food you can and can't bring to the office.
Speaker 1: I mean again back to the same as discussing the gas.
Speaker 1: So I don't want to get into the fact of
Speaker 1: when you should have cake, youre shouldn't have cake, or
Speaker 1: what type of heat you should be cooking your food on.
Speaker 1: The point is when you have a government that wants
Speaker 1: to tell you what type of heat you should be
Speaker 1: cooking your food on, or what type of food you
Speaker 1: can and cannot bring to your own office, you have
Speaker 1: a government's gotten too big. It's easy to see that
Speaker 1: we are at peak centralization. World duckument formed, World Health Organization,
Speaker 1: World Trade Organization. You in I m F b I
Speaker 1: s the UK says you can't bring cake to the office,
Speaker 1: and Biden as you can't cook on gas anymore. We
Speaker 1: have a problem and it's time to push back. And
Speaker 1: that's why the world is changing and we're going back
Speaker 1: into a world of decentralization. It's happening. We can see
Speaker 1: the signs everywhere. The stricter they are grasping on the power,
Speaker 1: the more pushedback we have. As long as we keep
Speaker 1: pushing back on this decrepit and corrupt system, we're gonna win.
Speaker 1: If you just tune in, you're listening to the Mark
Speaker 1: Moss Show, I've been talking about the decentralized revolution. Run
Speaker 1: into the latest breaking news headlines of the week. Hopefully
Speaker 1: that makes sense. Hopefully that gives you some clarity of
Speaker 1: where the world is going. And I appreciate you taking
Speaker 1: the time. If you've missed any of it, catch me
Speaker 1: on the podcast. Just search the Market Moss Show or
Speaker 1: find me on YouTube at Market Disruptors. And that's what
Speaker 1: I got. Thanks for listening.