Speaker 1: Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Grodski. Thank
Speaker 1: you guys for being here again. I have to tell
Speaker 1: you that I love it when I see some data
Speaker 1: and I make a prediction in an opinion based upon
Speaker 1: the data, and then more information comes out and approves
Speaker 1: me correct. And that is what's happened with what I
Speaker 1: told you guys on last show on Monday about Venezuela.
Speaker 1: If you remember, on that last episode, I was saying
Speaker 1: to you that early polling information looked like most Americans
Speaker 1: didn't have strong feelings about the raids outside of how
Speaker 1: they felt about Trump. Like, if you like Trump, you
Speaker 1: support the raids. If you didn't like Trump, you didn't
Speaker 1: like the raids the arrest of Dictator Nicholas Monduro, but
Speaker 1: if you but a lot of people were kind of
Speaker 1: like ambivalent to form policy is not a big issue
Speaker 1: for them. I said that based upon early polling information
Speaker 1: at the time. Now new information has come out, Basically
Speaker 1: sitting there and saying, yeah, most Americans are really tied
Speaker 1: to how they feel a Trump with the access option
Speaker 1: of Hispanics. Hispanics have a stronger opinion, especially if they
Speaker 1: are Venezuela and our Cuban That is the big caveat,
Speaker 1: but overall it falls under partisan lines. Let's break it down.
Speaker 1: So new poll came out from the Washington Post. It
Speaker 1: was released on Tuesday, and it found that forty percent
Speaker 1: of Americans supported the raid the arrest of Venezuelan dictator
Speaker 1: Nicholas Mdurou, seventy four percent of the being Republicans, thirteen
Speaker 1: percent of Democrats, thirty four percent of Independence, forty two
Speaker 1: percent opposed the raid, seventy six percent of Democrats, ten
Speaker 1: percent of Republicans, and forty two percent of independence. Basically,
Speaker 1: the Democrats and Republicans mirror each other, right, It's strictly
Speaker 1: a partisanship, almost entirely Independence, lean a little against it,
Speaker 1: but not that heavily. And independence. Once again, it's hard
Speaker 1: to pull independence because a lot of them usually always
Speaker 1: vote one way or the other. They either always vote
Speaker 1: Democrats they say they're an independent, or they alway vote
Speaker 1: Republican they say they're independent, but they're pretty partisan. So anyway,
Speaker 1: very very evenly split. Eighteen percent had really no opinion
Speaker 1: in putting twenty four percent of independence, which I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people are in this country, not a majority,
Speaker 1: but a big slice really don't have an opinion. They're
Speaker 1: not as highly informed on Venezuelan policy. Two. And that
Speaker 1: follows a similar poll that Washington Post pole, which I'll
Speaker 1: come back to in a second. That follows another poll
Speaker 1: that also came out on Tuesday from Reuters, and the
Speaker 1: Reuter's poll found that thirty seven percent of Americans supported
Speaker 1: the arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicholas Maduro, thirty eight percent
Speaker 1: oppose it, almost exactly the same as the Washington Post
Speaker 1: lower numbers, but follows the same trajectory. Now, the Ruters
Speaker 1: happened to have polled this question several months ago, asking
Speaker 1: would you support a future military intervention into Venezuela, And
Speaker 1: that poll had forty seven percent of pose twenty one
Speaker 1: percent support. Because I think when you hear when in
Speaker 1: an American hearers about a military operation, they think Iraq, Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: They were thinking, we're going to lose thousands of people,
Speaker 1: We're going to have a decade of violence, We're going
Speaker 1: to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for very ungrateful
Speaker 1: people who will end up coming to our own country
Speaker 1: as refugees. Right, the fact that it was a fall
Speaker 1: is the executed campaign where no one died, it didn't cost,
Speaker 1: you know, a trillion dollars. I think that that changed
Speaker 1: people's opinion about it pretty pretty spectacular. After the arrest
Speaker 1: of Nicholas Mondoro, the poll found that thirty seven percent
Speaker 1: supported the operation thirty percent of pose. That's a twenty
Speaker 1: five point swing in favor of the operation after it
Speaker 1: was executed. Because of this perception that show is it
Speaker 1: was a very successful thing. There was another poll taken
Speaker 1: by company by Aliga Survey. I had not heard of
Speaker 1: them before, so I don't know how accurate they are,
Speaker 1: but Alika Survey and it asked Latin Americans how they
Speaker 1: felt about the raid. Eighty seven percent of Costa Ricans,
Speaker 1: seventy seven seventy eight percent of Chilean, seventy seven percent
Speaker 1: of Colombian, seventy six percent of Donians, seventy four percent
Speaker 1: of Peruvians. All of Latin America wildly approves, wildly approves
Speaker 1: of it. The only country where it's on the margin
Speaker 1: is Mexico, which remember, voted for a socialist president not
Speaker 1: that long ago. But aside from Mexico, the rest of
Speaker 1: Latin America very supportive of what President Trump has done.
Speaker 1: You know, not like the Europeans or anybody else, but
Speaker 1: Latin Americans who have seen Nicholas Maduro being a dictator
Speaker 1: really really were happy that he was arrested in his
Speaker 1: face in his trial. So speaking of the trial, let's
Speaker 1: go back to the Washington postpall that I talked about earlier.
Speaker 1: Fifty percent of Americans say that Nicholas Maduro should go
Speaker 1: to trial for drug charges. Right, A lot of Americans
Speaker 1: don't have a very deep understanding of who Nicholas Menduro is,
Speaker 1: or his government or anything, especially when you compare him
Speaker 1: to like a foreign leader like Xijimping or putin somebody
Speaker 1: who's in the news constantly. You know, Nicholas Mondoro is
Speaker 1: not at the forefront of many Americans minds. I'll just
Speaker 1: say like that, But fifty percent still believe that he
Speaker 1: is he should go on trial, because, after all, he
Speaker 1: is a dictator of a narco state. He's not exactly
Speaker 1: mister Rogers. That includes seventy nine percent of Republicans, forty
Speaker 1: two percent of Independence and a plurality of Democrats with
Speaker 1: is twenty nine percent. Only fourteen percent of Americans say
Speaker 1: that he should not be on trial, including just two
Speaker 1: percent of Republicans, fifteen percent of Independence and twenty four
Speaker 1: percent of Democrats. I looked through every crosstab that was
Speaker 1: publicly available to see if there was any group of
Speaker 1: American where a majority or plurality opposed putting Maduro on trial,
Speaker 1: and there wasn't. Every group of people in this country,
Speaker 1: whether they voted for Harris, whether they are a liberal,
Speaker 1: whether they are white, or college educator or not college educated,
Speaker 1: a plurality or a majority support putting Nicholas Maduro on
Speaker 1: trial in the United States for drug chargers. Anyone saying
Speaker 1: that this is that the everyone's outrage is only talking
Speaker 1: to purple haired They them's who are overweight with too
Speaker 1: many college Greece. It is overwhelmingly on one side saying
Speaker 1: he should go on trial, and a plurality of every group,
Speaker 1: if not majority, support that. Remember what else I told you,
Speaker 1: guys when it comes to Venezuela. Americans don't want a
Speaker 1: prolonged war. They don't want another Afghanistan, they don't want
Speaker 1: another Iraq. We are just a war weary country. It
Speaker 1: is the It is what happened from the Bush legacy,
Speaker 1: from the Bush presidency that continued onwards after Obama and
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan into the first Trump term. I mean, and
Speaker 1: the withdrawal from Afghanistan was horrendous how it was executed.
Speaker 1: So we are just very war weary. We don't want
Speaker 1: a long intervention. And also remember Venezuela is not Afghanistan
Speaker 1: in Iraq. I'm talking to my liberal friends about this
Speaker 1: and they're like, it's going to be the same thing.
Speaker 1: Venezuela had democracy in our living memories, right. They had
Speaker 1: their last free election, really free election nineteen ninety eight.
Speaker 1: I guess two thousand and two was also fairly free.
Speaker 1: It wasn't Chavez was the leader at that point, but
Speaker 1: it is not. It was not like the subsequent elections
Speaker 1: in Venezuela, which were completely fraudulent. But nineteen ninety eight
Speaker 1: was a free election, and it is people's living memory.
Speaker 1: Everyone over the age of you know, thirty five probably
Speaker 1: remembers nineteen ninety eight existing and being around. So it's
Speaker 1: not like you have to pull people who are you know,
Speaker 1: one hundred to sit there and say do you remember
Speaker 1: when there was a last election in Iraq or Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: which I'm not saying that they would even know, but
Speaker 1: what I'm saying is that Venezuelans have some tie to democracy,
Speaker 1: unlike Afghanistan or Iraq. When you ask Americans do you
Speaker 1: support America taking over Venezuela and choosing the new government,
Speaker 1: Americans are very against it. Still, twenty four percent support
Speaker 1: that idea, forty five percent of post and remember Trump
Speaker 1: kind of flirted with that idea and then he's kind
Speaker 1: of changed his mind several times. Among those who support
Speaker 1: it is nine percent of Democrats, eighteen percent of Independence,
Speaker 1: and forty seven percent of Republicans, which is the parality,
Speaker 1: but it's not a majority for something that Trump has
Speaker 1: was I endorsed, which is a unique that doesn't happen
Speaker 1: a lot where Republicans are willing to a majority of
Speaker 1: Republicans willing to sit there and say I'm not so
Speaker 1: sure or flat out no. Among people who vould have
Speaker 1: heard Trump, forty six percent said yes, nineteen percent said no,
Speaker 1: and thirty four percent said they weren't sure. Among Trump's
Speaker 1: most loyal voting block, which are whites without a college degree,
Speaker 1: thirty four percent say yes, thirty five percent say no,
Speaker 1: which is crazy that she's not winning a plurality even
Speaker 1: of his most loyal voting block outside of Republican voters.
Speaker 1: I was talking to a friend of mine whose wife
Speaker 1: is a Venezuelan refugee, and I think she's a citizen now,
Speaker 1: but I call them when Medora was arrested, and I said,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you're so excited, and you know, this must
Speaker 1: be so great for your wife. And she was on
Speaker 1: Maduro's hit list and she would have been executed if
Speaker 1: she would have stayed in Venezuela, so I'm sure that
Speaker 1: she probably thinks this is, you know, wonderful, and you
Speaker 1: guys are so happy. And we started talking about what
Speaker 1: happens next and what they would like to see happened next,
Speaker 1: because they don't have very strong opinions about what the
Speaker 1: Venice As Weal and government should look like. Right. I
Speaker 1: hope they're not a terrorist supporting nation, but other than that,
Speaker 1: I'm not really I don't have a lot of strong
Speaker 1: feelings about them as well. But I asked her what
Speaker 1: they think is next, and they said that they were like,
Speaker 1: you know, if we need to invade that they would
Speaker 1: be okay with it. So I kind of made a
Speaker 1: joke and I said, well, you know, instead of Americans
Speaker 1: going there, we could send the seven hundred thousand Venezuelans
Speaker 1: who have come here in the last five years, give
Speaker 1: them arms and send them back to their own country
Speaker 1: and say have at it, like, you know, get have
Speaker 1: your own election, become you know, run your own country now.
Speaker 1: This is your time to run your own country. And
Speaker 1: they were kind of I don't know if they were offended.
Speaker 1: People always get offend it by stuff I say, but
Speaker 1: I like in my regularl life, as if they don't
Speaker 1: know who I am, but that they were. They were like, no, no,
Speaker 1: we would want Americans to do the job. And I
Speaker 1: think that this is a very clear dividing line for
Speaker 1: Republicans right. The New York Times and this map if
Speaker 1: you're listening to this podcast, if you watch it on YouTube,
Speaker 1: I have the map on display there. The New York
Speaker 1: Times put up the five I have one hundred counties
Speaker 1: that have the largest amount of enlistments, of military enlistments
Speaker 1: where they come from. And if you look at the
Speaker 1: map of where our enlistments come from, they're very concentrated.
Speaker 1: It's the South. It is parts of the Midwest, parts
Speaker 1: of Indiana and southern Illinois and Kentucky and Missouri and Ohio.
Speaker 1: It is Texas, which is you know, Texas, Texas, and
Speaker 1: south of South it's Texas. It's Texas, the South, the
Speaker 1: parts of the Midwest, and the inland Empire between California, Arizona, Nevada,
Speaker 1: that Idaho, that whole stretching not on the coast of California,
Speaker 1: but inland into the west western part of our country,
Speaker 1: that very republican part of those states. That's really where
Speaker 1: military recruitment is extremely concentrated in this country. You know,
Speaker 1: I've said the old adage before. Kids in blue states
Speaker 1: wave foreign flags, kids in Red states get American flag
Speaker 1: striped over their coffin. It is not an even distribution
Speaker 1: of sacrifice. And when you compare that map to the
Speaker 1: for election is Overwhelmingly's counties with high enlistment rates have
Speaker 1: voted for President Trump. Now that's not shocking given that
Speaker 1: a lot of lower income people see the military as
Speaker 1: not only part of their heritage they do generationally, but
Speaker 1: also as a ladder into the middle class. People do
Speaker 1: it because they're very patriotic, in Red states, because they
Speaker 1: believe in the military, they support it. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of reasons to join the military, and in Red states,
Speaker 1: in Red County America. They do so overwhelmingly. So we
Speaker 1: were to do in a long standing invasion of Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Guess who pays the price for it. Guess who overwhelming
Speaker 1: bears that sacrifice. It is white Americans, majority white Americans,
Speaker 1: white American men from red counties and Red States, people
Speaker 1: who voted for Donald Trump in part because he was
Speaker 1: the man who sat there and said that Iraq was
Speaker 1: a failure, who told Jeb Bush that on the South
Speaker 1: Carolina debate stage. Now, their support of what happened because
Speaker 1: it was flawless, it was easy, it was one two three,
Speaker 1: and they trust their president. I don't know if President
Speaker 1: Trump would want to burn that trust by engaging in long,
Speaker 1: maybe a decade long conflict where those same people's children,
Speaker 1: those their sons get murdered for a war than necessarily
Speaker 1: they didn't vote for right. I think that that's an
Speaker 1: important part as why the Republican overall voter as much
Speaker 1: as they love this and they're saying, hurrah, you know America,
Speaker 1: let's kick something. You know what, there's some trepidation when
Speaker 1: it comes to further involvement, and that's really where fellow
Speaker 1: non interventionalists are getting this wrong. I have friends of
Speaker 1: mine who are big anti anti interventionalists, and I'm more
Speaker 1: on that side than not on that side. However, we
Speaker 1: don't live in a bubble. We have to engage where
Speaker 1: we have to engage. The bombings in Iran went great, right,
Speaker 1: we bombed, were in, we were out. We didn't We
Speaker 1: didn't occupy it, We didn't lose American lives, we didn't
Speaker 1: sit there and lose American treasure. It was a one
Speaker 1: two three thing to make sure Iran doesn't get a
Speaker 1: nuclear weapon. Great. The arrest of Nicholas Maduro one two three,
Speaker 1: No Americans die. We were in, we were out, and
Speaker 1: we're gonna have a drug lord of an arco state
Speaker 1: that killed a lot of Americans killed on trial. That's great.
Speaker 1: We don't live in a bubble. We should apply pressure.
Speaker 1: We should try to make the world function better. It
Speaker 1: is our military that makes the world operational, as we understand.
Speaker 1: It is our navy that keeps the seaways safe, all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. However, that doesn't mean we should
Speaker 1: engage in prolonged occupations of foreign countries at the expense
Speaker 1: of American treasure and American blood, especially because so often
Speaker 1: it is the Republican sons that go and fight and
Speaker 1: die in these wars or come back deeply depressed, deeply mangled,
Speaker 1: sometimes deeply wounded personally, spiritually, physically, They carry that burden overwhelmingly.
Speaker 1: It is not a Zora Mandani voter who was going
Speaker 1: out there to fight these wars. It is always the
Speaker 1: ones who belong to the frat and or could afford college,
Speaker 1: and they work at a garage and they're trying to
Speaker 1: do the best in life, and they join the military
Speaker 1: for a myriad of reasons, but they bear that sacrifice.
Speaker 1: So there it is. There's the data. We love how
Speaker 1: the Republican Party loves how President Trump did. Americans pretty
Speaker 1: evenly split, but more favorable than they used to be
Speaker 1: on the whole conflict with Maduro and arresting Maduro. Don't
Speaker 1: want a foreign invasion, don't want to occupy Venezuela, don't
Speaker 1: want to decide its future. They want the Venezuelan people
Speaker 1: to decide and hopefully they make a good decision. I
Speaker 1: have some immigration data that's coming up next that is
Speaker 1: very wonky but so interesting. I think you guys are
Speaker 1: gonna love it. That's coming up next. So a woman
Speaker 1: I think it's a woman named a Lenni Karanaki, Kajanaki.
Speaker 1: You guys know, I can't pronounce names. It's a Greek name.
Speaker 1: Though she is an assistant she or he is an
Speaker 1: assistant professor professional research fellow at the London School of Economics.
Speaker 1: And they did a study on immigrants and the success
Speaker 1: of immigrant and who it came to the UK basically
Speaker 1: over the last decade, and they were saying, how has
Speaker 1: the wealth gap changed over the last decade among these
Speaker 1: immigrant groups in the UK, basically studying how third world immigrants,
Speaker 1: how they're doing in a first world society, especially in
Speaker 1: the UK, and how that translates not only just among
Speaker 1: like individual just like you know, native born versus forum born,
Speaker 1: but different individual groups. Right, And here's what the study says.
Speaker 1: The analysis of this stage considers that both cross sectional
Speaker 1: changes in ethnic wealth gap and ethnic gaps in short
Speaker 1: term wealth accumulation, using changes in wealth across waves. That
Speaker 1: means basically, people who came two thousand and eight, sorry,
Speaker 1: twenty twelve, twenty sixteen, in twenty twenty one, how the
Speaker 1: wealth changed over those different times. The fightings re really
Speaker 1: stark and persistent inequalities in wealth across ethnic groups, which
Speaker 1: widened over time and highlight how initial wealth positions determine
Speaker 1: wealth growth. She's wrong about that, but here's why. The
Speaker 1: study concluded that since twenty twelve, median wealth gaps between
Speaker 1: ethnic groups have widened sharply, with gains concentrated among White
Speaker 1: British and Indian ethnic groups. Median wealth substantially for those
Speaker 1: groups rose, but median groups remained closed to zero for
Speaker 1: Black Africans, Black Caribbeans, Bangladeshis, and while adults of Pakistani
Speaker 1: ethnic groups experience a marked decline basically over the course
Speaker 1: of this decade. In the last decade in the UK,
Speaker 1: wealth accumulation has risen for Indians primarily because they've been
Speaker 1: buying huge pieces of property in the UK, that's what
Speaker 1: the data shows. And for white British, White British have
Speaker 1: made up substantial gains, Indians and beansistantial gains, everyone else
Speaker 1: is basically flat and Pakistanis are also declining. Now, remember
Speaker 1: this comes at a time of exorbitant population increase. For
Speaker 1: all those groups except for White British, their numbers are
Speaker 1: pretty stagnant, but everyone else has this explosion in population,
Speaker 1: So you would think there's all these people coming into
Speaker 1: the household, they're able to work harder. You know, you
Speaker 1: have three generation, two generation working household families among these immigrants,
Speaker 1: and yet they're actually either stagnant or losing financial stability.
Speaker 1: I'll go on, which is the wealth distribution. All ethnic
Speaker 1: groups experienced losses, with exception of Indian ethnic groups. Minority
Speaker 1: groups are substantially larger losses than white British groups, reflecting
Speaker 1: the accumulation of a larger debt holdings. Adults in Pakistani, Bangladeshi,
Speaker 1: Black Caribbean and Black African ethnic groups registered gains at
Speaker 1: higher wealth quadrants. Basically, the very wealthy did very very well,
Speaker 1: and those of the middle class or lower class did
Speaker 1: not do well, but those were remarkably smaller than white
Speaker 1: British and other Asians. Even the top A quadrant of
Speaker 1: Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had significantly lower performances than every other group. Pakistani's,
Speaker 1: Bangladeshis and Africans experienced lower levels of savings than white British,
Speaker 1: with fifty percent saving absolutely nothing. Now what's crazy is
Speaker 1: I mean, she the writer kind of blames it on racism,
Speaker 1: which is so stupid when you realize that I mean,
Speaker 1: Indians and Bangladeshies and Pakistanis are not all the same, obviously,
Speaker 1: but they're they are more in common than I would say,
Speaker 1: like Indians and Icelandic groups, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: Like they're they're more in common than they're not. There's
Speaker 1: a lot tons of cultural difference, but as far as
Speaker 1: racial difference, it is extremely minor. And to the average person.
Speaker 1: If someone if an Indian and a Bangladeshi and a
Speaker 1: Pakistani are all wearing, you know, a business suit, they
Speaker 1: probably can't tell them differently. So the idea they're racially
Speaker 1: discriminating against two of the three and not the third
Speaker 1: seems quite strange and probably not likely that it's happening.
Speaker 1: What's crazy is not only did later groups of these
Speaker 1: of the study the one crazy thing not only were
Speaker 1: they saving less, but they were actually giving more money
Speaker 1: to their native country that she looked at remittance rates.
Speaker 1: Remittance rates for rece waves of black Africans was forty
Speaker 1: one percent recent for Bangladeshi's twenty six percent, for other
Speaker 1: Asians twenty nine percent for Pakistani's fifteen percent. Huge amount
Speaker 1: of money was going instead of saving, instead of building
Speaker 1: wealth in the UK, was going to be sent to
Speaker 1: family members throughout Africa and Southeast Asia and the Caribbean.
Speaker 1: And when you look at native born Pakistani British warn er,
Speaker 1: the British born Pakistani, British born Indian British worn Caribbean
Speaker 1: into the second generation, into the third generation, what the
Speaker 1: study found, while they acted more like white British, their mean,
Speaker 1: how they averaged out, how they saved money and treated
Speaker 1: wealth accumulation was actually closer to that of an immigrant.
Speaker 1: So why do I bring this all up? I know
Speaker 1: this is very, very very wonky, and I put on
Speaker 1: a lot of graphs for people who are watching this
Speaker 1: program instead of listening to it. I bring this up
Speaker 1: because a couple of years ago, there was a book
Speaker 1: called The Cultural Transplant, How migrants make economies they moved
Speaker 1: to look like ones they left. It was a book
Speaker 1: by a professor named Garrett Jones. Ask me come on
Speaker 1: this podcast. A couple of times. News always denied me,
Speaker 1: which breaks my heart because I like him, even though
Speaker 1: he probably thinks I'm annoying, But in essence his philosophy,
Speaker 1: his opinion in this book was that cultures that come
Speaker 1: to our country they change us more than we changed them.
Speaker 1: Especially over I mean, I guess in the margins over generations,
Speaker 1: but it's very, very very rare. And I think that
Speaker 1: for Indians especially, what you're looking at is because there
Speaker 1: was a strict caste system in India for generations. It's
Speaker 1: not as prevalent as it was then, for sure, but
Speaker 1: there was a strict cast system. We managed to get
Speaker 1: the wealthiest, the well educated, the well to do the
Speaker 1: upward mobile Indians from India to the First World. I'm
Speaker 1: sure if that was broadened out where everyone had to
Speaker 1: take one hundred million Indians of randomized demographics, those numbers
Speaker 1: would change dramatically over a very short period of time.
Speaker 1: But we've gotten the upward mobile Indians in this country.
Speaker 1: But what he says is if you look at a
Speaker 1: country in the year fifteen hundred, how it did in
Speaker 1: the year fifteen hundred relative to that time around things
Speaker 1: like scientific advancements, if they had a functioning government, other
Speaker 1: things like that. That shows how those immigrant groups do
Speaker 1: in as immigrants now. Right. So unless you're taking the
Speaker 1: upward crust, unless you're taking like the very few Algerians
Speaker 1: or people from Madagascar who are extremely advanced, right, those
Speaker 1: top quadrants of Caribbeans that I mentioned who are very
Speaker 1: very wealthy, or Africans who are very very wealthy. Maybe
Speaker 1: on a diamond mind, if you take just those yes,
Speaker 1: you'll see vastly over performance among immigrant groups. But the
Speaker 1: overall group as a whole looks a lot more like
Speaker 1: their native country into the second and into the third generation.
Speaker 1: In essence, culture doesn't change because people move. It doesn't
Speaker 1: change even when they're born into a certain place, if
Speaker 1: they're still more ingratiated in their in their ethnic culture
Speaker 1: that they came from. And I think that plays into
Speaker 1: something that Trump posted about on True Social I know
Speaker 1: you're like, Ryan, You're going all over the place. I
Speaker 1: promise you I'm landing the plane right now. Trump posts
Speaker 1: on Truth Social picture of welfare dependency based upon ethnic groups, right,
Speaker 1: he said, people from Bhutan eighty one percent welfare, Yemen
Speaker 1: seventy five percent, Somalia seventy two percent, Dominican sixty eight percent,
Speaker 1: Afghan sixty eight percent. Those were the top I decided,
Speaker 1: let me look at those groups that that study came
Speaker 1: from from the UK. Wow, welfare dependent? Are they Bangladeshi's
Speaker 1: fifty five percent, Pakistani's forty percent? Parts of Africa, like Rwanda, Ethiopia,
Speaker 1: live Liberia forty seven, forty seven, forty nine percent. Those
Speaker 1: immigrant groups, whether they be in the UK, which has
Speaker 1: had much worse immigration policy in the last five years
Speaker 1: in America has but whether it be in the UK
Speaker 1: or whether they be in the United States, they're very
Speaker 1: close to mirroring each other in many respects when it
Speaker 1: comes to welfare and dependency and wealth accumulation. And I'm
Speaker 1: sure if you look throughout Europe those groups are mirriamselves.
Speaker 1: I mean, we see them the Somalians right now in Minnesota,
Speaker 1: Somalians in Minnesota, and we've done about Smalians and studies
Speaker 1: about Smalians in Denmark and Sweden and in the Netherlands,
Speaker 1: and it's they're the most expensive immigrant group any host
Speaker 1: nation could possibly take in. They have the worst wealth accumulations,
Speaker 1: overwhelming welfare dependency in every place they go. And I
Speaker 1: think that as this information is breaking in the UK,
Speaker 1: I would love a stay like this in the United States.
Speaker 1: But as this information is breaking, I think that the
Speaker 1: important questions that therein says when we talk about immigration
Speaker 1: and we talk about immigrants, we don't like to demonize immigrants,
Speaker 1: but where always lumping them all in together. We should
Speaker 1: be talking about them as cultures, as groups, because while
Speaker 1: we don't wait to sit there and say everyone from
Speaker 1: a group is the same, and that's obviously not true,
Speaker 1: the means are true, the laws of nature are true,
Speaker 1: the averages are true. And is it worth it as
Speaker 1: a country then to bring in cultures that stay impoverished
Speaker 1: generation to generation to generation. If it costs over a
Speaker 1: million dollars in a Somali a refugees life right costs
Speaker 1: one million dollars and in their children's life they're still
Speaker 1: running a deficit, is it worth us spending million plus
Speaker 1: dollars over two generations to hopefully get to a third
Speaker 1: or fourth generation where they're producing and promoting prosperity in
Speaker 1: our own country. I think that that's a worthwhile question,
Speaker 1: especially when you think about the Somali and Freud. If
Speaker 1: they stole a billion dollars on top of the million
Speaker 1: plus it costs personally for their welfare and their entire life,
Speaker 1: it will be generating. It may be a century until
Speaker 1: the overall Somali population has paid back the cost of
Speaker 1: importing them. And is that worth it? When we talk
Speaker 1: about the future of our country. When we're talking about
Speaker 1: the future of AI and robots taking jobs, do we
Speaker 1: need to bring anybody or should we be highly selective
Speaker 1: and we can start looking at cultural backgrounds that are
Speaker 1: complimentary to ours and then have long records of producing
Speaker 1: prosperity and acting peacefully. Worthwhile and worth looking at and
Speaker 1: thinking about. Next is ask Me Anything. Stay tuned now
Speaker 1: it's time to Ask Me Anything segment. If you wanted
Speaker 1: part of the Ask Me Anything segment, email me Ryan
Speaker 1: at Numbers gamepodcast dot com. That's Ryan at Plural Numbers
Speaker 1: gamepodcast dot com. I love getting your emails. Question comes
Speaker 1: from Greg greg says Hi, Ryan's Greg from New Jersey. Hey, Greg, Jersey,
Speaker 1: Ryan from New York. Over here. I was wondering if
Speaker 1: you heard of the book of the book The Gods
Speaker 1: of New York from Jonathan Mahler Egotist, idealist opportunists and
Speaker 1: the Birth of the Modern City from nineteen eighty six
Speaker 1: to nineteen ninety. It deals with the periods involving Trump's
Speaker 1: rising real estate, rising crime, and Rudy Giuliani and the
Speaker 1: AIDS crisis. You said on your podcast about people from
Speaker 1: Venezuela voting for socialism on a Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro.
Speaker 1: If New Yorker's now but it for socialism, I'm der mundani.
Speaker 1: Is it not the candidate that is bringing about the
Speaker 1: revolutionary change but the culture, the cities or the country
Speaker 1: like Venezuela, embody is New York City just Babylon, always
Speaker 1: rising to come crashing down from its own sins. Thanks
Speaker 1: big fan of your and and Coulter, who's the smartest
Speaker 1: woman in politics? I will let him know that that
Speaker 1: is a fabulous question. Greg that was really smart. I
Speaker 1: haven't read that book. I want to read that book now.
Speaker 1: I'm probably gonna pick it on audio because I have
Speaker 1: a couple of audible books that I'm going to I
Speaker 1: have a free passed force, so I might pick that
Speaker 1: one up. Here's the thing about New York and this,
Speaker 1: and I speak as somebody who was born in the city.
Speaker 1: My family came to the city forget it, over a
Speaker 1: century ago. We've been here forever in this city, and
Speaker 1: we went from Manhattan to Brooklyn to Queens to back
Speaker 1: to Brooklyn. I mean they never left. They mean like
Speaker 1: it's cockroaches, and like my family like that will stay
Speaker 1: here for the nuclear fallout We are not the same city.
Speaker 1: The city that I was raised in, the city I
Speaker 1: was born in, the city that New York of legend
Speaker 1: and lore does not exist anymore. New York is not
Speaker 1: a twenty four hour city. The New York is not
Speaker 1: the sty that never sleeps. New York City sleeps. We
Speaker 1: are apartments are built differently. We are built like suburbs
Speaker 1: that are more compact with no backyard, that live on
Speaker 1: top of each other. The infrastructure is all beyond it,
Speaker 1: cell by date, like everything should have been repaired in
Speaker 1: order to occupy all these people and the people who
Speaker 1: were here for generations. The people who are native to
Speaker 1: this city, they've voted for Cuomo or for Sliwa. They
Speaker 1: did not vote from an Donnie. The people who came
Speaker 1: to the city, either as immigrants or as you know,
Speaker 1: internal migrants, people from like Iowa, blue hair and nine genders.
Speaker 1: They came here and then insisted that it was too
Speaker 1: hard and too expensive and too bad. So that's the
Speaker 1: very curious thing is that they they moved somewhere and
Speaker 1: said it was too tough for them, and then change it.
Speaker 1: And it comes to this old idea that I used
Speaker 1: to fight with my boomer relatives about is you know
Speaker 1: I have I don't have a lot of liberals in
Speaker 1: my family. I have a couple though, that are just
Speaker 1: like nuts cyber one relative, specifically a first cousin who's
Speaker 1: mentally deranged. And my boomer relatives always say with this cousin,
Speaker 1: they would say, well, wait till they graduate school and
Speaker 1: they're going to have the real world hit them. And
Speaker 1: I would say, no, they're going to change the quote
Speaker 1: unquote real world. And for people under forty, not even
Speaker 1: under thirty, people under forty or forty five who came
Speaker 1: to New York thinking I'm going to be able to
Speaker 1: make it here based upon what things used to be
Speaker 1: like or this idealized version of New York from the
Speaker 1: eighties and nineties, realized it was in that place and
Speaker 1: that they really were having a difficult time but didn't
Speaker 1: want to leave. They wanted to enjoy the fruits of
Speaker 1: prosperity but couldn't deal with the actual cost of it,
Speaker 1: either because they're you know, they're trust fund kids or whatever,
Speaker 1: or they are old just socially ideologically the same and
Speaker 1: they're very progressive, but they didn't want to have to
Speaker 1: live with those the grittiness of the city, the hardship
Speaker 1: of that the city breaks people down in and so
Speaker 1: they changed it, and they picked a guy who was
Speaker 1: also not from New York, who also disagreed with the
Speaker 1: fundamentals of New York. And I don't think that he's
Speaker 1: going to accomplish most of what they promised. I think,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think he said something today about as
Speaker 1: a recording this podcast about New York becoming the next
Speaker 1: being modeled up to South Africa, what like the biggest
Speaker 1: failed state right now in that used to be a
Speaker 1: prosperous country that is going besides Venezuela. I don't think
Speaker 1: they are aware of the ideological and racial perspective that
Speaker 1: far left social activists come from. They like the bullet points.
Speaker 1: They like the idea of, you know, staying in New
Speaker 1: York and not visiting Israel, which was a debate line.
Speaker 1: They like the idea of free public busting or making
Speaker 1: a housing more affordable, or you know, fighting against landlords
Speaker 1: who keep jacking up their run. They like all that.
Speaker 1: They don't understand other things that he can accomplish that
Speaker 1: are radical, what that would do to them. I just
Speaker 1: don't think that they do or they do when they're
Speaker 1: so soaked in ideological purity that they that they you
Speaker 1: can't you can't negotiate or talk to them, which is
Speaker 1: also a possibility, right, And I think that's a very
Speaker 1: big dividing line among native New Yorkers and New Yorkers
Speaker 1: who are our recent immigrants. And if Mundanni is a
Speaker 1: successful mayor, and I hope that he is in some
Speaker 1: capacity that well, you know, he'll probably be reelected. But
Speaker 1: if he's not, and if he's really horrendous, as a
Speaker 1: New York was in the late eighties before Giuliani, I
Speaker 1: think it will be on the backs of people who
Speaker 1: want to be prosperous and don't understand how bad racially
Speaker 1: idealized socialism is, right because what it is, and this
Speaker 1: is the thing that they don't understand, right, is that
Speaker 1: it is not just domination. What it is in New
Speaker 1: York is that whites are a minority in New York,
Speaker 1: for sure, but we are an economic dominant minority. Whites
Speaker 1: have an economic dominance in New York despite being a
Speaker 1: minority of the population. And that was true of a
Speaker 1: lot of groups in parts of the world throughout history.
Speaker 1: And those are the groups who are persecuted the fastest
Speaker 1: and the hardest. And what we're seeing in this emerging
Speaker 1: Mundannie administration is people saying home ownership is whiteness, and
Speaker 1: home ownership is white supremacy, and we need to break
Speaker 1: those things down. And they're trying to coalesce around the
Speaker 1: demonization of white people and whiteness. This alliance of multi
Speaker 1: different racial groups, all of which I don't know if
Speaker 1: they all agree in everything, and if it fails, and
Speaker 1: I think that those ideas usually almost always do fail,
Speaker 1: it will be because some of those groups sit there
Speaker 1: and realize a little too late. Oh, I'm on the
Speaker 1: losing end of this, of this equation. But as far
Speaker 1: as did the culture elect him or did he elect it?
Speaker 1: I think he did. I think that he brought the
Speaker 1: ideas and he sold himself, and he's got that stupid
Speaker 1: grin and you know those those Instagram you know reels,
Speaker 1: and he just happened to be lucky enough to run
Speaker 1: at a time when New Yorkers are a minority in
Speaker 1: their own city. You know, had he come around in
Speaker 1: the hard hat era of the seventies, or in the
Speaker 1: nineties era, or even in the two thousands, right of
Speaker 1: nine to eleven, they would have told him to buzz off.
Speaker 1: But luckily enough, those New Yorkers are either in the
Speaker 1: cemetery or in Florida, or are a minority in their
Speaker 1: own city. So fabulous question, Greg. I'm going to read
Speaker 1: this book now. Now that I'm thinking about it more,
Speaker 1: I want to read it. Thank you guys so much
Speaker 1: for listening to podcast. Please like and subscribe to this
Speaker 1: podcast if you want to get more of it. I'll
Speaker 1: be back on Friday. It's on the iHeartRadio app, Apple
Speaker 1: podcast YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. Please like and subscribe,
Speaker 1: don't miss an episode, and I will see you guys
Speaker 1: on Friday.