Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have, Krystal, Dad, We do lots of
Speaker 1: interesting stories breaking this morning to talk to you about.
Speaker 1: So we have new calls from Democrats, including James Carville,
Speaker 1: for Biden to drop out so well late in the
Speaker 1: game for that, but we're still going in that direction.
Speaker 1: Thomas Massey, Congressman Thomas Massey, Republican spills the tea on
Speaker 1: a pack babysitters to Tucker Carlson, got some interesting analysis
Speaker 1: of apack donations to get into with you. Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: making some very revealing and I guess very honest comments
Speaker 1: about the Ukraine world we're in the real reason that
Speaker 1: we are so deeply involved and invested in that your
Speaker 1: car may be tracking you and snitching to your insurance
Speaker 1: company in a way that could cause your premiums to
Speaker 1: go up. SAGA is taking a look at the FDA
Speaker 1: doing some shenanigans with regards to cigarettes.
Speaker 4: I'm looking forward to hearing that one.
Speaker 3: Yes, is one of the greatest. It is a crime against.
Speaker 1: Humanity, crime against jewel users. Well that's humanity, okay, all right, Well, well,
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to that one.
Speaker 4: I haven't read that one yet.
Speaker 1: And I'm taking a look at a new investigation into
Speaker 1: claims of Hama's mass rape on October seventh that has
Speaker 1: already created It was like kicking a hornets and has
Speaker 1: created a huge backlash, So a lot to dig into there.
Speaker 1: Also looking forward to speaking in studio this morning with
Speaker 1: Annelle she Line. She is a former State Department employee
Speaker 1: who resigned about two months ago over her objections to
Speaker 1: the war in Gaza and our unconditional support for Israel,
Speaker 1: or to talk to her about why she resigned, what
Speaker 1: she saw at the State Department, and also some new developments.
Speaker 1: We had a UN Security Council resolution pass about that
Speaker 1: ceasefire deal that the Biden administration claimed was Israel's idea,
Speaker 1: but for some reason, Israel's the only party actually at
Speaker 1: this point that says they project the deal their own
Speaker 1: deal supposedly. So a lot that's interesting there. I'm looking
Speaker 1: forward to speaking to and Nol this morning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's always great to hear for people who are
Speaker 2: actually on the inside. She can tell us about what
Speaker 2: it was actually like to work there and then also
Speaker 2: react to.
Speaker 3: Some of the things that are going on right now.
Speaker 2: So before we get to any of that, just a
Speaker 2: reminder hoping sure everything and making sure everything is good
Speaker 2: on the local side.
Speaker 3: If you have any issues.
Speaker 2: From the migration, remember you can send them email support
Speaker 2: at locals dot com and you can support us Breakingpoints
Speaker 2: dot com. You may not realize it. Today's a big day.
Speaker 2: It's our first time since moving over to Local. We've
Speaker 2: got two monologues right here in the show. So I
Speaker 2: know premiums subscribers, you guys have been asking. We just
Speaker 2: had to get our workflow and everything and there you go.
Speaker 2: So I hope you enjoy the show today Breakingpoints dot
Speaker 2: com if you want to become a subscriber. As Crystal said, though,
Speaker 2: there is some interesting development on the Biden is too
Speaker 2: old discourse. We're kind of like an oscillating thing. First
Speaker 2: we were allowed to say it, not allowed to say
Speaker 2: it now. Only some people are like James Carville is
Speaker 2: apparently one of those people who gave an interesting interview
Speaker 2: a few days ago that only now has been taking
Speaker 2: notice why he did not think Joe Biden should run again.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: It isn't the choice that I was crazy about. I
Speaker 5: actually was very public that I thought that President Biden
Speaker 5: should not run for reelection. But he did, and there's
Speaker 5: him and Trump, and that's where I am. And I'm
Speaker 5: a thousand percent behind President Biden. Just the charge I got,
Speaker 5: where does.
Speaker 3: The Democratic Party go?
Speaker 5: Well, one of the underappreciated things about current state of
Speaker 5: the Democratic Party is there is enormous I mean almost
Speaker 5: could say, I mean there's no Bill Clinton. You never
Speaker 5: can say that about someone. But with that type of skill.
Speaker 3: Oh, so there you go, Joe.
Speaker 2: So, first of all, Carville says something which is basically
Speaker 2: not true, Cristal, because we've been covering this for a
Speaker 2: long time, he did not ever say publicly or vocally
Speaker 2: that Biden.
Speaker 3: Should not run again. That has not been his amount.
Speaker 1: Now maybe it's that like a DC cocktail party the public.
Speaker 2: He may have said it out in the circuit, he
Speaker 2: did certainly did not say here. Carville, of course, the
Speaker 2: former campaign manager for Bill Clinton, kind of a what
Speaker 2: just a cable news star.
Speaker 1: I guess for the Yeah, he's got that later or
Speaker 1: so he's got character.
Speaker 4: You know, he's a character.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and he's looked like he was one hundred years
Speaker 1: old for my entire life somehow, So I guess he
Speaker 1: could be a very trusted authority in terms of the
Speaker 1: aging process and what is appropriate.
Speaker 2: There is a good documentary if anybody wants to watch it,
Speaker 2: called The War Room.
Speaker 3: It's actually on HBO Max. Now I just checked.
Speaker 5: It was.
Speaker 2: It was inside like a camera crew that joined the
Speaker 2: Clinton campaign when nobody thought that they were going to win,
Speaker 2: and so they actually were in the room for the
Speaker 2: entire course of the election, including all the way up
Speaker 2: to election ize.
Speaker 3: So we want to see how Carville really was in action.
Speaker 2: Along with George Dephanopolis, I do recommend it, but at
Speaker 2: the very least, he's a longtime Democratic elite pundit another
Speaker 2: for him to be saying something like this is pretty
Speaker 2: astounding because they're admitting the weakness of their candidate at
Speaker 2: the very same time. Let's put this up there from
Speaker 2: Nate Silver, the polling prognosticator. He says, it is clear
Speaker 2: now that Democrats would have been better served if Biden
Speaker 2: had decided a year ago not to seek a second term,
Speaker 2: which would have allowed them to have some semblance of
Speaker 2: a primary process and give voters to say amongst the
Speaker 2: many popular Democrats across the country.
Speaker 3: As he shows you, Biden.
Speaker 2: Has now hit an all time low in approval just yesterday.
Speaker 2: Dropping out would be a big risk, but there is
Speaker 2: a threshold below which continuing to run is a bigger risk.
Speaker 2: Are we there yet? I don't know, but it is
Speaker 2: more than fair to ask. I mean, we are now
Speaker 2: at a point really where historically it is very difficult
Speaker 2: to even put Biden into perspective.
Speaker 3: There's really only two options.
Speaker 2: He is the most unpopular president ever, including more unpopular
Speaker 2: than Jimmy Carter. So since the invention of modern polling
Speaker 2: or every single poll and all of the averages are
Speaker 2: totally wrong.
Speaker 3: Now, the funny thing.
Speaker 2: Is both are equally likely, I would say there is
Speaker 2: still a strong possibility that he could win the election.
Speaker 3: In fact, Nate wrote an entire piece.
Speaker 2: I recommend people read it about the path to two seventy,
Speaker 2: where he makes the case we talked about on our
Speaker 2: show yesterday. The past to two seventy for Biden through white,
Speaker 2: older voters in the industrial Midwest is still very strong.
Speaker 2: You can lose the entire sun Belt, a lot of
Speaker 2: the emerging parts of the country, and he can still
Speaker 2: win the election. But it is an incredibly narrow path
Speaker 2: and one that if things trend in this direction, if
Speaker 2: even somewhat accurate, is going to be extraordinarily unlikely.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, we covered yesterday a poll that had
Speaker 1: them tied, you know, among restered voters, I think Biden
Speaker 1: was up by one. Among likely voters, Trump was up
Speaker 1: by one, but just a total jump ball. So yeah,
Speaker 1: the remarkable thing is that both major parties seem to
Speaker 1: have chosen and what is probably like the weakest candidate
Speaker 1: that they possibly could and so that's what's keeping Joe.
Speaker 4: Biden in the game.
Speaker 1: You if Trump were to like get locked up and
Speaker 1: drop out of the race because of it, that would
Speaker 1: be the Democrat's worst nightmare because I think basically any
Speaker 1: other like generic Republican would probably beat Joe Biden. By
Speaker 1: five point six point seven points somewhere in that zone,
Speaker 1: fairly handily, they would sweep all of the battle ground states,
Speaker 1: very likely on the Democratic side. It's not really theoretical.
Speaker 1: We know because we can see the polling in each
Speaker 1: of the Senate races where every single Democratic Senate candidate,
Speaker 1: the good, the bad, the ugly, like whatever they are,
Speaker 1: wherever they are on the ideological spectrum, whatever their level
Speaker 1: of political talent is, they are all dramatically outperforming the
Speaker 1: top of the ticket. So Democrats, i think, after the
Speaker 1: midterms foolishly thought, oh, actually, you know, this went better
Speaker 1: than we thought, and so we're good. We don't need
Speaker 1: to think about another presidential contender. The Biden team, the
Speaker 1: thing that that they have probably been most competent and
Speaker 1: most effective at was closing the door to anyone from
Speaker 1: any elected from within the party. Obviously, Biden did have
Speaker 1: Democratic primary opponents, even though the party just like pretended
Speaker 1: they didn't exist. That that also was very effective in
Speaker 1: keeping Biden's grip on the Democratic Party apparatus. But that
Speaker 1: was the thing that they did most effectively. And so
Speaker 1: now even though everyone's looking at the approval rating, looking
Speaker 1: at the pulling and going, guys, this is kind of
Speaker 1: a disaster, especially when you're telling us democracies on the
Speaker 1: line and this is all existential and we're putting our
Speaker 1: weakest possible candidate forward. You even have you James Carville,
Speaker 1: who's obviously a party stalwart.
Speaker 4: He's as loyal a.
Speaker 1: Democrat as you could possibly get. Admitting that Biden should
Speaker 1: have dropped out a long time ago. A stet Herndon
Speaker 1: on Twitter has been making a point that I think
Speaker 1: is also really worth keeping in mind, which is that
Speaker 1: this idea that Biden would be too old to serve
Speaker 1: a second term really originates with Joe Biden himself last
Speaker 1: time when he was running. Part of his pitch was, listen, guys,
Speaker 1: I know I'm getting up there in years, but I'll
Speaker 1: be the sort of steady hand on the till the
Speaker 1: senior statesman to get us through this rough Trumpian waters,
Speaker 1: get him out of office, write the ship, and then
Speaker 1: hand the keys over to someone in the next generation.
Speaker 1: He really suggested very strongly that was an important part
Speaker 1: of his pitch and what made him appealing and allowed
Speaker 1: him to win and ultimately prevail in that Democratic primary.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't even originate with the voters themselves, although
Speaker 1: I'm sure they were concerned about that at the time
Speaker 1: as well. Joe Biden really bought into that argument and
Speaker 1: understood that argument at the time, even as now they
Speaker 1: try to pretend like it's preposterous and how dare you
Speaker 1: and its ageist and it's ablest because of his stutter
Speaker 1: or whatever.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's all because of his stutter. Christmas.
Speaker 4: Actually, that's my favorite.
Speaker 3: That's the real issue. Of course, let's go ahea and
Speaker 3: put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is the same, you know, the same normal stuff
Speaker 2: going on Biden's economy.
Speaker 3: Good metrics, bad vibes, and few.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's one of those where I don't know
Speaker 2: if to laugh or cry at this point, because what
Speaker 2: people don't seem to understand is they're like, well, the
Speaker 2: metrics are good, but people don't feel that it is good,
Speaker 2: and it's like, well, maybe the metrics are bullshit. You know.
Speaker 2: We were talking just yesterday with one of our producers
Speaker 2: about how the unemployment rate is even calculated. Is it
Speaker 2: an actual true capture of the unemployment rate or is
Speaker 2: it just the same way it's always been calculated. Hmmm,
Speaker 2: Maybe these like antiquated formulas from the nineteen seventies, which
Speaker 2: is the best they could come up with the pre
Speaker 2: computer era. Maybe that doesn't fully capture it. Maybe the
Speaker 2: quote unquote CPI bundle is not exactly the most accurate
Speaker 2: way to measure inflation. What if we were to just
Speaker 2: look at the way that people preference things in their lives, food,
Speaker 2: housing and shelter, or food and shelter, look at those
Speaker 2: two things and just think about what inflation looks like
Speaker 2: that over the course of biden presidency. Oh, now it's
Speaker 2: twenty five percent. Oh that's actually very high. Now we're
Speaker 2: talking about bad metrics and bad vibes. It's not a
Speaker 2: difficult thing to understand. It's really frustrating the way that
Speaker 2: the media continues to write about this.
Speaker 1: The housing piece, to me, is just so critical, yes,
Speaker 1: and so central, And I really think, you know, there's
Speaker 1: all this analysis of why is Biden holding on to
Speaker 1: his older voters, but younger voters are fleeing him in droves,
Speaker 1: And I really think that if you just look at
Speaker 1: who are the homeowners, who are the asset owners, and
Speaker 1: who are not, you can see very clearly where Biden's
Speaker 1: coalition has eroded. So, you know, predominantly older people tend
Speaker 1: to have you know, they had a chance to buy
Speaker 1: a house, they had a chance to accumulate something in
Speaker 1: their four oh one k or be invested in the
Speaker 1: stock market. And if you're young, or if you come
Speaker 1: from a minority community that historically hasn't had a lot
Speaker 1: of net wealth, you may be shut out of that.
Speaker 1: And so the economic landscape is totally different for those
Speaker 1: two groups of people. And to me, it's just a
Speaker 1: very simple and obvious explanation for the divergence between you know,
Speaker 1: how different demographic groups feel about Joe Biden, and yet
Speaker 1: it's completely ignored. There was a very revealing, very interesting
Speaker 1: quote from Ben Harris, who's a former or senior Treasury
Speaker 1: Department official who helped craft Biden's economic agenda, about these
Speaker 1: economic numbers and why even though you have jobs reports
Speaker 1: that show a lot of jobs gains, why they aren't
Speaker 1: giving Biden credit quote unquote, They say in this article,
Speaker 1: even if the trend of positive economic news it continues,
Speaker 1: it's unclear whether voters will give credit to the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: Inside Biden's orbit, the fear is that there's little new
Speaker 1: that administration can do to change the perceptions of a
Speaker 1: quote stubborn electorate that's living through an upswing, yet simply refusing.
Speaker 3: To believe it. There it is.
Speaker 1: Quote if half of the people think that unemployment is
Speaker 1: at a fifty year high when it's actually close to
Speaker 1: fifty year low. This is a problem of misinformation. It's
Speaker 1: a problem of perception. That's that Ben Harris, dude, I
Speaker 1: was just telling you about who helped with the Biden agenda.
Speaker 1: I think fortunately it'll have a major impact on the election.
Speaker 1: So it's the voter's fault. They just don't understand how
Speaker 1: good they've got it. They're being stubborn because they're not
Speaker 1: like going along with what the Biden administration wants them
Speaker 1: to feel about the economy. It's so condescending that you
Speaker 1: can scarcely believe it. And you can see in this
Speaker 1: attitude there's no attempt even to understand it. There's no
Speaker 1: attempt to give any credence to the economic anxiety that
Speaker 1: many many voters are feeling, and the fact that they
Speaker 1: feel very much the bite of high prices continuing. They
Speaker 1: feel very much the fact that housing, if you aren't
Speaker 1: already a homeowner, is getting increasingly out of reach. The
Speaker 1: numbers about how much the average mortgage cost has skyrocketed
Speaker 1: over just the past couple of years are truly breathtaking.
Speaker 1: So you know, they're they basically are like, yeah, we're
Speaker 1: not going to try anything new because we don't think
Speaker 1: it'll work. So we're just gonna, you know, hope for
Speaker 1: the best and remind people that Trump is bad and yes,
Speaker 1: hopefully that will.
Speaker 2: They're just going to keep relying on stories like let's
Speaker 2: go put this up there on the screen. Quote this
Speaker 2: from the Wall Street Journal. I'm not blaming them because
Speaker 2: they're a business publication, so they're writing it the way
Speaker 2: that they should. This is tiring, and wages are up,
Speaker 2: reinforcing the economy's resilience. It says the US posted surprisingly
Speaker 2: large games in both jobs and pay even though the
Speaker 2: unemployment rate ticked up to four percent. So they say
Speaker 2: that the US job growth burst past expectations last month,
Speaker 2: even as the unemployment edged up. Employers added some two
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy two thousand jobs. Now, again, whenever they
Speaker 2: talk about ticking up and we let's say, for example,
Speaker 2: that we keep wages, and we say wages though across
Speaker 2: the economy are up. However, if you read at the
Speaker 2: very very bottom of the story. Wages across the economy,
Speaker 2: though are difficult to measure. Federal officials have recently been
Speaker 2: hiding actual inflation data more than other factors that would
Speaker 2: influence those numbers. In other words, are wages keeping up
Speaker 2: with inflation? Absolutely not. And now let's push back to
Speaker 2: where I was earlier that I'm just talking about CPI inflation,
Speaker 2: which is a bundle of a bunch of different things.
Speaker 2: Let's talk specifically about what they talked about in that
Speaker 2: Politico piece housing, gas and food.
Speaker 3: Not a chance.
Speaker 2: You have lost a lot of money actually in terms
Speaker 2: of your overall purchasing power from the last four years,
Speaker 2: even if your wages went up by ten percent, yourself
Speaker 2: fifteen percent or whatever.
Speaker 3: In the hole. Everybody intuitively understands this.
Speaker 2: I've been speaking with many friends, many who are trying
Speaker 2: to buy a house or saving up for a down payment.
Speaker 2: When they calculate with their expected mortgages, they just give up.
Speaker 2: And these people who actually make decent money, many of
Speaker 2: them are like big law lawyers who probably make I
Speaker 2: don't know, a quarter MILLI year on top of their spouse,
Speaker 2: so they're probably pulling three three fifty but we live
Speaker 2: here in Washington, DC. Average home prices rum where around
Speaker 2: a million in terms of where people want to live.
Speaker 2: So that's two hundred k that you're going to need
Speaker 2: just saved up for a down payment, which is very,
Speaker 2: very difficult. And then assuming that you even qualify, or
Speaker 2: so you have less than that, if you're going to
Speaker 2: pay pm I, you've got mortgage, you know, payments which
Speaker 2: are double digits with the current interest rate. They're like,
Speaker 2: I can't afford that. They'd be like almost forty percent
Speaker 2: of my take home pay. And these people are frankly
Speaker 2: rich by most American standards. Okay, but even drop the
Speaker 2: numbers to a normal American housing market four five hundred thousand.
Speaker 2: I believe the average home price in the US is
Speaker 2: now some four hundred and fifty thousand dollars something like that.
Speaker 2: When we peg what that both price is along with
Speaker 2: the current mortgage payment, it is some thirty five to
Speaker 2: forty percent of average take home pay. Even if you
Speaker 2: make some one hundred grand a year.
Speaker 3: Good luck to you.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's that means that fifty percent of the country,
Speaker 2: you're done. It is not going to happen. And then
Speaker 2: over that or I guess it can, but it would,
Speaker 2: you really would. You're going to have what an hour
Speaker 2: and a half commune or something quality of life hit.
Speaker 3: That's going to be very significant.
Speaker 2: So all the numbers that people can intuitively see when
Speaker 2: they're interacting with and trying to ascend the ladder of
Speaker 2: a you know, quality of life not in an unreasonable way.
Speaker 2: You're not buying yachts, you're not flying all around the
Speaker 2: country trying to just buy a house. It is extremely difficult,
Speaker 2: and that is what the Biden people won't acknowledge.
Speaker 3: They don't even look at it.
Speaker 2: RFK, you know, to his credit, actually did on our
Speaker 2: show talk about housing, and I know he has some
Speaker 2: housing stuff that is out there, but there is no
Speaker 2: major candidate that is making this like the central issue
Speaker 2: to them for right now.
Speaker 3: And that's a huge mistake.
Speaker 2: I mean, Trump benefits because he's simply the anti and
Speaker 2: you know, in some ways people can project whatever they
Speaker 2: want on to them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. I mean, it is really the opposite
Speaker 1: of the incumbent advantage now because people are so like
Speaker 1: understandably down about the direction of the country, being out
Speaker 1: of office is almost an advantage at this point. So
Speaker 1: you know, I just think the level of arrogance from
Speaker 1: the Biden team, and you know they call the electorate stummering.
Speaker 1: They're the ones who are stubber and who are looking
Speaker 1: at these numbers and like, now, we're not going to change,
Speaker 1: We're not going to adjust. They're just they're going.
Speaker 4: To come along.
Speaker 1: We think, we hope. Listen, it worked out for us
Speaker 1: last time. Joe Biden's in the White House, so you know,
Speaker 1: we don't need to actually offer or anything. And that's
Speaker 1: that's what's really astonishing is.
Speaker 4: Think about the way that this country's supposed to worry, Like.
Speaker 1: Think about how much we talk about democracy and how
Speaker 1: important that's supposed to be. What percentage of voters says
Speaker 1: the economy is their number one issue, and yet you
Speaker 1: have really neither of these candidates that has offered anything
Speaker 1: significant in terms of an economic plan or vision. I
Speaker 1: mean Joe Biden, like, there are things that he has
Speaker 1: done that we've talked about in this administration that I
Speaker 1: support that I think we're a good direction, But in
Speaker 1: terms of delivering for people in the here and now,
Speaker 1: it's just it's non existent. It's non existent. What he's
Speaker 1: even promising in the next hour and We know the
Speaker 1: promises don't always come reality, but he's not even promising anything,
Speaker 1: so it's it.
Speaker 4: Really is remarkable.
Speaker 1: And you know, James Carvil Bill Clinton like obviously not
Speaker 1: a big fan of Bill Clinton or the way that
Speaker 1: he ran his administration, but when it came to campaigning,
Speaker 1: they understood that the economy had to come first and foremost.
Speaker 1: And yet you know, not only do you have no
Speaker 1: place on the economy, you have so much focus on
Speaker 1: funding foreign wars that regardless of how you feel about
Speaker 1: those foreign wars, obviously a lot of voters are going
Speaker 1: to come away with the correct impression that that is
Speaker 1: much more of a priority to Joe Biden. And by
Speaker 1: the way, the overwhelming majority of the political class in
Speaker 1: Washington than their well being day.
Speaker 5: In a day.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that's where sheer political talent also just comes
Speaker 3: into play. This is true.
Speaker 2: There's an amazing moment in the ninety two campaign debates.
Speaker 2: You can go watch it on YouTube where some lady
Speaker 2: asked Clinton a question. I think it's oh no, she
Speaker 2: asked George hw question about the national debt, which, lady,
Speaker 2: what are you doing? But it's been thirty years, so
Speaker 2: we'll forgive her. She asked George W. Hw Bush a
Speaker 2: question about the national debt. He answers it about the
Speaker 2: national debt. Clinton is like, she's not talking about the
Speaker 2: national debt. She's talking about the economy, and he rattles
Speaker 2: off like ten statistics about how everything you know. Al
Speaker 2: Gore had a famous saying, He's like, everything that's up,
Speaker 2: it should be down. Everything that's down should be up.
Speaker 2: He's like, we're going to turn things right side up.
Speaker 2: It was a good turn of phrase. But my point
Speaker 2: is that they un stood intuitively that hw Bush and
Speaker 2: trickled down economics was deeply out of touch with the
Speaker 2: current recession that was happening there at that time, and
Speaker 2: they hammered it home every single time that they would
Speaker 2: talk about that. So obviously ninety two he gets carried in,
Speaker 2: But people forget ninety six was a blowout election completely,
Speaker 2: and it was all because he continued on that economic legacy,
Speaker 2: and even though he didn't really do very much well
Speaker 2: he was president, he benefited from a lot of different stuff.
Speaker 2: He still was laser focused on that message, and even
Speaker 2: after the whole Lewinsky thing, he left office with a
Speaker 2: sixty six percent approval rating. So there is a lot
Speaker 2: to be learned here about just literal sheer political talent,
Speaker 2: and neither of the candidates we currently have who are
Speaker 2: major in the race are even trying to emulate any
Speaker 2: of that when it's one of the most successful strategies
Speaker 2: of my entire lifetime as a politician. Frankly, even more
Speaker 2: successful than Obama if we look at how he left
Speaker 2: office with his approval rating.
Speaker 1: Clinton had more of the common man, you know, that
Speaker 1: was the thing, I feel your pain like. There was
Speaker 1: a lot to be that was very interesting about his
Speaker 1: ninety two campaign, in particular where he really positioned himself
Speaker 1: as tried to position himself in a more populist direction
Speaker 1: vis a vi hw Bush, who is this like, you know,
Speaker 1: patrician scion of an extremely wealthy like political dynasty, and
Speaker 1: did all sorts of Romney esque things to signal to
Speaker 1: the public like this guy is nothing like you.
Speaker 4: He does not understand your life.
Speaker 1: And obviously you know this is disputed, but with a
Speaker 1: little help from ross Pero, he's able to ultimately get
Speaker 1: over the top. So in any case, to take it
Speaker 1: back to Carville's original point in terms of sheer political talent,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is no Bill Clinton, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: And Democrats have really been fortunate. You know, they were
Speaker 1: fortunate with Clinton because he was an extraordinary political talent.
Speaker 1: Barack Obama was also, in a very different way an
Speaker 1: extraordinary political talent. Hillary Clinton not so much, and Joe
Speaker 1: Biden at one point he had some things going for
Speaker 1: him politically, you know, in this sense of empathy. That
Speaker 1: was what he was really famous for. But those years
Speaker 1: are have passed them by, no.
Speaker 4: Doubt about it.
Speaker 3: If stuttered away.
Speaker 1: Senator Lindsay Graham, who's one of the biggest Ukraine warhawks possible.
Speaker 4: You know, if this guy was in.
Speaker 1: Charge, god forbid, we would already be in World War Three.
Speaker 1: Like there's no doubt whether it's with you know, Russia,
Speaker 1: or whethers with regard to Iran. Like any number of
Speaker 1: World War three's, Lindsay Graham is constantly looking to get
Speaker 1: us into He made some comments though, that were, I guess,
Speaker 1: very honest about the real reasons why we care so
Speaker 1: much about Ukraine, and spoiler alert has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with democracy or with their sovereignty or human rights. Let's
Speaker 1: take a listen to how Senator Graham explains why we
Speaker 1: should be super committed to Ukraine.
Speaker 6: They're sitting on ten to twelve trillion dollars of critical
Speaker 6: minerals in Ukraine, they could be the richest country.
Speaker 3: In all of Europe.
Speaker 6: I don't want to give that money and those assets
Speaker 6: to Putin to share with China. If we help Ukraine now,
Speaker 6: they can become the best business partner wherever dreamed of
Speaker 6: That ten to twelve trillion dollars or critical mineral assets
Speaker 6: could be used by Ukraine and the West, not given
Speaker 6: to Putin in China. This is a very big deal
Speaker 6: how Ukraine ends. Let's help them win a war we
Speaker 6: can't afford to lose. Let's find a solution to this war.
Speaker 6: But they're sitting on a gold mine. To give Putin
Speaker 6: ten or twelve trillion dollars or critical minerals that he
Speaker 6: will share with China is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Soccercarrius, your thoughts on this one.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, you're not supposed to say stuff
Speaker 2: like that ever since the World War One and the
Speaker 2: Great War, because that's when literal territorial conquests went out
Speaker 2: of style. And if you embrace that, then you are Putin.
Speaker 2: That's basically Putinism. Putinism is we have the right as
Speaker 2: a great power to seize this territory under whatever democratic means,
Speaker 2: because we can, and for for economic.
Speaker 1: Purposes, because we want that lithium or what.
Speaker 2: This is part of the thing that is so patently.
Speaker 2: Of course, people used to say that about Afghanistan too.
Speaker 2: They're like, well, theoretically there's six amount. It's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: what the Soviet Union and the Russians ruled Ukraine for
Speaker 2: what hundreds of years. If they were going to extract
Speaker 2: any thing of true value like that, they would have
Speaker 2: done it already. And more so, if that was remain
Speaker 2: true in the modern era, then the Ukrainian government would
Speaker 2: have done.
Speaker 3: It already if it was actually going to be possible.
Speaker 2: The reason why it's not possible is that Ukraine is
Speaker 2: a stratified country along ethnic lines, with deep corruption, and
Speaker 2: which basically has huge internal contradictions that go against each
Speaker 2: other that don't make it a functioning nation state, just
Speaker 2: like Afghanistan doesn't sound familiar. So underlying you know, resources
Speaker 2: or whatever, who cares about that. It's about the functioning
Speaker 2: apparatus above that's actually you know, able to bring that
Speaker 2: stuff to market, to be able to trade it.
Speaker 3: There's a reason they're known for grain and have been
Speaker 3: known for grain for hundreds of years.
Speaker 1: Okay, how much, But how much do you think that
Speaker 1: this is reflective of other elite thinking like in the
Speaker 1: Biden administration, et cetera.
Speaker 2: I would say it's very difficult because I actually don't
Speaker 2: think they're there. There's a better case for US involvement
Speaker 2: in Iraq and specifically in the Middle East on oil
Speaker 2: than there is for this, because, like I just said,
Speaker 2: nothing he's saying is even proven or actually like true
Speaker 2: in terms of its deliverables. I think a lot of
Speaker 2: it just comes down to like putin bad if anything,
Speaker 2: like I said, he is probably exhibiting more of a
Speaker 2: Putinesque like Russian mindset about why we need Ukraine. But
Speaker 2: regardless what is he saying there, He said, we need
Speaker 2: to quote unquote help Ukraine to turn it into a
Speaker 2: mineral vassal state that can work as our electric battery
Speaker 2: vehicle manufacturing. Someone should go and ask Ukrainians. Someone should
Speaker 2: go ask the Ukrainian grandpa who's sixty two years old
Speaker 2: and had one week of basic training on the front line,
Speaker 2: whether that is why he is fighting, and be like, hey,
Speaker 2: do you is that the future that you want for yourself.
Speaker 2: He's like, wait, I thought I was fighting for self determination.
Speaker 2: It's like, hey, buddy, we got some news for you
Speaker 2: about what you're really doing.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 2: I mean, like this is straight up out of World
Speaker 2: War One, like out of those secret treaties of the
Speaker 2: Bolsheviks published.
Speaker 3: That's that's a view into this mindset. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The Washington posted to an article a little while back
Speaker 1: just to confirm the mineral deposits that Lindsay Graham was
Speaker 1: talking to.
Speaker 4: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: They say, in the Ukraine War a battle for the
Speaker 1: nation's mineral and energy wealth. And they firm it from
Speaker 1: the other direction of not like, well, this is why
Speaker 1: we should be here, so that they can turn we
Speaker 1: can turn them into our lithium vessel state as far
Speaker 1: or footed. But that's what the Russians are really after.
Speaker 1: And in fact, a lot of the mineral wealth is
Speaker 1: in eastern Ukraine, you know, the area that is most
Speaker 1: in dispute. It's also the area that is the most
Speaker 1: ethnically Russian.
Speaker 3: The one that actually speaks Russian.
Speaker 1: You mean, yeah, right, So they say Ukraine harbor some
Speaker 1: of the world's largest reserves of titanium and iron ore
Speaker 1: fields of untapped lithium and massive deposits of coal. Collectively,
Speaker 1: there are worth tens of trillions of dollars. The line's
Speaker 1: share of those coal deposits, which for decorads have powered
Speaker 1: Ukraine's critical steel industry, are concentrated in the East, where
Speaker 1: Moscow's made the most inroads. That puts them in Russian hands,
Speaker 1: along with significant amounts of other valuable energy and mineral
Speaker 1: deposits used for everything from aircraft parts to smartphones. Ukraine
Speaker 1: would also lose myriad other reserves, including stores to natural gas, oil,
Speaker 1: rare earth minerals essential for certain high tech components that
Speaker 1: could hamper Western europe search for alternatives to imports from
Speaker 1: Russia and China.
Speaker 4: Ukraine is widely known as an.
Speaker 1: Agricultural powerhouse, but as a raw material mother load. It's
Speaker 1: home to one hundred and seventeen of the one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty most widely used minerals and metals, and a
Speaker 1: major source of fossil fuels. So I mean, I do
Speaker 1: think that there are not only this, but there are
Speaker 1: other business interests in Ukraine. We've seen the way that
Speaker 1: private equity has been very excited about the idea of
Speaker 1: how much money we're going to pay them basically for
Speaker 1: Ukraine reconstruction, And obviously, the longer the war goes on
Speaker 1: and the more devastation there is ah the war opordentity
Speaker 1: there is for those reconstruction dollars to flow into their coffers,
Speaker 1: so you know, and obviously you have the military industrial
Speaker 1: complex that are always chomping at the bit for a
Speaker 1: new war, and you know what that means for their
Speaker 1: bottom line. So this is an important part of the
Speaker 1: story of how we end up constantly engaged in these
Speaker 1: different wars, whether it's directly or proxy wars like this one,
Speaker 1: and why they seem to go on forever because you
Speaker 1: have a lot of people who are either currently profiting
Speaker 1: from the war or looking forward to future profits from
Speaker 1: that war.
Speaker 2: That is a much more accurate and frankly, I think
Speaker 2: correct economic case that can really be made here is
Speaker 2: why do you think Blackstone, JP Morgan and all these
Speaker 2: other people are holding summits about rebuilding Ukraine Because the
Speaker 2: American taxpayer is going to pay for it. They're going
Speaker 2: to finance all the fake bonds and all this other stuff,
Speaker 2: and We're going to be.
Speaker 3: The guarant terror of all of that. Yeah, it's disaster capitalism.
Speaker 2: It's happened time and time and time again. And then
Speaker 2: we'll create these fake state owned companies in Ukraine. Who oh,
Speaker 2: they just happen to become filthy rich oligarchs too, who
Speaker 2: end up, you know, basically some corrupt people on the planet.
Speaker 2: But it's all good because America is gonna get it's
Speaker 2: twenty percent. And by America I mean the banks, not
Speaker 2: anybody who is like a normal, average working person, and
Speaker 2: or the politicians who will then go work for the banks.
Speaker 2: That's if there is an economic case to be made
Speaker 2: for why US elites care about Ukraine.
Speaker 3: That's what it actually is.
Speaker 2: We're going all dressed up by this bs around minerals
Speaker 2: or democracy.
Speaker 3: But I mean, at the very least with Graham.
Speaker 2: This is why you if anything, it is more evil
Speaker 2: to it is straight up actually out of World War One,
Speaker 2: to have imperial powers dress up their conquest of territory
Speaker 2: in some grand fight against fascism or Kaiserism, and then
Speaker 2: a treaty comes out and it's like, oh well, actually,
Speaker 2: behind the scenes, we're splitting up, you know, all the
Speaker 2: remains of Eastern Europe or the Istanbul and Constantinople or whatever.
Speaker 3: It's like, No, that's that's what it's really about.
Speaker 2: It probably has always been that way, but you know,
Speaker 2: with a very few exceptions, but you're not supposed to
Speaker 2: say this stuff out loud, and that's why it's so gross.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it's hard to say which I prefer, like, I.
Speaker 3: Mean, I do prefer this. I will say I want,
Speaker 3: honestly more than anything. Yes, you can talk about.
Speaker 1: It exactly, because it's confusing to the American public if
Speaker 1: it's dressed up in values that they really believe in, right,
Speaker 1: that they actually earnestly care about right, and that they
Speaker 1: actually earnestly are concerned about the Ukrainian people and what
Speaker 1: this has done to their lives and their futures, et cetera,
Speaker 1: And so it confuses them about what our involvement is
Speaker 1: actually about.
Speaker 4: I do think it'd be better if you had, you know, Joe.
Speaker 1: Biden and others who were talking nakedly about their like
Speaker 1: wealth extraction plans out of this war, because then we
Speaker 1: could have honestly put it to the American people of like, Okay,
Speaker 1: well is this worth it to you? Is this like
Speaker 1: what your priority actually is? Cloaking it in humanitarian values,
Speaker 1: while the true end is just you know, feeding the
Speaker 1: profit machine is grotesque. So I guess, thank.
Speaker 4: You, Lindsey Gram.
Speaker 1: Sure your rare honesty, I guess, but your worldview is gross.
Speaker 2: Right, this is a very interesting one. I'm sure that's
Speaker 2: I mean quite literally, is going to affect all of us.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. Is your
Speaker 2: driving being secretly scored? The insurance industry quote, hungry for
Speaker 2: insights into how people drive, has turned to automakers and
Speaker 2: smartphone apps like Life three sixty. So it says, quote,
Speaker 2: you know you have a credit score, but did you
Speaker 2: know that you might also have a driver's score. A
Speaker 2: driver's score reflects how many times you slam on the brakes,
Speaker 2: how much you speed, how much you look at your phone,
Speaker 2: how much you drive late at night. Then that driver's
Speaker 2: score is then being bought and used by auto insurance
Speaker 2: companies to variably adjust your auto.
Speaker 3: Insurance rates, it says correctly.
Speaker 2: For the last two decades, auto insurers have been trying
Speaker 2: to get people to enroll in these programs that they
Speaker 2: monitor their day to day driving, they say, so that
Speaker 2: the rates can better.
Speaker 3: Reflect their actual risk.
Speaker 2: But you could flip it around and say, so that
Speaker 2: the rates can also variably spike whenever we see you
Speaker 2: doing something quote unquote risky. Well, why is that bad?
Speaker 2: Because it is a complete invasion of privacy that uses
Speaker 2: not only the vehicle but your phone to gauge all
Speaker 2: of the details of your everyday life. It is also,
Speaker 2: frankly not really fair. I've been thinking about this because
Speaker 2: I drive and rush hour traffic here.
Speaker 3: Well, if I slam on the.
Speaker 2: Brakes because somebody is an idiot in front of me,
Speaker 2: I'm getting penalized.
Speaker 3: And it's not my fault.
Speaker 2: You know that people drive here in bumper to bumper
Speaker 2: And by the way, if you're not bumpered a bumper,
Speaker 2: you're just gonna get cut off and then you're the
Speaker 2: sucker who's in the drive. So my point is just
Speaker 2: that there are so many perverse incentives and different ways
Speaker 2: where this could spike insurance rates for some consumers. Others
Speaker 2: who maybe have a different commute would be paying less.
Speaker 2: It would basically put the burden on you know, let's
Speaker 2: say people who have to drive in rush hour traffic,
Speaker 2: and they would have to pay much more, even though
Speaker 2: they're the ones who are, you know, frankly spending more
Speaker 2: time on the road, et cetera. It's just one of
Speaker 2: those where the privacy element of it shows what the
Speaker 2: invasion looks like. And I would be remiss if I
Speaker 2: didn't say also that this comes just we're taping this segment.
Speaker 2: The very day after that, Apple announces this major integration
Speaker 2: with open AI and with chat GPT.
Speaker 3: So now you know.
Speaker 2: At the OS level, your data is hardwired into a
Speaker 2: large language model where what you think that you know,
Speaker 2: all of the Geico and all these other companies aren't
Speaker 2: going to be then using that to churn even more
Speaker 2: and create predictive models of your driving so they can
Speaker 2: variably adjust. I mean, you can just see what the
Speaker 2: future here looks like where they're going to squeeze every single.
Speaker 3: Dollar that they have out of you.
Speaker 1: And really, in some ways the most disturbing part is
Speaker 1: people have no idea.
Speaker 3: We don't even know.
Speaker 4: I didn't notice was happening.
Speaker 1: You download an app like a gas but is the
Speaker 1: one that's mentioned here which helps you, like, I guess,
Speaker 1: be more fuel lectures?
Speaker 3: Cool app? Actually, well it used to be cool after.
Speaker 1: Yeah, now you need to read the disclosures very carefully because, yeah,
Speaker 1: the apps that are on your phone and your car
Speaker 1: itself is snitching to your car insurance company and selling
Speaker 1: your data about and I'm talking about down to the minute,
Speaker 1: like second by second diary of what you are doing
Speaker 1: in the car. One individual who sort of went on
Speaker 1: this quest to find out what they knew about him,
Speaker 1: was ultimately able to obtain his driver's score and all
Speaker 1: of the information that had been sold to these car
Speaker 1: insurance companies. He said there was a Microsoft Excel file
Speaker 1: with timestamped list of his every offending event and the
Speaker 1: latitude and longitude.
Speaker 4: For where they occurred.
Speaker 1: In the speeding tab, for example, there were more than
Speaker 1: two hundred second by second entries for the handful of
Speaker 1: drives during which this individual, mister Letherne, had exceeded a
Speaker 1: eighty five miles per hour. Like they are tracking you
Speaker 1: second by second, where your eyes are, how often you're
Speaker 1: on the phone, whether you put the brake on a
Speaker 1: little too hard, whether you accelerate it a little too fast,
Speaker 1: Like I think people would be horrified to know that.
Speaker 1: You feel like when you're in your car, you feel
Speaker 1: like you're kind of in like you're.
Speaker 3: In your space, supposedly your property, but.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you're in your property.
Speaker 1: You're in your space, like you feel like this is
Speaker 1: a you know, obviously there's people could see the way,
Speaker 1: but you feel like this is like a private space.
Speaker 1: You have no awareness that everything you're doing in there
Speaker 1: is being tracked.
Speaker 4: And GM, actually we.
Speaker 1: Can put this next one up on the screen because
Speaker 1: New York Times had done some reporting.
Speaker 4: On this Previously.
Speaker 1: GM had made a deal with Lexus Nexus where they
Speaker 1: were sending you know, with these digital dashboards, they're tracking
Speaker 1: everything that you're doing in the car, and they were
Speaker 1: selling it to Lexus Nexus, which was selling it to
Speaker 1: the car insurance companies. Now I think after this report
Speaker 1: and that flash, they stopped with this deal. But this
Speaker 1: is this is where we're at. You know, cars have
Speaker 1: so much digital technology in them now they're integrated with
Speaker 1: your smartphones, especially through Apple CarPlay. Could actually put this
Speaker 1: next piece up on the screen because this was something
Speaker 1: that Matt Stoler revealed to us in the context of
Speaker 1: the Apple anti competitive DOJ suit. So CarPlay. Apple wants
Speaker 1: to take over like your entire dashboard through car Play,
Speaker 1: and the thing is for automakers, CarPlay has become very popular.
Speaker 1: You know, people really demand it in their vehicles. The
Speaker 1: only major automaker that doesn't include it. I believe it's
Speaker 1: GM at this point because they want to be able
Speaker 1: to gather your data themselves, I guess, and sell it off.
Speaker 1: They don't want Apple to be able to sell off
Speaker 1: your data. But so you have this full integration of
Speaker 1: everything you're doing in the car being tracked and exploited,
Speaker 1: and I just think people are completely oblivious to any
Speaker 1: of this that's going on.
Speaker 2: Oh oh, absolutely, I was looking for while you were
Speaker 2: talking on Tesla. They used to have this thing called
Speaker 2: a safety score, which is exactly what you're talking about,
Speaker 2: and it would measure hard breaking. I actually opted out
Speaker 2: of it because they were using it as part of
Speaker 2: quote unquote real time insurance, which exactly uses your safety
Speaker 2: score for And I was like, well, it's not fair,
Speaker 2: you know, because you drive so DC and Maryland.
Speaker 3: There's a whole meme in the DC community abou quote
Speaker 3: unquote Maryland drivers.
Speaker 2: And you know, if somebody cuts you off and you're
Speaker 2: constantly like in this battle and war against all of
Speaker 2: these other idiots that are on the road, you're being
Speaker 2: penalized in real time as a result of other people's
Speaker 2: bad driving. Yeah, and that's really what I mean about
Speaker 2: the weird and the perverse incentives and about the way
Speaker 2: that this could all be applied. So I mean the
Speaker 2: real teal dr on this is that when we think
Speaker 2: about the phone and then the car and as it
Speaker 2: fuses together, your phone already has a compass, an accelerometer, everything,
Speaker 2: but they don't even need the car honestly at this point.
Speaker 2: And then we've combined with large data model. It knows
Speaker 2: everything about your driving already if it wants to, and
Speaker 2: then all it takes is a few B to B
Speaker 2: deals between Geico and something else. How many people really
Speaker 2: paying attention every time they hit allows on their of course.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because that's what they would. Oh well, technically we
Speaker 1: asked you whether you wanted this or not. You read
Speaker 1: through the eighty page like disclaimer, you know, consent form
Speaker 1: that you have to sign when you get this app
Speaker 1: what nobody does.
Speaker 2: That's the Also, people are terrible judges of their own driving,
Speaker 2: and there's a lot of data to support this in
Speaker 2: terms of overall survey as opposed to how they actually drive. Well,
Speaker 2: what is guyic going to tell you or whomever? This
Speaker 2: is going to help you because you're a good driver, right, right?
Speaker 2: And you'd be like, yeah, I'm a greed great whatever.
Speaker 4: Boom.
Speaker 2: Next thing you know, you know, you're you almost get
Speaker 2: into a crash and someone cuts you off and your
Speaker 2: insurance premium goes up by ten dollars a month. And also,
Speaker 2: I don't know if everybody knows this, car insurance is
Speaker 2: up by I think forty year over ye. Car insurance
Speaker 2: is totally out of control, so much so that you know,
Speaker 2: I monitor my charges very religiously and I was like,
Speaker 2: what the hell is going on over here? And I
Speaker 2: looked into it and I was like, Oh, it's not
Speaker 2: just me, It's the entire country. There's a lot of
Speaker 2: stuff going on behind the scenes. They really they claim that.
Speaker 3: It's outside of the control.
Speaker 2: When somebody jack surprized up by forty percent over a
Speaker 2: single year, you should probably, you know, think about why
Speaker 2: exactly that is. But the point here is just the technology,
Speaker 2: and it's not just an insurance, by the way, this
Speaker 2: is the whole economy. I just saw a story yesterday
Speaker 2: about Uber. Uber will actually increase the price of your
Speaker 2: ride if your phone battery is very low because they
Speaker 2: know you're desperate. You're like, you've got to get home
Speaker 2: because your phone is going to die.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean in a way, it's genius. Right. You're like, well,
Speaker 3: it's true.
Speaker 2: I'll probably be willing to hit forty percent more if
Speaker 2: my phone's at five percent, because I'm screwed if I
Speaker 2: can't get home.
Speaker 3: But that's pretty bad, isn't it.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of variable pricing in Uber eats as well.
Speaker 3: You know Uber eats mcdonald'.
Speaker 2: McDonald's is making a killing through Uber eats because their
Speaker 2: stuff is cheap. If you're willing to go to the
Speaker 2: store when you're drunk at two thirty in the morning,
Speaker 2: people are gonna pay a lot for McDonald's. They're paying
Speaker 2: like primo prices or for Taco bell or for any
Speaker 2: of these, and Uber Eats knows that, so they.
Speaker 3: Use the variable price.
Speaker 2: The driver usually doesn't get nearly as much, and these
Speaker 2: people are walking away with billions and billions of dollars.
Speaker 4: This is what they're using AI for people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this has to benefit humanity, But to price gouge
Speaker 1: you to the greatest possible to grind. Seriously, I mean
Speaker 1: there's whole companies that are spun up now to do
Speaker 1: the variable pricing. You're talking about exploiting whatever data they
Speaker 1: get the car. The phone battery thing is crazy. They'll
Speaker 1: use whatever info they can to figure out how desperate
Speaker 1: you are for this particular product, and how willing and
Speaker 1: able you are to pay for this particular product, and
Speaker 1: they'll just turn the dial up squeeze you for every
Speaker 1: bit that you're possibly worth, using AI to fine tune
Speaker 1: the art of price gouging. What a world, All right, Zager?
Speaker 3: What are you looking at as people who watch our amas?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: I am a fan of nicotine, which in recent years
Speaker 2: has had a major cultural resurgence thanks to the development
Speaker 2: of both smokeless vaporizers and tobacco free pouches from companies
Speaker 2: like Zin or Lucy. This cultural resurgence of nicotine, instead
Speaker 2: of igniting a fair conversation about the trade offs involving
Speaker 2: the drug, has instead sparked an insane bipartisan moral panic,
Speaker 2: which has both hurt market competition and actually made public
Speaker 2: health in America much worse. The story begins with Jewel,
Speaker 2: which was the major innovator in popularizing vaping. Jewell, through
Speaker 2: proprietary technology and innovative patents, invented a vaporizer which was small, sleek,
Speaker 2: and then most importantly delivered the same nicotine hit as
Speaker 2: an actual cigarette. The impetus for starting that company were
Speaker 2: as actually two smokers who had tried desperately to quit
Speaker 2: consistently and were unable to find anything in.
Speaker 3: The marketplace which worked for them.
Speaker 2: In other words, the intention of the company from the
Speaker 2: outset was explicitly to help people quit smoking, which it
Speaker 2: did both for the founders and increasingly for millions of smokers.
Speaker 2: But then something unintended happened. People who started using Jewel
Speaker 2: and nicotine may not have otherwise ever have smoked, largely
Speaker 2: because they intuited that jeweling, while probably not quote unquote
Speaker 2: good for you, is still a hell of a lot
Speaker 2: better than actually smoking. Well, here's where the nanny state
Speaker 2: kicked in. Jewel innovated by creating different flaser flavors of
Speaker 2: so called nicotine pods, the most famous of which were
Speaker 2: mango and crem burlet. Quickly, they became attacked by the
Speaker 2: US government because of its own success. Despite literally millions
Speaker 2: of people switching from cigarettes to vaping, including enjoying those
Speaker 2: flavored pods, the FDA under the Trump administration put them
Speaker 2: into their sites in twenty eighteen, facing massive regulatory scrutiny
Speaker 2: Jewel had to pull flavored pods from its stores. This
Speaker 2: was under a later rule by the FDA to combat
Speaker 2: the so called youth vaping epidemic.
Speaker 3: Now, since it's.
Speaker 2: Been five years or so since that actually happened, we
Speaker 2: can see and evaluate the results.
Speaker 3: How did things work out?
Speaker 2: Let's see, the FDA killed Jewel, which was an American
Speaker 2: homegrown innovative company. Instead, what's happened has been a massive
Speaker 2: rise in disposable flavored vapes from China. The way that
Speaker 2: these flavored vapes are able to circumvent US law is
Speaker 2: by illegally shipping to the US, constantly changing ownership and
Speaker 2: regulatory structure, and being disposable as supposed to permanent. At
Speaker 2: the same time, they maintained the flavored vape market to
Speaker 2: the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in the
Speaker 2: many years since. So the government killed Jewel pods flavored,
Speaker 2: only to then turn around and hand the market share
Speaker 2: to China. So, if that's not bad enough, a new
Speaker 2: analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that
Speaker 2: not only did the flavor ban kill Jewel, that in
Speaker 2: selected markets where flavored vapes were no longer available, youths
Speaker 2: from age eighteen to twentyquote began switching to combustible cigarette smoking. Furthermore,
Speaker 2: they found zero evidence that flavor restrictions have any effect
Speaker 2: whatsoever on the tobacco or nicotine usage of.
Speaker 3: Adults who were older than twenty one.
Speaker 2: So basically, the killed Jewel to combat youth nicotine use.
Speaker 2: The youths then switched to straight up cigarettes. Those twenty
Speaker 2: one and up just bought Chinese vapes with god knows
Speaker 2: what in them instead. And if that's not enough of
Speaker 2: an insult, it is now the admission of the failure
Speaker 2: by the FDA, which is not getting nearly enough attention.
Speaker 2: Just a few days ago, the FDA has now reversed itself,
Speaker 2: placing Jewel Labs products quote unquote under scientific review, removing
Speaker 2: the ban on its products, and furthermore humiliating themselves even more,
Speaker 2: they had to announce a new task force to go
Speaker 2: after illegal flavored vapes that are flooding in from China.
Speaker 2: So to recap everything has happened so far, FDA went
Speaker 2: after Jewel, they said, targeting kids with flavored pods. Those
Speaker 2: kids then switched from actual flavored pods to cigarettes or
Speaker 2: the exact same product sold by Chinese companies with very
Speaker 2: little quality control or oversight by the government. Years later,
Speaker 2: the FDA says they're now unbanning jool and are setting
Speaker 2: up a major task force to target the very vape
Speaker 2: companies that they created a massive market for in the
Speaker 2: first place. And now they have an actual youth smoking
Speaker 2: problem on their hands because cigarettes are cool again. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's what happened all of this for nicotine, a product that,
Speaker 2: once you divorce from actual carcinogenic cigarettes, is arguably one
Speaker 2: of the greatest nootropics known to man, not to mention
Speaker 2: neuroprotective against Alzheimer's and a central part now of the
Speaker 2: human life for centuries, which you don't even need any
Speaker 2: of the downside risk. Now, let's be clear, that's not
Speaker 2: health advice. You have to be twenty one. I'm not
Speaker 2: a doctor. It's also one of the most addictive substances
Speaker 2: known to man, so buyer and user beware. But at
Speaker 2: the very least, wherever you fallo on nicotine, you have
Speaker 2: to at least admit this.
Speaker 3: What the government did to Jewel is criminal.
Speaker 2: They killed the only American innovator in the space. They
Speaker 2: gave the market to China, They created more actual teen smokers.
Speaker 2: They are now creating a task force to address the
Speaker 2: problem they created.
Speaker 3: You don't hate these idiots enough