Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to another episode of The Mark
Speaker 1: moa show where we're talking about the world. We're talking
Speaker 1: about the world in context of what's going on in
Speaker 1: the world today, specifically looking at the intersection of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology and how those three coming together and not
Speaker 1: just coming together, converging or really clashing at the exact
Speaker 1: same time, are changing the world as we know it.
Speaker 1: A lot of people want to know when, Mark, When,
Speaker 1: when is it gonna happen? Well, it's happening right now.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like watching paint dry. You can't really
Speaker 1: see that it's drying, but you know it's sitting there drying.
Speaker 1: Or maybe like watching water boil, maybe like that. I
Speaker 1: actually had to boil some water this morning. I do
Speaker 1: intermittent fasting every day. I don't eat breakfast. I usually
Speaker 1: go about eighteen hours about eating, but I drink coffee
Speaker 1: and I know, I know, I know. For a For
Speaker 1: your hardcore people, you say, Mark, that breaks you fast. Well, Uh,
Speaker 1: technically you're right, but you're also technically wrong. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna get into that anyway. My water machine was out
Speaker 1: of water and I had to actually boil some water.
Speaker 1: I haven't done that a long time, and I watching
Speaker 1: and watching, watching, I was in a hurry. I need
Speaker 1: the hot water, and I can start to see the
Speaker 1: little bubbles starting to form on the bottom. And I
Speaker 1: knew once those little bubbles started to form on the
Speaker 1: bottom that they were gonna get bigger and bigger, bigger,
Speaker 1: and eventually those bubbles would start coming up and then
Speaker 1: would really be boiling. I didn't need to wait until
Speaker 1: those bubbles we're at full scale and bubbling up, because
Speaker 1: the water was already hot when I started to see
Speaker 1: the bubbles forming enough for me to pull off and
Speaker 1: go ahead and make my coffee. Kind of a kind
Speaker 1: of an interesting segue into kind of the world that
Speaker 1: we know it where we're witnessing, we're watching the water boil.
Speaker 1: At what point is it hot enough to pull off?
Speaker 1: And uh, you know, you can wait until the bubbles
Speaker 1: are overflowing the pan um. Personally, for me, I don't
Speaker 1: need to I just wait until I see the little bubbles.
Speaker 1: And we're certainly there right now. And so, uh, we're
Speaker 1: witnessing it, we're watching it, we're trying to understand it,
Speaker 1: we're trying to make we're trying to navigate it so
Speaker 1: we can build, grow, and protect our wealth as we
Speaker 1: go through this decentralized revolution that bitcoin is spearheading. Bitcoin
Speaker 1: is the decentralized revolution. And that's what we're looking at now. Um.
Speaker 1: As revolutionary as bitcoin is, of course, um, it's something
Speaker 1: that cannot be controlled. And you know, the powers that
Speaker 1: be don't like that. Right. If you could have a
Speaker 1: money tree in your backyard and you could create as
Speaker 1: much money as you wanted, whenever you wanted, why would
Speaker 1: you want to give that up? I mean, you would
Speaker 1: have all the power in the world if you could
Speaker 1: make your own money. Right. Well, now you start to
Speaker 1: understand the central bank. They can make as much money
Speaker 1: as they want, which gives them all the power in
Speaker 1: the world. As a matter of fact, it was Mayor Rothchild,
Speaker 1: one of the Rothchild I think was Mayor Rothchild. He said, UM,
Speaker 1: give me a control over a nation's money, and I
Speaker 1: care not who makes the nation's laws. Just take just
Speaker 1: take the money. Um. And it was Henry Kissinger said,
Speaker 1: control the food, you control the people, control the energy,
Speaker 1: you control a continent, control the money, you control the world.
Speaker 1: So it's no surprise is that the leaders, the powers
Speaker 1: that be are attacking those three things. Have you heard
Speaker 1: Have you heard food crisis, food shortage, You've heard fertilizer,
Speaker 1: food prices going up? The attack on food? Interesting? What
Speaker 1: about the attack on energy? Have you heard about that?
Speaker 1: You know, oil going up and gas prices going up.
Speaker 1: You've you heard about the attack on energy? Food? Energy?
Speaker 1: Or what about money? Oh? Yeah, they're trying to control
Speaker 1: money too. And one of the ways of trying to
Speaker 1: control money is with their trying to roll out these
Speaker 1: central bank digital currencies. Were talking about CBDCs, that's the
Speaker 1: acronym CBDC. And uh, you know what better way for
Speaker 1: them to control us than to control us through the money.
Speaker 1: Control the money, you control the world. So think about it, um,
Speaker 1: you know I can. I mean, our phones are spying
Speaker 1: machines right there listening to us every minute, UM, tracking
Speaker 1: us everywhere we go, and they can get a lot
Speaker 1: of data from us. They can find out where we
Speaker 1: go and what our routines are, and who we're associating with,
Speaker 1: and there's a bunch of information they can find. But
Speaker 1: the money, the money is the most private. The money
Speaker 1: shows what we're really doing. Am I buying baby formula?
Speaker 1: Am I planning trips? Like all these different things and
Speaker 1: so it's the money. And imagine if they could issue
Speaker 1: a money a CBDC that was able to track US
Speaker 1: control US surveillors, but even more importantly that it could
Speaker 1: modify our behavior modifier behavior thinks. Think China social credit
Speaker 1: score system, where in China you get a social credit score. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the United States we have a credit score, so if
Speaker 1: you don't pay your bills on time, you get to
Speaker 1: doing on your credit score, you get too much credit,
Speaker 1: et cetera. But in China it's a social credit score.
Speaker 1: So if you say mean things on the internet, for example,
Speaker 1: your credit score gets stocked and you now don't get
Speaker 1: to buy a train ticket or a bus ticket, on
Speaker 1: airplane ticket. As a matter of fact, in two thousand eighteen,
Speaker 1: like four years ago, in two Thoeen, I believe, man,
Speaker 1: it's been a while since I did the data on this.
Speaker 1: I want to say it was like eighteen million people
Speaker 1: were prevented from buying a train ticket because their social
Speaker 1: creditic core was too low. And of course that's the
Speaker 1: money side, right, They couldn't buy they couldn't buy the
Speaker 1: train ticket, they didn't have the money. Now I've made
Speaker 1: the case before without freedom of payments, you have no freedom.
Speaker 1: Let me say that again. Without freedom of payments, there
Speaker 1: is no freedom. So the United States guarantees me the
Speaker 1: right the freedom of speech. But if I can't pay
Speaker 1: for a computer, or pay for a phone to go
Speaker 1: on social media, or pay to print a flyer, or
Speaker 1: pay to build a website, do I have freedom of speech?
Speaker 1: I mean sure, I guess I could sit there on
Speaker 1: the beach and yell into the wind I have. I have.
Speaker 1: The Constitution guarantees me the freedom to assemble, but if
Speaker 1: I can't pay to a gas in my truck, I
Speaker 1: can't go to that assembly, right, and on and on.
Speaker 1: Now they want to control that with the Central Bank
Speaker 1: digital currencies, and so they're working on that really really quickly,
Speaker 1: and that is a hot battleground right now. What's interesting
Speaker 1: is they talk about, um, we need to preserve people's privacy. Yeah, right,
Speaker 1: Like that's their goal, preserving privacy, because everything the government
Speaker 1: does with money is to take away our privacy. As
Speaker 1: a matter of factor, you've probably heard anybody who has
Speaker 1: more than six dollars in transactions in their bank accounts.
Speaker 1: They want to do full surveillance on you heard that, right,
Speaker 1: Does that sound like, does that sound like privacy? They
Speaker 1: want to shine a flashlight up your button, inspect every
Speaker 1: single transaction you do if you have more than six
Speaker 1: hundred bucks. That is not privacy. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: it goes against the Bank Secrecy Act that guarantees is
Speaker 1: privacy from that type of Uh. Well, and then we
Speaker 1: have a constitution UH guarantees us against unlawful search and seizure,
Speaker 1: which I would say that definitely qualifies the unlawful search.
Speaker 1: They don't have a warrant for that, they have no
Speaker 1: probable cause. How about we were innocent until proven guilty.
Speaker 1: I thought that's the America that I grew up in
Speaker 1: about it. Now apparently you're guilty until provenance. But they
Speaker 1: talked about these central bank digital currencies and how how
Speaker 1: can they preserve privacy when they look at the transaction? Well,
Speaker 1: I think the nuance is they're talking about how could
Speaker 1: they prevent how could they keep help you protect your
Speaker 1: privacy from other governments. We want to make sure other
Speaker 1: governments don't get the data. We want to make sure
Speaker 1: that um, other people don't get the data. Of course
Speaker 1: we want it right. So when they talk about protecting
Speaker 1: your privacy, it's uh, privacy from people that they don't
Speaker 1: want to have it. It's not privacy from them. So
Speaker 1: let's let's make that clear. But they do talk about
Speaker 1: that all the time. And we saw this week US
Speaker 1: lawmakers introduced a e cash e cash bill and a
Speaker 1: new push to create a digital dollar, and it says
Speaker 1: that e cash would be a digital analog to the
Speaker 1: green back and could preserve privacy and anonymous transactions. According
Speaker 1: to an advisor on the bill, it says a group
Speaker 1: of US lawmakers says the US Trangy Department maybe the
Speaker 1: right government entity to create a digital dollar, not the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve. So the center the central bank digital currency
Speaker 1: is a central bank. The Federal Reserve is the center bank.
Speaker 1: And so what the lawmakers want to do is they
Speaker 1: want the Treasury Department to do this, not the Fed.
Speaker 1: Now it's interesting about this. They used the word in
Speaker 1: this article. It says, um, the cash would be a
Speaker 1: digital analog to the green back. Now what does that mean?
Speaker 1: Digital analog to the green back? You may not pick
Speaker 1: up on that nuance. So it's understand you have to
Speaker 1: you have to what you have to do. Let me
Speaker 1: give you just a little lesson on critical thinking. Here,
Speaker 1: so critical thinking one who wrote the article? So if
Speaker 1: it came from the Washington Post, well that there are
Speaker 1: mouthpiece for the CIA. Okay, if it came from Urt,
Speaker 1: well they're from Russia, right, So who wrote it and
Speaker 1: what are they trying to say? Then you want to
Speaker 1: parse it for what's the data, and then what's the narrative?
Speaker 1: And then who's telling me? Right? So that's what we're doing.
Speaker 1: So if we look at this, what's the data, Well
Speaker 1: says he cas should be digital analog to the green back.
Speaker 1: What does that mean? Well, when it says further on
Speaker 1: here that the lawmakers say that the U. S. Treasury
Speaker 1: should create the digital dollar, not the federal reserve. That's
Speaker 1: about attle a battle between the government and the bank
Speaker 1: central Bank, that go O reserve, and then the green
Speaker 1: back is the key piece. I'm gonna tell you what
Speaker 1: that means in a second when I come back, because
Speaker 1: I want to dig into that. You have to understand
Speaker 1: the nuance of hear what's going on. You're listening to
Speaker 1: the markma Show talking about the decentralized Revolution, talking about bitcoin,
Speaker 1: talking about politics, finance and technology coming together to change
Speaker 1: the world as we know it. We're talking about the
Speaker 1: central bank digital currencies and this new e cash bill
Speaker 1: and the fight between the government and the Fed. And
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you what the significance of this green
Speaker 1: back is in here. Maybe you already know. If you do,
Speaker 1: send me a message on Twitter at one Mark Moss.
Speaker 1: Otherwise don't go away. I'll be right back and explain
Speaker 1: to you. All right, welcome back here listening to the
Speaker 1: markma Show. We're talking about the decentralized revolution. We're talking
Speaker 1: about the intersection of politics, technology and finance. We're talking
Speaker 1: about how bitcoin is changing the world and how everybody
Speaker 1: else is changing and organizing and moving and shaking based
Speaker 1: off of that. And specifically we're talking about this uh
Speaker 1: new bill. US lawmakers introduced an e cash bill in
Speaker 1: a new is to create a digital dollar. And what's
Speaker 1: interesting is, as I was saying before the break, the
Speaker 1: e cash would be a digital analog to the green back.
Speaker 1: And then I says, here a group of lawmakers says
Speaker 1: the Treasury Department. The Treasury is the government should be
Speaker 1: the right government and to create a digital digital dollar,
Speaker 1: not the Federal Reserve. So there's a fight. Now, Okay,
Speaker 1: here's the significance. Many people would ask why does the
Speaker 1: government have to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. Why
Speaker 1: wouldn't the government just create their own money because the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve has no money. It's not like in the
Speaker 1: old days before we had money. Um, a king would
Speaker 1: borrow money from the rich people, right, because they need
Speaker 1: to borrow gold for example. Um, but why would the government,
Speaker 1: the Unknited States government, the treasury borrow from the FED
Speaker 1: when the Fed has no money. The FED just creates
Speaker 1: it from thin air. Well, if the Fed's going to
Speaker 1: create from thin air, what doesn't the government just created
Speaker 1: from thin air? Right? That was a good question, and
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact, it was a good question
Speaker 1: that President Abraham link And asked as President Abraham Lincoln
Speaker 1: going into the Civil War trying to uh, well, I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna get into a civil war, It's not what
Speaker 1: you think it is. But um, going too civil war?
Speaker 1: He asked that the same very question, why should the
Speaker 1: government have to try to borrow money from these bankers?
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, let's this the government creator
Speaker 1: oh money? And he did. And the money that Abraham
Speaker 1: Lincoln created to go fight the Civil War was called
Speaker 1: wait for it, wait for it, It was called the
Speaker 1: green back. Now, most of us think that greenback is
Speaker 1: just another slang word like bucks, right or something like that.
Speaker 1: Greenback is just another slang word. But that's not the truth.
Speaker 1: A greenback was a very specific form of money that
Speaker 1: Abraham Lincoln created that the government, the U. S. Treasury
Speaker 1: Department created, not the Federal Reserve. So it was interesting
Speaker 1: here is this says the law. The lawmakers say the
Speaker 1: Treasury Department should be the right entity, not the FED.
Speaker 1: That's why it's saying the green back. Kind of interesting things.
Speaker 1: So we got Reps. Stephen Lynch, Democrat from Massachusetts, Hey
Speaker 1: sus Chewy Garcia, Democrat from Illinois. I Ana Press the
Speaker 1: Democrat from Massachusetts, Rashida Talib, Democrat from Michigan. So all
Speaker 1: Democrats introduced the Electronic Currency and Secure Hardware Act Electronic
Speaker 1: Currency and Secure Hardware Act e CASH Act to direct
Speaker 1: the Treasury to develop an issue an electronic version of
Speaker 1: the US dollar with an with an eye to preserving
Speaker 1: privacy and a non amenity in transactions. Interesting it says
Speaker 1: the electronic dollars defining the bill would be a bearer
Speaker 1: instrument that people could hold on their phone or a card.
Speaker 1: The system would be token based, not account based, meaning
Speaker 1: is someone were to lose their phone or card, they
Speaker 1: would lose the funds. In other words, it would be
Speaker 1: like losing a wallet with dollar bills in it. So
Speaker 1: what they're saying is a bear instrument. So a barre
Speaker 1: instrument means like a dollar. If I have a dollar,
Speaker 1: it's my dollars, nobody else's dollar. If I hand the
Speaker 1: dollar to you, you have the dollar now and as
Speaker 1: nobody else's dollar. And so they want to make it
Speaker 1: this bare instrument where I have the token, I have
Speaker 1: the token, nobody else has the token. If I lose
Speaker 1: my phone, I lose the token, the money's gone. That's
Speaker 1: what they're saying there now. Um. They went on to
Speaker 1: say that the bill is meant to create a true
Speaker 1: digital analog to the US dollar. We're proposing to have
Speaker 1: a genuine cash like bearer instrument, a token based system
Speaker 1: that doesn't have either a centralized ledger or a distributed
Speaker 1: ledger because it had no ledger whatsoever. The you secure
Speaker 1: hardware software and it's issued by the Treasury. He said,
Speaker 1: Now that's interesting. So it doesn't have either a centralized
Speaker 1: ledger or a distributed ledger. So so bitcoin. The revolution
Speaker 1: of bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general is that instead of
Speaker 1: having one centralized database, a centralized ledger to their point,
Speaker 1: centralized ledger or database. Instead of having one, there's thousands
Speaker 1: or hundreds, thousands or millions of databases copies. They're all
Speaker 1: copies of each other, and they have to achieve consensus,
Speaker 1: have to agree that that transaction is vowed. That's a
Speaker 1: destruct that they're calling a distributed or a decentralized ledger.
Speaker 1: That's what bitcoin is. And nobody controls bitcoin. Unlike other cryptocurrencies,
Speaker 1: people control the ledger, but with bitcoin, nobody controls it.
Speaker 1: And what they're saying here is that they're proposing that
Speaker 1: it doesn't have either of those. It doesn't have a
Speaker 1: centralized ledger or distributed ledger because it had no ledger
Speaker 1: at all. It is interesting, if it has no ledger,
Speaker 1: how do they prevent it from being counterfeited? Y's that's
Speaker 1: that's what bitcoin solved. Now for those of you that
Speaker 1: don't know bitcoin, a lot of people say, well, bitcoin
Speaker 1: is like MySpace and then and and the Facebook is
Speaker 1: gonna come along later, right, But that's not true. So
Speaker 1: bitcoin um wasn't just wasn't just Facebook that came along later. Facebook,
Speaker 1: it was like, it's like getter or like I don't
Speaker 1: know whatever parlor or whatever the new one is right
Speaker 1: now right locals um it's it was like, there's many
Speaker 1: variations UM that had come before bitcoin, but Bitcoin solved
Speaker 1: the problem that none of those could solve, which was
Speaker 1: the double spend problem. The double spend problem. So the
Speaker 1: problem with digital things is that we can copy and
Speaker 1: duplicate digital things. If you give me a song, I
Speaker 1: can duplicate the song. If you give me a movie,
Speaker 1: I can duplicate the movie. If you give me a
Speaker 1: PDF or an e book, I can do up like
Speaker 1: at that. But UM, but bitcoin solved that, and it's
Speaker 1: solved it by having the distributed ledger that nobody controls,
Speaker 1: because if somebody controls it, then they could change the ledger.
Speaker 1: So they're proposing to try to come up with a
Speaker 1: way to do the same thing that bitcoin does, but
Speaker 1: without a ledger. Pretty interesting, they say it. It would
Speaker 1: support peer to peer transactions, and given the nature of
Speaker 1: its set up, it would fully support anonymous transactions, which
Speaker 1: is pretty cool. Now. Anonymous UM as opposed to what's
Speaker 1: known as k y C Know Your Customer so whenever
Speaker 1: you do transactions. As a matter of fact, in the
Speaker 1: United States, legally required by law, if you do transactions
Speaker 1: over ten thousand dollars, you're required to know your customer,
Speaker 1: which means after get your name and your address and
Speaker 1: your all these things. Very it's very intrusive. It's very
Speaker 1: difficult to follow that. And anyone who thinks that sounds
Speaker 1: right doesn't understand economics, because, um, to do business, I
Speaker 1: must know my business. If I'm going to buy food
Speaker 1: from In and Out Burger, I hadn't out Burger last night.
Speaker 1: If you're in California, know what I'm saying. If you're
Speaker 1: not in California, then you're missing out. But I trust
Speaker 1: In and Out to deliver me a good quality product
Speaker 1: every time I go there. I know them. I trust them.
Speaker 1: They've built up their brand, but they don't have to
Speaker 1: know me. That's what money is for. I know them,
Speaker 1: I trust them, but when I give them my money,
Speaker 1: they don't need to know me. Now, in the old days, um,
Speaker 1: you know, you had a little town, a little village, whatever,
Speaker 1: and the guy at the general store knew everybody and
Speaker 1: he would let me run a tab. Hey, I know Mark,
Speaker 1: I know where he lives. Yeah, he can run a
Speaker 1: tab kind of thing. But we don't need to know
Speaker 1: people anymore because we have money, so it gets rid
Speaker 1: of that need. But they're saying this is going to
Speaker 1: bring that back, which is pretty interesting. UM. I don't
Speaker 1: know how it's gonna work, but um I think I think, uh,
Speaker 1: I think they got a long road ahead of them.
Speaker 1: It's pretty interesting to see that. UM. I highly doubt
Speaker 1: that they're going to be able to figure this out,
Speaker 1: especially and keep this uh private anonymous type of transaction
Speaker 1: they're talking about it. But anyway, with the bill and
Speaker 1: some of them, these aren't these aren't just new people.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are these are some like Rashida Talib.
Speaker 1: I mean these are these are people that have some
Speaker 1: power and the paulic and it's not just one and
Speaker 1: they have one, two before five, like five six names
Speaker 1: on here. So maybe maybe it's gonna go somewhere. Um
Speaker 1: but again it's a battle. They're saying the government, the
Speaker 1: Treasury should be able to do this, not the Federal Reserve,
Speaker 1: but the Federal Reserve is not to be outdone. Of course,
Speaker 1: they're trying to roll out their central bank digital currency
Speaker 1: as fast as they can because they want to keep
Speaker 1: control over the money. Why would they ever give that
Speaker 1: control up? Of course they wouldn't, Um, And so there's
Speaker 1: a battle brewing there. Um. However, there's also some Congressmen
Speaker 1: that don't want the Federal Reserve to have control of
Speaker 1: the central bank digital currency. As a matter of fact, Um,
Speaker 1: a very outspoken member of Congress, Um introduced a bill
Speaker 1: to prevent the FED from actually getting essential bank digcurrecy.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna talk about that, uh and a little bit
Speaker 1: more when I come back. You're listening to the Markmas Show.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the intersection of politics, finance, and technology.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the decentralized revolution. We're talking about bitcoin.
Speaker 1: We're talking about how the world is changing because of
Speaker 1: this new technology that's impacting every area of our life,
Speaker 1: and we're seeing it with a battle between the Treasury
Speaker 1: and the FED and some of these congressmen and what
Speaker 1: they're trying to do. I'm gonna come back and tell
Speaker 1: you what this congressman is trying to do to stop
Speaker 1: the Fed from having a central bank digital currency. It's
Speaker 1: pretty interesting. We'll see how much how much success is
Speaker 1: gonna have. Don't go away, I'm gonna be right back.
Speaker 1: All right, welcome back. You are listening to the markma Show.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the intersection of politics, technology, and finance.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the decentralized revolution that's being led by
Speaker 1: bitcoin and cryptocurrencies I guess, but really just bitcoin. But anyway, um,
Speaker 1: you know, it's technology is changing the world as we
Speaker 1: know it, and it's changing the face of money as
Speaker 1: we know it. And of course money makes the world
Speaker 1: go around. I'm sure you've heard that before. Really, it's
Speaker 1: one half of every transaction that we make is money,
Speaker 1: and so it is, uh, the most important thing for
Speaker 1: the economy. I'm not gonna say it's the most important
Speaker 1: thing in life. More things more important than money. But
Speaker 1: without money, it ain't a very good life with all that.
Speaker 1: But there's a battle raging and we were talking about
Speaker 1: before the break. I was talking about how there's a
Speaker 1: new bill from five different Congressmen trying to submit a
Speaker 1: bill saying that the Fed shouldn't have the power to
Speaker 1: the digital dollars. In fact, it should be the Treasury,
Speaker 1: and they want to come up with some new digital dollar.
Speaker 1: It's sort of some like a cryptocurrency, except for there's
Speaker 1: no centralized or even decentralized Ledger. Pretty interesting. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna go back through that. But now the FED of
Speaker 1: course is trying to get their central bank digital currency
Speaker 1: through and they want to get through as fast as
Speaker 1: they can. China's of course already rolled, There's out, Many
Speaker 1: other smaller nations have already rolled. There's out as well.
Speaker 1: Um And Ted Cruz from Texas introduced a companion to
Speaker 1: Emmer's bill to exclude exclude the FED, exclude the FEDS
Speaker 1: retail c b DC issue. So he says that his
Speaker 1: bill would keep the US quote off an insiduous path
Speaker 1: akin to China's some strong words, keep the US off
Speaker 1: an insidious path akin to China's. What does that mean? Well,
Speaker 1: I was talking about before China's China's Social credit score system.
Speaker 1: So China has a system where your whole life is
Speaker 1: in one app, and you have payment and movement gateways,
Speaker 1: and everything's tracked, including your online behavior, and if you
Speaker 1: visit the wrong website or say the wrong thing, or
Speaker 1: criticize some leader, then you lose social credit score and
Speaker 1: then your life is impacted because of that. So it's
Speaker 1: a it's a we'd probably say like an Orwellian dystopia
Speaker 1: something like that, Like George Orrel wrote the book. If
Speaker 1: you haven't read that book, you should. I don't think
Speaker 1: George Orwell meant that to be like a playbook or
Speaker 1: a or a documentary. But that's unfortunately how the world
Speaker 1: is turning out to be. Um, maybe these people should
Speaker 1: stop writing these books and making these movies because I
Speaker 1: think it's giving these politicians too much of an idea.
Speaker 1: But that's what he's saying. He said, it can keep
Speaker 1: the US off that insiduous path againto China. What China's
Speaker 1: doing the social credit score system where they monitor and
Speaker 1: surveill and censor everybody. But it says Texas Senator Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz introduced a companion let slation into the US. Sent
Speaker 1: it on Wednesday, UH from Minnesota Representative Tom Emmer. That
Speaker 1: prohibits prohibits the Federal Reserve from issuing Central Bank Digital
Speaker 1: currency or CBDC directly to individuals, not to key peace.
Speaker 1: So the way that money is created, and that we
Speaker 1: talked about a lot on this show. I said, Oh,
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve is printing money. We talked about that
Speaker 1: printing money. Of course that's not really what happens. UM.
Speaker 1: If you think that's what happens. That's not what happens. Uh.
Speaker 1: The amount of printed money, like actual physical dollars, is
Speaker 1: very very small comparison to how many dollars are out there. Um. So,
Speaker 1: the way it works is the central bank. The Central
Speaker 1: Bank gives reserves to commercial banks, so thank JP, Morgan, Wills, Fargo, etcetera.
Speaker 1: So the Federal Reserve pushes a button on a keyboard
Speaker 1: and puts reserves into these commercial banks, and then the
Speaker 1: commercial banks create the money into existence through loans. So
Speaker 1: when you go to your bank and you get a
Speaker 1: home loan, a car loan, a boat loan, a motor
Speaker 1: cyclelane or whatever, that money is then created into existence.
Speaker 1: So that means that I, you and I both have
Speaker 1: accounts with our local bank or commercial bank, and the
Speaker 1: commercial bank then has an account with the Fed. What
Speaker 1: the Fed wants to do is they want to compress
Speaker 1: that stack. They want us to have account directly with
Speaker 1: the Fed. And the reason why I was, I think
Speaker 1: there's a bunch of reasons that I don't want to
Speaker 1: talk about. Two two main reasons why. One um in
Speaker 1: in March when you know the economy dropped out because
Speaker 1: everybody locked everybody got locked in their home and the
Speaker 1: government forced you to shut your business down, Thank you
Speaker 1: very much. When that happened, Um, they tried to stimulate
Speaker 1: the economy, So let's send out money to everybody. And
Speaker 1: they did, sent a bunch of money out there, everybody,
Speaker 1: not me. I didn't get any money. I make over
Speaker 1: sars in California, so of course I guess I'm rich,
Speaker 1: but I didn't get any but but hopefully you did.
Speaker 1: But um, nevertheless they sent that money out. What the
Speaker 1: problem is. It was supposed to stimulate the economy, meaning
Speaker 1: people were supposed to take that money and then go
Speaker 1: spend it, go buys things, stimulate economy. But what do
Speaker 1: people do? They saved it. The other problem is that
Speaker 1: they couldn't get the money out fast because the Federal
Speaker 1: Reserve was putting reserves onto the banks, but the banks
Speaker 1: weren't loaning the money out, so the money wasn't getting
Speaker 1: created into existence. So we could just save all this
Speaker 1: if we just got rid of those pesky banks in
Speaker 1: the middle and we just had accounts directly with people
Speaker 1: to the FED, and then the Fed could just push
Speaker 1: money right into your account. That would be so much better,
Speaker 1: wouldn't It would also give the Fed a lot more
Speaker 1: power because now they could create money directly as opposed
Speaker 1: to having to go through those pesky banks. You know,
Speaker 1: who needs all these extra mentalmen with these checks and
Speaker 1: balances on power. We should just have unlimited power, and
Speaker 1: we should have unlimited visibility to all the data. So
Speaker 1: what this bill is saying is that prohibits the Federal
Speaker 1: Reserve from issue with central bank digital currency or CBDC
Speaker 1: directly to individuals. Didn't didn't say they can't make CBDCs,
Speaker 1: just not directly to individuals. UM and it says fellow
Speaker 1: Congressman Cruizes legislation could potentially speed up the passage or
Speaker 1: rejection of the bill by allowing to be considered in
Speaker 1: both chambers of Congress at the same time. So basically,
Speaker 1: you have like a lower level representative UM that submitted
Speaker 1: a bill, and now we have a senior representative like
Speaker 1: tex Texas Senator Tad Crews came on and sponsored it UM,
Speaker 1: which should hopefully help to speed that up. As what
Speaker 1: they're hoping. Um It says that they are motivated. The
Speaker 1: bill was motivated by a concern that a retail CBDC
Speaker 1: would force consumers to open accounts with the Federal Reserve Bank.
Speaker 1: According to the lawmaker, that could quote be used as
Speaker 1: a surveillance tool that Americans should never tolerate from their
Speaker 1: own government. End quote. I love that there's still a
Speaker 1: few people in government that think that people should still
Speaker 1: have privacy. You know, uh uh snowdon snowdon, snowdon. He
Speaker 1: has a quote, he said, people that argue that they
Speaker 1: people that argue they don't have a right, they don't
Speaker 1: have a need for privacy is like saying they don't
Speaker 1: have a need for freedom of speech because they have
Speaker 1: nothing to say. Oh, people that argue they don't need
Speaker 1: freedom of privacy because they have nothing to hide, is
Speaker 1: like saying they don't need freedom of speech because they
Speaker 1: have nothing to say. Well, I have something to say,
Speaker 1: you have something to say. We all need freedom of privacy.
Speaker 1: Do you want the whole world to know how much
Speaker 1: money you make and how much money you spend and
Speaker 1: where you spend it? If I do. If I have
Speaker 1: a business and I sell my product to one price
Speaker 1: to one guy, and I made a special deal for
Speaker 1: him because of some special circumstances, I might want to
Speaker 1: keep that transaction private so other people don't know about that.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've probably done business with somebody where they said, hey,
Speaker 1: you don't tell anybody about this deal. Right, So there's
Speaker 1: privacy doesn't mean that. It doesn't mean that there's nefarest
Speaker 1: things going on in the United States. We have do
Speaker 1: what we're supposed to have due process of law, meaning
Speaker 1: we are innocent until we're proven guilty. Innocence until proven guilty.
Speaker 1: So privacy is not because we're guilty. Privacy is just
Speaker 1: because we don't need everybody to know everything. I don't
Speaker 1: need to know. I don't need the world to know
Speaker 1: that I'm of you a special deal and he didn't
Speaker 1: get it. I don't need everyone to know how much
Speaker 1: money I made last year on this deal or whatever.
Speaker 1: Nobody needs to know those kinds of things. I can
Speaker 1: let them know that if I need to. Um, it
Speaker 1: says requiring us just to open an account of the
Speaker 1: FED is uh like, oh yeah, put it put people
Speaker 1: in aciduous path through China's digital authoritarianism, is what it says.
Speaker 1: So we'll see how this plays out. It's interesting, Um,
Speaker 1: I think that they're going to want to get this through.
Speaker 1: I think it's going to happen. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: only a matter of time. In my opinion, it's the
Speaker 1: next step. The goal is to get The goal is
Speaker 1: to get China's social credit course system installed, not just
Speaker 1: in the United States, but in the in the rest
Speaker 1: of the world, in the West. That's the real battle. Um,
Speaker 1: if you look at the pandemic, if you look at
Speaker 1: the measures that we're taking, forcing us to use a
Speaker 1: stupid app on our phone to show some stupid QR
Speaker 1: code to get access into areas of life, it's not
Speaker 1: about the virus. It's about forcing us to comply to
Speaker 1: gain access. Governments are calling it freedom as a service.
Speaker 1: They want to build pain and movement gateways. So we
Speaker 1: have to do these things to get freedom. Now, I
Speaker 1: believe I was born free. The government's role was to
Speaker 1: protect freedom. The Constitution is not a set of rules
Speaker 1: for us to live by. The Constitution is a set
Speaker 1: of rules the government is supposed to be restricted by.
Speaker 1: It's not if the constumers just doesn't give us freedom.
Speaker 1: It guarantees our freedom from the overreaching government. It's a
Speaker 1: lot different. Um. Yeah, sorry about that little rant. Sometimes
Speaker 1: they get a little fired up. I'll be right back
Speaker 1: with more. All right, welcome back here. Listening to the
Speaker 1: Markma Show. We're talking about the decentralized revolution. We're talking
Speaker 1: about the world changing right before our very eyes, as politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology are all merging together, converging together, converging cycles,
Speaker 1: and the world's changing. Before the break, we're talking about
Speaker 1: how the central banks are trying to introduce a digital
Speaker 1: form of money, central bank digital currency, and how um
Speaker 1: some people in the United States, some congressmen, have submit
Speaker 1: to bill to say that no, the FED shouldn't create
Speaker 1: the central band digital currency, it should be the Treasury.
Speaker 1: We talked about that. We talked about how um Ted
Speaker 1: Cruze sponsored bill to prevent the FED from opening up
Speaker 1: central main digital currencies and send him directly to the
Speaker 1: people bypassing the Bank's pretty interesting things. Uh, there's a
Speaker 1: lot going on. It's pretty interesting. The world that we
Speaker 1: are going into is not the world that we are
Speaker 1: leaving behind, that is for sure, and a lot of
Speaker 1: this is being really uh sped up. The catalyst is uh,
Speaker 1: this war, this war on Russia. You know, war typically
Speaker 1: comes at the end of a long term credit cycle,
Speaker 1: debt cycles, um, and it's you. It's war comes for
Speaker 1: many many reasons, some of which are when you run
Speaker 1: out of money and you run out of resources, you
Speaker 1: have to go take it from somebody else. That's some
Speaker 1: of it. Also, it's because at the end of those
Speaker 1: cycles things break down so much that even diplomacy and
Speaker 1: conversations and uh and and that breaks down. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of reasons why, but they all come at the
Speaker 1: end of a long term cycle, which is exactly where
Speaker 1: we're at right now. And one of the big things
Speaker 1: that's been happening We've been talking about quite a bit,
Speaker 1: is that because of this uh war over in Russian
Speaker 1: and Ukraine, we see that there's a crunch on energy.
Speaker 1: Um Europe, I'm sorry. Russia provides about ten of the
Speaker 1: of the oil the energy for the world, and so
Speaker 1: if we take that offline, it's a big deal. We
Speaker 1: can't just the world just can't have teen percent less energy.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be a pretty bad situation. Um and and
Speaker 1: then and then what happened, So we need Russian energy,
Speaker 1: but then the whole world sanctioned Russia. So now you
Speaker 1: you know, the United States seized their bank accounts, almost
Speaker 1: six hundred billion dollars gone, just seized. And so Russia
Speaker 1: has no money. They can't transact in dollars. They can't
Speaker 1: do any trade, but they have the energy. They got
Speaker 1: the oil, they got the gas. And so Putin told
Speaker 1: Europe that if you want your gas, which they desperately
Speaker 1: need so of cour because of because of the central
Speaker 1: planners and they're they're complete um and precision and guiding
Speaker 1: the policies and economies. They decided in their in their
Speaker 1: infinite wisdom and power, that they should shut down all
Speaker 1: their production of natural gas in the Netherlands, in the UK,
Speaker 1: and let's just dependent on buying it from Russia. What
Speaker 1: could go wrong? Right? It sounds like a pretty good plan. Well, um,
Speaker 1: they need it. People will literally die of freezing to
Speaker 1: death or starvation if they don't have natural gas. So
Speaker 1: they need it. And Putin just told Europe that you
Speaker 1: need to now pay us in our own currency, in
Speaker 1: the Russian ruble. And if you don't, guess what happens,
Speaker 1: you don't get your gas. There's the golden rule. Who
Speaker 1: he who has the gold sets the rules. Now i'veset
Speaker 1: many times that gold is Gold's money, cash, dollars or money.
Speaker 1: Bitcoin could be money, but money is worthless. Well, the
Speaker 1: goods and services, it's food, it's energies, water, that's what
Speaker 1: we need. We need that to survive. We don't need money.
Speaker 1: If I had if I had gold, bitcoin and cash
Speaker 1: in briefcases, but I had nothing to spend it on,
Speaker 1: I'll be worthless. But energy that's worth something. So uh,
Speaker 1: Russia was cut out of cut out of the world,
Speaker 1: cut out of the banking and cut out of the dollar.
Speaker 1: But they got the energy, they got the wealth, they
Speaker 1: got the goods and services. So they say, fine, if
Speaker 1: you want that, then you have to pay us in
Speaker 1: our currency. Well, uh, European capital is rejected, which Berlin
Speaker 1: said amounted to quote blackmail Germany. Berlin, Germany says, that's blackmail.
Speaker 1: You can't do that. Well, what else are they gonna do?
Speaker 1: They can't, they can't get paid in dollars. They got
Speaker 1: cut out of the system. It's pretty interesting. But again,
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to pick pick and choose winners here.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to say one side is right or wrong,
Speaker 1: although I do have my opinions, but we're not getting
Speaker 1: to that for now. Um. What we're doing is we're watness.
Speaker 1: We're witnessing. We're watching as the world is literally breaking apart,
Speaker 1: the dollar being a reserve system of the world, the
Speaker 1: whole world working and trading in with trust and consideration
Speaker 1: for each other. And now we're devolving into a system
Speaker 1: with absolutely no trust and no consideration for each other,
Speaker 1: and everybody's out for their own And of course, why
Speaker 1: would you use the dollars when the US just seize
Speaker 1: your bank account? Why would use gold? As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, the UK just seized all of Venezuela's gold
Speaker 1: because the gold wasn't in Venezuela, was in the UK
Speaker 1: safes and they stole it. So, uh, Venezuela couldn't trust
Speaker 1: the UK with their gold, Russia couldn't trust their dollars
Speaker 1: with the US, so pay me and my money, that's
Speaker 1: what they're saying. It's pretty interesting. And again I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to say who's right or wrong here, but just
Speaker 1: no notice that we are literally watching the death of
Speaker 1: the US dollar. Now I'm not I'm not saying it's
Speaker 1: eminently happening in the next day, week, month, or year, um,
Speaker 1: but we're what we're witnessing it. We're watching this, we're
Speaker 1: watching it decline pretty quickly. Now. Um. Of course, not
Speaker 1: to be out done, good old President Biden has responded,
Speaker 1: and he is going to start releasing um oil from
Speaker 1: our strategic reserves. Now, strategic petroleum reserves SPRS sounds pretty important, right,
Speaker 1: like strategic reserves. Like it's pretty good idea to have reserves,
Speaker 1: Like you should have some reserves in the bank account,
Speaker 1: like we should have reserve sounds like a pretty good deal. Um.
Speaker 1: They were created in nineteen seventy four after the oil
Speaker 1: embargo that we had when we ran out of oil,
Speaker 1: so said, let's never let that happen again. Let's actually
Speaker 1: save up some oil for an emergency. We have about
Speaker 1: as of March fourth, about five and seventy seven five
Speaker 1: seventy seven million barrels of oil, and Biden Seat Hill
Speaker 1: release up to one million barrels per day. Now the
Speaker 1: US consumes eighteen over eighteen million barrels per day, So um,
Speaker 1: one million barrels out of eighteen million barrels per day.
Speaker 1: It's not a lot, however, Um, it's something. But what
Speaker 1: happens when they release all the reserves and then we
Speaker 1: don't have any more reserves anymore. That could be a problem.
Speaker 1: So it seems like you might want to keep those
Speaker 1: reserves for the rainy day when you might need them
Speaker 1: proverbial rainy day if you will, which is something I
Speaker 1: think you should think about. Honest. Some other news, UM,
Speaker 1: what's interesting with bitcoin is that we have Chris Larson
Speaker 1: from UH from Ripple Ripple Labs. I want to be
Speaker 1: UM competitor to bitcoin. UM and Chris Larson. He has
Speaker 1: a plan to greenfy bitcoin. He is running a massive campaign,
Speaker 1: spending a lot of his own money to run a
Speaker 1: campaign in conjunction with Greenpeace, saying that Bitcoin uses too
Speaker 1: much energy. Their Their campaign is called quote change the Code,
Speaker 1: not the climate, and the goal is to pressure the
Speaker 1: bitcoin community to make a transition away from power intensive
Speaker 1: proofs of proof of work to proof of steak that
Speaker 1: uses less energy. Yeah right, last I check. Bitcoin doesn't
Speaker 1: have a CEO, doesn't have a marketing department, don't have
Speaker 1: a development for it, so good luck with that. UM.
Speaker 1: First of all, his UM, his reasoning for this is
Speaker 1: completely misguided. Bitcoin doesn't use too much energy. That's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Bitcoin uses less energy than YouTube? Is YouTube that important?
Speaker 1: Bitcoin uses less energy than closed dryers or closed dryers
Speaker 1: that important? But I think this is a UH. He's
Speaker 1: trying to pull on the heartstrings of the environmentalists to
Speaker 1: make himself rich. This is what's happening. So what he's
Speaker 1: gonna do is he is going to try to force
Speaker 1: a change on the code by mounting this huge effort
Speaker 1: and gaining mainstream press and try to get all these
Speaker 1: people to change the code, similar to what happened in
Speaker 1: two thousand seventeen with the block sized wars. And what
Speaker 1: happens is you can't change it. What you could do
Speaker 1: is you could fork it, so you could split the
Speaker 1: code in half and make an exact duplicate copy of
Speaker 1: the new chain and then start from there. It happened
Speaker 1: in two thousands seventeen block sized Wars. There's a book
Speaker 1: written about it, when bitcoin cash was created. And what
Speaker 1: he does is he forks it and creates and exactly
Speaker 1: duplicate for himself and prints a bunch of tokens for
Speaker 1: himself and makes himself rich. What happened with bitcoin cash.
Speaker 1: And then they sell all those new tokens and they
Speaker 1: print a bunch of money for them pocketbooks, playing you
Speaker 1: on behalf of the environment. They get themselves rich, and
Speaker 1: nobody wins except for themselves. Now, the one thing you
Speaker 1: want to do is you want to have a bunch
Speaker 1: of bitcoin before they make a copy, because if you
Speaker 1: own bitcoin and then they forked it, and then you
Speaker 1: own bitcoin and bitcoin cash, you would instantly double the
Speaker 1: amount of bitcoin instantly, and then you could quickly sell
Speaker 1: that bitcoin cash when it was actually still worth something
Speaker 1: before it went down to next to zero where it's
Speaker 1: at today. So if he's successful and he forks the chain,
Speaker 1: anyone that owns bitcoin will instantly get double the amount
Speaker 1: of bitcoin and you could sell it right away, just
Speaker 1: like he's gonna do. So he I believe he's going
Speaker 1: to do this as a as a political stunt, trying
Speaker 1: to use green Green peace to um enrich himself. But hey,
Speaker 1: we can play along. You can't beat him, join them,
Speaker 1: and so you should have as much bitcoin as you
Speaker 1: can when he makes that copy, and you end up
Speaker 1: but double the bitcoin. It's the pretty good deal. We
Speaker 1: listen to the Markmath Show and thanks for listening.