Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of The Mark Moss Show,
Speaker 1: where we're always talking about the decentralized revolution. I'm breaking
Speaker 1: down the way the world is changing so you can
Speaker 1: understand what's going on, where we're going and what you
Speaker 1: should be doing about it. And I like to bring
Speaker 1: you some education to kind of help you understand things differently,
Speaker 1: and some late breaking news so you can see the
Speaker 1: play by play of how these changes are taking place.
Speaker 1: And that's what we got coming up today. I got
Speaker 1: a lot of news stories that happened this week. I
Speaker 1: want to cover something really, really really big happened in
Speaker 1: the financial space with the SEC Security Exchange Commission and
Speaker 1: cryptocurrency big deal. I want to talk about the problems
Speaker 1: the United States is having when it really comes down
Speaker 1: to dealing with this global decentralization that's happening, specifically in
Speaker 1: regards to ramping itself up against China and so forth.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about what is going on in
Speaker 1: the US real estate market with some new entrants into
Speaker 1: the space, as well as presidential candidates wane in against
Speaker 1: that and who you won't believe what this teacher just
Speaker 1: said to the student. It goes, it builds on exactly
Speaker 1: what I talked about last week on the show. We're
Speaker 1: going to cover all that and more, a whole lot more.
Speaker 1: So don't tune out. I got to cover all this.
Speaker 1: If you do have to tune out, don't worry. You
Speaker 1: can catch up on the podcast. Just search the Mark
Speaker 1: More Show on your favorite podcast player. Now, like I said,
Speaker 1: big news in the financial space overall, this is really
Speaker 1: about bitcoin and cryptocurrency. However, it's really about the financial
Speaker 1: system overall. What am I talking about. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: the SEC Security Exchange Mission getting whacked again, getting slapped again,
Speaker 1: let's say, getting their butt kicked again. If I should say, so,
Speaker 1: what am I talking about? Well, the SEC is meant
Speaker 1: to protect consumers. Of course, they don't do that. All
Speaker 1: they do is put consumers into more harm. That's what
Speaker 1: they do. In my opinion, as I've said many many times,
Speaker 1: I think they should just shut down in disgrace. They
Speaker 1: didn't stop any of the problems that happened in cryptocurrency
Speaker 1: over the last five six, seven years. They didn't prevent
Speaker 1: anything from going on. With the terror Luna collapse, that
Speaker 1: didn't help anybody. With the Celsius collapse, which is a
Speaker 1: US based regulated company. They didn't help anybody. They didn't
Speaker 1: help anybody prevent loss with the block file, which is
Speaker 1: again a US based company. They didn't help anybody with
Speaker 1: the FTX, even though Gary Ginslow, the head of the
Speaker 1: SEC is buddy Buddy and with with the FTX crew
Speaker 1: Sam Binkman Fried, they didn't help anybody with any of that.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, in my opinion, they only
Speaker 1: helped it get worse and harm more people. So I
Speaker 1: think they should shut down his grace. However, I think
Speaker 1: as I as I warned back I think November of
Speaker 1: last year, that Gary Ginzer was gonna come out swinging.
Speaker 1: He has egg on his face, he looks horrible, and
Speaker 1: he can't go out like that. So he's got to
Speaker 1: come extra heavy handed to really prove his proof, prove
Speaker 1: that he could get things under control, right, that he's
Speaker 1: a man of action or something like that. And so
Speaker 1: I warned that was gonna be the case, and that's
Speaker 1: certainly has been the case. They have started to slap judgments,
Speaker 1: or not judgments, but a regulatory action against all types
Speaker 1: of crypto projects as well as most of the crypto exchanges,
Speaker 1: which is what I had had predicted would be the
Speaker 1: main choke point. It's way usual to go after five
Speaker 1: or six exchanges, that is, you know, twenty five thirty
Speaker 1: thousand tokens. He's done some of both. But what's interesting
Speaker 1: is that they're getting the SEC themselves and Gary Ginsler
Speaker 1: is the one getting the SmackDown. So we've seen several
Speaker 1: high ranking law members basically calling for Gary Ginsler's resignation.
Speaker 1: We see, you know, people calling for him to step down,
Speaker 1: people for him to quit all of that. And at
Speaker 1: the same time, a lot of these enforcement actions that
Speaker 1: has been filing have also been getting slapped down. We
Speaker 1: saw I think I covered a few weeks ago, how
Speaker 1: the long standing case that everybody's been watching is the
Speaker 1: SEC versus Ripple and XRP and they sort of lost
Speaker 1: on some sort of made up on the other and
Speaker 1: I want to go back into that. But now another
Speaker 1: one which the SEC has been basically denying every single
Speaker 1: bitcoin ETF that's come across its desk, which doesn't make
Speaker 1: a lot of sense to me. They say that the
Speaker 1: reason why that they want they don't want to allow
Speaker 1: a spot bitcoin ETF is because they're not sure how
Speaker 1: much manipulation is out there in the market, but I don't.
Speaker 1: I've never really understood that. And the reason why is
Speaker 1: you have two types of ETFs. ETF one is where
Speaker 1: you don't really buy the underlying products. So what does
Speaker 1: that mean. That means if I were to buy a
Speaker 1: bitcoin ETF, a spot ETF, and I gave them a
Speaker 1: thousand dollars, they would have to go buy one thousand
Speaker 1: dollars with a bitcoin to back my thousand dollars in there.
Speaker 1: That's a spot ETF. But the other way is on
Speaker 1: the futures, where basically I'm just betting on the price
Speaker 1: direction of the underlying asset. And that's how most gold
Speaker 1: ETFs are. There's rumored, don't even know, it's rumored to
Speaker 1: have about five hundred fake paper ounces for every one
Speaker 1: real physical ounce. And so they're doing bitcoin the same way.
Speaker 1: So they've allowed those types of bitcoin ETFs to happen.
Speaker 1: But we don't have a spot a physical bitcoin ETF.
Speaker 1: And they say, because we don't know how much manipulation's
Speaker 1: out there, Well, if you manipulate the price, you manipulate
Speaker 1: the price, what difference does it make if I own
Speaker 1: the asset or not. We're still betting on the price
Speaker 1: of the asset either way, right, So that never made
Speaker 1: sense to me. But that's what they've been hanging on. Well,
Speaker 1: there's Grayscale Bitcoin Trust I've talked about for a long time,
Speaker 1: which is sort of like an ETF, but because ETFs
Speaker 1: aren't allowed, it's under a different sort of entity called
Speaker 1: a trust. But they Gray Scale wants to convert from
Speaker 1: this trust into an ETF. They already hold the bitcoin
Speaker 1: and so they've been trying to get that converted, and
Speaker 1: the SEC has continued to deny their application to convert
Speaker 1: from the trust into the ETF. So Gray Scale sued
Speaker 1: and Gray Scale one. The Gray Scale won the lawsuit.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, the judges unanimously repudiated the
Speaker 1: SEC's arguments and the agency of what the agency said.
Speaker 1: The appeals court found that the SEC to be arbitrary
Speaker 1: and capricious in its denial order of gbtc's conversion into
Speaker 1: an ETF, and it vacated the decision. They repudiated virtually
Speaker 1: every argument made by the SEC when comparing the bitcoin
Speaker 1: spot and the futures markets, saying the agency failed to
Speaker 1: adequately explain why it approved ETFs tracking one and not
Speaker 1: the other. That's exactly what I've been saying this whole time.
Speaker 1: They reputed virtually every argument made by the SEC. So
Speaker 1: the SEC is trying to say, no, no, no, these
Speaker 1: are different. You know, the spot and the futures are different. Well,
Speaker 1: the judge said, no, they're not. And so this is
Speaker 1: a big deal, and it continues to discredit, It continues
Speaker 1: to take away the credibility of the SEC and what
Speaker 1: Gary Ginsler is doing. And apparently, according to Bloomberg Intelligence,
Speaker 1: they're saying that now because this has happened, the chances
Speaker 1: of the SEC approving a spot bitcoin ETF this year
Speaker 1: have risen to seventy five percent from just sixty five
Speaker 1: percent or before the win. Now, Bloomberg Intelligence says that
Speaker 1: they believe that the odds are ninety five percent before
Speaker 1: the end of twenty twenty four. Now that's a big
Speaker 1: deal for a bunch of reasons. Like I said, it's
Speaker 1: a big deal if you're a GBTC holder, a Grayscale
Speaker 1: Bitcoin Trust holder. It's a big deal because it can
Speaker 1: unlock those tokens for you. It's also a big deal
Speaker 1: because it's showing a string of events where the SEC
Speaker 1: is continually getting smacked down. And so we're starting to
Speaker 1: see that this over you know, overburdensome, heavy handed approach
Speaker 1: by the SEC is getting peeled back. And I think
Speaker 1: that's a good thing. Like I said from the beginning,
Speaker 1: I think they should just shut down. And so they're
Speaker 1: not going to do that, but maybe it'll start to
Speaker 1: slow them down a little bit, take away some of them,
Speaker 1: like I said, some of their heavy handed actions. Now,
Speaker 1: the big ETF that everybody's waiting for is this Blackrock ETF. Now,
Speaker 1: Blackrock is the largest asset manager in the world. They're
Speaker 1: essentially an extension of the government, if you will. They
Speaker 1: do a lot of purchases for the FED, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And they have an ATF that's on the docket, a
Speaker 1: physical ETF, and they could be the first one in.
Speaker 1: Now is Blackrock good or bad for the future of
Speaker 1: bitcoin and crypto? Well, I'm no fan of Blackrock. That
Speaker 1: is not a mystery. I talk bad about them all
Speaker 1: the time. They've taken all your money and they use
Speaker 1: it against your best interest. So I would say that
Speaker 1: they're probably good and bad. I'm afraid that if they
Speaker 1: do like what they always do, which is take over
Speaker 1: majority interest in all these companies, they could use that
Speaker 1: for bad, like they do all the time. I could
Speaker 1: also argue that it could be good because it could
Speaker 1: bring a massive amount of people into the bitcoin in
Speaker 1: the cryptocurrency space, which could push the asset prices up
Speaker 1: sky high to the moon. So I guess it depends
Speaker 1: on it's good if you own crypto and bitcoin and
Speaker 1: you'd like to see it go higher. It could be
Speaker 1: bad because they could potentially try to centralize and manipulate
Speaker 1: it like they don't normally do. Now, if you're just
Speaker 1: tune in, you're listening to the markmas Show, we're talking
Speaker 1: about the decentralized Revolution. We've been talking about some of
Speaker 1: the latest breaking news headlines of the week. I got
Speaker 1: a lot more to cover when I come back, So
Speaker 1: don't go away. I'll bear back, all right, Welcome back.
Speaker 1: If you're tune in, you're listening to the Mark mass Show.
Speaker 1: We're talking about some of the latest breaking news headlines
Speaker 1: that happened this week that continue to build on our
Speaker 1: narrative of this decentralized revolution. Now, looking at the economy,
Speaker 1: I always like to look at through the lens of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology, because it's really when you look at the
Speaker 1: convergence of those three things that you really start to
Speaker 1: build out a better picture of what the heck is
Speaker 1: going on. But in regards to the economy, which is
Speaker 1: driven by both politics and finance, if you want to
Speaker 1: know what's going on there, you kind of have to
Speaker 1: look at Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 1: The Federal Reserve sets the monetary policy, uh, not just
Speaker 1: for the United States, but really for the whole world
Speaker 1: by setting the price of money. Right, so when they
Speaker 1: increase interest rates, like they've done the fastest rate in history,
Speaker 1: then we they're changing the price of money. They're making
Speaker 1: money more expensive. When money's more expensive, less people buy it.
Speaker 1: You buy money by paying the interest rate. Now, the
Speaker 1: FED just had their annual meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming,
Speaker 1: where it wasn't just the US and the FED, it
Speaker 1: was the international bankers as well. Christine Leguard from the
Speaker 1: ECB European Central Bank was over there as lots of
Speaker 1: other bankers were as well. Now, of course, since it's
Speaker 1: in the US and it's the Jerome Powell and the
Speaker 1: Fed's meeting, of course, mister Powell gave his keynote address. Now,
Speaker 1: a couple of things of interest in there was that
Speaker 1: he said that the fight against inflation wasn't finished and
Speaker 1: that there was still a long way to go to
Speaker 1: get the job done, which seems kind of hawkish. He
Speaker 1: said that the lower monthly readings for core inflation in
Speaker 1: June and July, we're welcome, So he liked it. But
Speaker 1: he said two months of good data are only the beginning.
Speaker 1: Twelve month core inflation data is still elevated. So he's
Speaker 1: kind of saying, look, we're committed to bring it down inflation.
Speaker 1: He said this many times. He said there's going to
Speaker 1: be pain. He said, we have to get back to
Speaker 1: two percent. He said, sure, we've seen some trends going down,
Speaker 1: but we're not content with that yet. So he said
Speaker 1: that quote, we see the current stance of our policy
Speaker 1: as restrictive, putting downward pressure on economic activity, hiring, and inflation.
Speaker 1: But we can't identify with certainty the neutral rate of interest,
Speaker 1: and thus there is always uncertainty about the precise level
Speaker 1: of monetary policy restraint end quote. Hmmm, kind of cryptic.
Speaker 1: Let me break that quote down for you a little bit. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, he said that we see that the
Speaker 1: current stance of policy as restrictive so that's his policy.
Speaker 1: So the policy he's enacting is restrictive. He says, quote
Speaker 1: we see as restrictive putting downward pressure on economic activity, hiring,
Speaker 1: and inflation. So we see current stands of policy, his
Speaker 1: policy that he's enacted being restrictive and putting press down
Speaker 1: pressure on the economy, hiring and inflation. So downward pressure
Speaker 1: on economic activity. Do you own a business, well, he
Speaker 1: is purposely trying to make it hard for your business.
Speaker 1: He's trying to push down economic activity. He doesn't want
Speaker 1: your business to have as many consumers or customers. That's
Speaker 1: his goal. He says that it has downward pressure on hiring,
Speaker 1: so unemployment. They want unemployment to go up, They want
Speaker 1: less people working. Think about that. What he's saying. Our
Speaker 1: current stance of policy, the policy that I, as the
Speaker 1: FED chair, have put in place, is trying to slow
Speaker 1: economic activity and hiring down. We don't want you to
Speaker 1: have a job your job making more money is a
Speaker 1: problem for us. It goes against what I'm trying to
Speaker 1: do because I'm trying to bring inflation down to two percent,
Speaker 1: and in order to do that, I need less people working,
Speaker 1: and I need less people making. I need more people
Speaker 1: making less money. How's that? Well, a good thing for
Speaker 1: jern Powace. He doesn't get voted in. We don't vote
Speaker 1: for him. Imagine people voting for someone who's literally trying
Speaker 1: to destroy their businesses and their livelihood. Pretty interesting. And
Speaker 1: then he goes on to say, we can't identify with
Speaker 1: certainty the neutral rate of interest, and thus there's always
Speaker 1: uncertainty about the precise level of monetary policy restraint. We
Speaker 1: can't identify the certainty. Well, there is no such thing
Speaker 1: a certain certainly. You can't control the certainty of the
Speaker 1: outcome of the financial system. To think that you can
Speaker 1: just show you that you're an idiot. But what he
Speaker 1: said is that the the precise level or the neutral
Speaker 1: rate of interest. So they're changing again the price of money,
Speaker 1: that's the interest rate, trying to find the neutral rate
Speaker 1: of interest. What the heck is the neutral rate of interest? Well,
Speaker 1: they can't define it with any certainty. But what they're
Speaker 1: trying to define is the rate. Is it four three percent?
Speaker 1: The rate at which monetary policy is neither contradictory nor expansionary.
Speaker 1: So when interest rates get low, the price of money,
Speaker 1: the rate of interest goes low. Money's cheap, so lots
Speaker 1: of people borrow it, so it expands. Expansionary is the
Speaker 1: word you use. But if it's expensive, then less people
Speaker 1: use it, and then it's contractory. So if money is expensive,
Speaker 1: then I don't open up that new office, I don't
Speaker 1: hire more people, I don't bring on new trucks, I
Speaker 1: don't service new clients because the money is too expensive
Speaker 1: for me to do that. So that's that's contracting the economy.
Speaker 1: But if money's too cheap, then I expand. Now I
Speaker 1: would argue that the market's always doing both and for
Speaker 1: them to this point, we cannot identify with certainty the
Speaker 1: neutral rate of interest. Well, of course you can't because
Speaker 1: you don't understand. You don't have enough information. It's not
Speaker 1: just your own power. Anybody who thought they could do
Speaker 1: that would be out of their mind. You don't have
Speaker 1: enough information to manage three hundred and thirty million people
Speaker 1: in the NY State, eight billion people in the world, and
Speaker 1: all they're changing once needs and desires. That's why the
Speaker 1: price of money is not supposed to be set. The
Speaker 1: price of money is set in the free market. You see.
Speaker 1: The way it works is that if I want to
Speaker 1: open up a new office, and I want to get
Speaker 1: new trucks so I can service more customers, and I
Speaker 1: have to go borrow money. I need to know how
Speaker 1: much that money's going to cost me. If it's too expensive,
Speaker 1: I don't take it. If it's too cheap, I do right.
Speaker 1: But the problem is is when that's not found in
Speaker 1: the free market. So the way it works is that
Speaker 1: if a lot of people have a lot of savings,
Speaker 1: then that money is cheap. We have more people with savings,
Speaker 1: more people trying to lend me money, so there's less
Speaker 1: people borrowing, more people trying to lend the price of
Speaker 1: that money goes down. When that money goes cheap, it
Speaker 1: tells me a lot about the economy. It tells me
Speaker 1: that there's customers out there that have money. So I
Speaker 1: borrow the money at this cheap rate because I know
Speaker 1: it's cheap and I know the economy is good. Now.
Speaker 1: The other the flip side is if there's a lot
Speaker 1: of people wanting to borrow and not very many savers
Speaker 1: and lenders, then the price of the money goes very expensive,
Speaker 1: and that tells me that maybe I shouldn't take on
Speaker 1: that loan because the economy is probably bad because there's
Speaker 1: not a lot of extra money in the system, so
Speaker 1: the price of money is supposed to change, Oh, you
Speaker 1: mean mark like all other prices, on supplying demand. Yes,
Speaker 1: on supplying demand, but somehow magically. Jerome Powell is trying
Speaker 1: to come up with the rate of interest, the neutral
Speaker 1: rate of interest, but he can't the personal quotes, so
Speaker 1: he's prepared. He says, quote, we're prepared to raise rates
Speaker 1: further if appropriate, and intend to hold policy at a
Speaker 1: restrictive level until we're confident that inflation is moving sustainably
Speaker 1: down toward our objective. But even then, he said, we'll
Speaker 1: proceed carefully with future rate hikes. So basically it's a
Speaker 1: bunch of wishy washy back and forth. We're pausitive, we
Speaker 1: see some good signs, but we're not sure if we're
Speaker 1: out of the woods yet, so we're gonna kind of
Speaker 1: wait and see. So, in my opinion, if you want
Speaker 1: me to interpret this fed speak, that's what we call
Speaker 1: it FED speak to you, he's playing both sides, leaving
Speaker 1: his options open. But in my opinion, he's setting the
Speaker 1: stage for no more hikes and saying that we might
Speaker 1: only have one or two more and we'll be done.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm thinking, That's what I'm getting out of
Speaker 1: this FED Speak. But what do you think i'd love
Speaker 1: to hear from you? Hit me up on social media
Speaker 1: at one Mark Moss and let me know. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: take a very quick break. If you're just tuning to
Speaker 1: listen to the Mark Mass Show, I'll be back with
Speaker 1: more in a minute though, so don't go away. I'll
Speaker 1: be right back, all right, Welcome back. If you're just
Speaker 1: tune in, you're listening to the Mark Mass Show. We're
Speaker 1: talking about the latest breaking news headlines of the week
Speaker 1: to show you that our decentralized revolution thesis is in
Speaker 1: full effect. What's happening, where we're going and what you
Speaker 1: should be doing about it. Taking you through the play
Speaker 1: by play so you don't get caught off guard. Now
Speaker 1: we talked before the break. I was talking about the
Speaker 1: FED speak and what they're doing to try to control
Speaker 1: the market, which is pretty crazy, right. The market is
Speaker 1: a organic organism that's made up of three hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty million people that have all different once changing one's
Speaker 1: needs and desires. Now, what their goal is that that
Speaker 1: they have a central planner that'd be able to essentially
Speaker 1: plan everything, But there's the problem that they don't have
Speaker 1: enough information. Of course, there's the problem the future that
Speaker 1: Klaus Schwab paints in his book. He paints his picture
Speaker 1: of this AI where all of our brains are hooked
Speaker 1: to this AI cloud, and then it can it can
Speaker 1: have enough data where it can manage this for us.
Speaker 1: But the problem I think that never works is that
Speaker 1: we as humans are irrational, and so while an AI
Speaker 1: might be able to look at every single decision I've
Speaker 1: ever made and map out my next most probable decision
Speaker 1: rationally based off of data, it doesn't take into effect
Speaker 1: into account that humans are irrational. So I always want
Speaker 1: steak every time I go to dinner. I have steak
Speaker 1: all the time. But for some reason, that chicken looked
Speaker 1: really good, and I just feel like having chicken right now.
Speaker 1: I don't know why, just for some reason, I just
Speaker 1: thought I'd have chicken, and so it can't take it
Speaker 1: into account. But where they're trying now other ways they're
Speaker 1: trying to control the economy is through well, as I
Speaker 1: said before, changing the price of money, but also by
Speaker 1: changing incentives. And this is what starts to get interesting.
Speaker 1: You see, when a government tries to control an economy
Speaker 1: with or i should say, a complex system with one
Speaker 1: single lever. It leads to other unintended consequences. So what
Speaker 1: am I talking about. Well, the FED has tried to
Speaker 1: slow down inflation by making you broke, and they do
Speaker 1: that by making the price of money very high. So
Speaker 1: when the price of money goes very high right now,
Speaker 1: buying a home is very difficult. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: buying a price of home depends on where you're at,
Speaker 1: but it has gone up by thirty forty percent just
Speaker 1: because of the price of money going up, and so
Speaker 1: it's harder. It's harder for people to buy homes. And
Speaker 1: so that is the government policy. They've tried to fix
Speaker 1: a problem from a different cause, but by changing the
Speaker 1: price of money. But then unintended consequences is other people
Speaker 1: go around that. So for example, we saw this week
Speaker 1: that that Zillo, you know, the website that tells you
Speaker 1: how much your home is worth, Zilo home Loans, is
Speaker 1: now offering a home loan with only a one percent
Speaker 1: down payment option. You see, So the FED wants to
Speaker 1: slow home buying down by making the price of money higher,
Speaker 1: and a company like Zillo just says, well, Okay, well
Speaker 1: what has changed the program? So we'll still make it attractive,
Speaker 1: which is why you can't change a complex system with
Speaker 1: one single thing. It's like your body. Your body's a
Speaker 1: complex system. And so I have let's say I have heartburn.
Speaker 1: So I go to my doctor. Hey, doctor, I have heartburn,
Speaker 1: and he gives me an ant ad, a prescription and tasset.
Speaker 1: But then I have all these different side effects. Right,
Speaker 1: all these medications you see advertised on TV all the time,
Speaker 1: they have all these different side effects. So all I
Speaker 1: did was have heartburn. My doctor could have said you
Speaker 1: should have a more alkaline diet. That would be easy.
Speaker 1: But it'saad he puts around on a prescription because he's
Speaker 1: trying to affect one thing in a complex system. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly what happened. So Zilla's mortgage arm launched a
Speaker 1: down payment assistance program where the company will cover two
Speaker 1: percent of the borrowers down payment at closing, which would
Speaker 1: allow buyers to pay just one percent up front. Well,
Speaker 1: when you make money cheap, when you make it easier
Speaker 1: to buy homes, more people will, that's what they want.
Speaker 1: Is just funny because that's not what the government wants. Now,
Speaker 1: this is as of right now, it's only available for
Speaker 1: It's only available and eligible for people in Arizona, which
Speaker 1: I think is pretty interesting. I don't have any I
Speaker 1: don't have any data to tell me why only Arizona.
Speaker 1: Part of what I'm thinking is because maybe they think
Speaker 1: Arizona might be the best real estate market right now.
Speaker 1: I do have some investor friends who are buying department
Speaker 1: buildings in the Greater Phoenix area the suburbs of Phoenix,
Speaker 1: because they think it's one of the best markets out there.
Speaker 1: So maybe they're saying, well, we wouldn't want to do
Speaker 1: it in like Seattle or San Francisco, which are two
Speaker 1: of the worst real estate markets in the nation, but
Speaker 1: we feel pretty good about Arizona's will do that. I'm
Speaker 1: saying that, I'm guessing at that. I don't have that
Speaker 1: as fact, but basically, what they want to do is
Speaker 1: allow you to take this two percent portion of the
Speaker 1: down payment and pay it and pay it during the closing,
Speaker 1: not as a payment to the borrower. Right now, it's
Speaker 1: only eligible for first time borrowers in Arizona, and the
Speaker 1: option to put a one percent to three percent down
Speaker 1: payment on a home, and then ZILLA will provide the
Speaker 1: rest as a grant. So, for example, let's say that
Speaker 1: you chose a five percent down payment, then they'd cover two.
Speaker 1: You'd have to come up with three something like that.
Speaker 1: A minimum qualifying FICO a credit score of six twenty
Speaker 1: or better, and you have to have income no more
Speaker 1: than eighty percent of the area medium income where the
Speaker 1: property is located. So yeah, there is some qualification that
Speaker 1: you have to follow, but the credit score is pretty
Speaker 1: low six twenty and minimum you know, income for the area.
Speaker 1: A home buyer looking to purchase a two and seventy
Speaker 1: five thousand dollar home in Phoenix, Arizona, makes eighty percent
Speaker 1: of their AMI and saves five percent of their income
Speaker 1: would need only eleven months to save for the down payment.
Speaker 1: So if you made eighty percent of the area median income,
Speaker 1: it should take you and you're only saving five percent
Speaker 1: of your income, which by the way, should st save
Speaker 1: way more than that, it would take you eleven months
Speaker 1: to save for the down payment. By comparison to the
Speaker 1: same buyer who needed to save three percent of the
Speaker 1: purchase price would be required thirty one months. So they
Speaker 1: take the amount of time you have to say, from
Speaker 1: thirty one months all the way down to our eleven
Speaker 1: months now. Interesting enough. Presidential candidate RFK Junior came out
Speaker 1: this week and said something very similar, and he proposed
Speaker 1: that if elected president, he would introduce a three percent
Speaker 1: mortgage rate for Americans, backed by the government and funded
Speaker 1: two selling of tax rebonds. Well, interesting enough, RFK, the
Speaker 1: government already does that. That's sort of the whole point
Speaker 1: of what Zillo's doing. If you take a three percent
Speaker 1: down payment, they'll cover two of it for you. So
Speaker 1: he wants to introduce a three percent mortgage, but we
Speaker 1: already have that. And I hate to tell you, RFK Junior,
Speaker 1: but most of the home loans under that are under
Speaker 1: jumbo size, are backed by the government already. That's the Fanny,
Speaker 1: the Freddie, the VA. We already have that. So that's
Speaker 1: pretty interesting that he said that. I think it's like
Speaker 1: a last ditch effort to buy votes, and it's pretty sad.
Speaker 1: I've never voted Democrat in my life, but RFK is
Speaker 1: somebody that I could get behind. I think he could
Speaker 1: beat Biden heads up straight up in any election right
Speaker 1: now today, But he seems to be kind of falling behind,
Speaker 1: maybe in a little bit of relevance in the polls.
Speaker 1: Maybe this is like a hell Mary last its effort
Speaker 1: for him to buy some votes. I don't really know,
Speaker 1: but we already got that. Now. Another thing that I
Speaker 1: saw this week that really caught me off guard was
Speaker 1: the new quote quote new affordable housing market. Now, we
Speaker 1: saw Lenar Holmes, based out of Florida, selling tiny homes
Speaker 1: in Texas for one hundred and thirty thousand dollars, sparking criticism.
Speaker 1: This is the new affordable housing market. So they are
Speaker 1: literally they built an entire community of tiny homes, tiny homes,
Speaker 1: three hundred and fifty square foot homes in San Antonio, Texas,
Speaker 1: three hundred and fifty square feet homes in San Antonio, Texas,
Speaker 1: an entire neighborhood of them, and there are one hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty thousand dollars. Critics questions question to whether it's enough.
Speaker 1: That's enough? I mean, is that price enough? One hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty thousand for a tiny that should be like
Speaker 1: fifty thousand, maybe one hundred and thirty thousand. I mean, wow,
Speaker 1: So that's an affordable home for you. Now. California has
Speaker 1: their own way to deal with the affordable housing crisis.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, good old Gavin Newsom, he
Speaker 1: signed a bill legislation to increase affordable housing supply in California.
Speaker 1: And you know what their plan was. Their great plan was,
Speaker 1: why don't you just build a new house on a
Speaker 1: second house on your lot. If everyone just were to
Speaker 1: add a second house onto their existing lot, well that
Speaker 1: would make it more affordable. And as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: let's give out grants. We'll give anyone between twenty five
Speaker 1: thousand to forty thousand dollars if they'll build one of
Speaker 1: these houses. So the absurdity of trying to make housing
Speaker 1: affordable by either making it so tiny you can living
Speaker 1: it tiny homes in San Antonio three and fifty square feet,
Speaker 1: or just build a second house on your lot. None
Speaker 1: of those addressed the underlying problem, which is why your
Speaker 1: house is so expensive in the first place. If you're
Speaker 1: just tuning in, you're listening to the Mark Mass Show
Speaker 1: talking about the decentralized Revolution. I got a lot more
Speaker 1: to cover when I come back. You don't want to
Speaker 1: miss it, so don't go away. I'll be her back,
Speaker 1: all right, welcome back. If you're just tune in, you're
Speaker 1: listening to the Mark Mass Show, We're talking about some
Speaker 1: of the latest breaking news headlines of this week so
Speaker 1: you can understand the play by play and what the
Speaker 1: heck is going on with this decentralized revolution that we have.
Speaker 1: And I saw these stories that popped up this week
Speaker 1: that really just struck me. Maybe a little bit different
Speaker 1: stories than I typically talk about, but I thought very
Speaker 1: important and timely to talk about because it really highlights
Speaker 1: where we're at right now, and it actually dovetails in
Speaker 1: with a story I talked about last week. So what
Speaker 1: am I talking about? Well, a video went viral in
Speaker 1: the last couple of days of a kid in middle school,
Speaker 1: a twelve year old boy in Colorado Springs basically being
Speaker 1: chastised by a school administrator because he had a patch
Speaker 1: on his backpack. Now this is significant for any number
Speaker 1: of things. The patch on his backpack was the Gadson flag.
Speaker 1: Now you might know what I'm talking about because last
Speaker 1: week I talked about the Gadson flag specifically, I didn't
Speaker 1: know the story was going to come out. I talked
Speaker 1: about how I typically have a mug. I don't have
Speaker 1: it with me today, but I typically have a mug
Speaker 1: that has the Gadsen flag on there, and I was
Speaker 1: also wearing a shirt that had it, and I was
Speaker 1: explaining why I like that and what it means to me,
Speaker 1: and I talked about the history of that. So now
Speaker 1: you are educated more than this school administrator, who obviously
Speaker 1: has no idea what they're talking about. I mean, how
Speaker 1: ignorant are these people running our schools. I mean, if
Speaker 1: this doesn't highlight it, then I don't know what does.
Speaker 1: And so basically, the school administrator sitting down this twelve
Speaker 1: year old kid and his mother and saying that you
Speaker 1: can't have this backpack, this patch on your backpack because
Speaker 1: it represents slavery. Slavery and the slave trade is what
Speaker 1: they said, and that the patch is disruptive to the
Speaker 1: classroom environment. Now, if you listen to my show, or
Speaker 1: if you could just spend a couple seconds on Google,
Speaker 1: you'd find out the truth that the flags has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with slavery. As a matter of fact, the
Speaker 1: gads and flag is the rattlesnake that says, don't tread
Speaker 1: on me. That's the slogan don't tread on me. And
Speaker 1: it originated during the American Revolution. It was at a
Speaker 1: time when America was beating back the British. That's what
Speaker 1: it was for the Americans, was telling the British, hey,
Speaker 1: don't tread on me. Had nothing to do with slavery. Now,
Speaker 1: the American Revolution is something that I'm very proud of.
Speaker 1: It's something that I was taught to be proud of.
Speaker 1: It's something I think we should continue to teach people
Speaker 1: to be proud of. And apparently this administrator obviously doesn't
Speaker 1: know anything about it or their life and making it up.
Speaker 1: Why is that? Well, and this is my opinion, so
Speaker 1: let me dive into opinion a little bit here. The
Speaker 1: opinion is that they don't want you to have anything
Speaker 1: that would make you bold or rally people to stand
Speaker 1: up and be an individual. How dare you show something
Speaker 1: that says, don't tread on me. How dare you encourage
Speaker 1: other people to stand up for what they believe? How
Speaker 1: dare you fall in line, be a good student, Listen
Speaker 1: to what you say, repeat back what I ask you,
Speaker 1: and that's it. Don't think on your own, don't ever
Speaker 1: think you could challenge me, and certainly don't be an
Speaker 1: example to get other people to stand up. That's what
Speaker 1: they say. The reason why is because when everybody's been
Speaker 1: forced to live a lie. As soon as one person
Speaker 1: can stand up and burst through the crust of that lie,
Speaker 1: other people are going to want to as well. Look,
Speaker 1: don't want to be told what to do, and that
Speaker 1: don't tread on me. As I gave you the reason
Speaker 1: why I like it so much last week. Is the
Speaker 1: thing that it's the message they don't want. And this
Speaker 1: video that went viral, I think sums it all up.
Speaker 1: There's an article written that said the jocks are going
Speaker 1: to save the republic one defiant grin at a time.
Speaker 1: So if you see this video, you see this little kid,
Speaker 1: twelve yearl good, with this like smug smile on his face.
Speaker 1: And the contrast that you saw between this petty administrator
Speaker 1: and a middle schooler, it couldn't be more opposite, right,
Speaker 1: You see this petty administrator with this like face like
Speaker 1: she just sucked on a limit, and you got this
Speaker 1: boy who's just kind of got this smile on his face.
Speaker 1: And one represents a class of power hungry pta hoa
Speaker 1: president types whose greatest joy in life is just to
Speaker 1: use any type of power they can get to tell
Speaker 1: you what to do right, whether in your neighborhood or
Speaker 1: your school, whether it's the airline. You know, they used
Speaker 1: to be customer service on the plane. Now they just
Speaker 1: want to enforce rules any type of power they can get.
Speaker 1: They like that that represents one side, right because no
Speaker 1: one else in their lives are probably going to listen
Speaker 1: to them. These are the types of people who would
Speaker 1: track you down in a grocery store, you know, during
Speaker 1: the pandemic, and tell you need to put on a
Speaker 1: face covering. Now. Unfortunately, and not to make this sexist,
Speaker 1: but women typically are overwhelmingly the numbers that are in
Speaker 1: jobs like HR, administrative services, education, community service, social work
Speaker 1: sectors with higher rates of things like that. Stereotypically, males
Speaker 1: move into stem science technology things like that, women sort
Speaker 1: of move into those roles now because of that, Now
Speaker 1: you might have noticed that they have to then enforce
Speaker 1: these petty rules. Maybe they want to, maybe they're forced to,
Speaker 1: but either way, they're enforcing these petty rules. Stand in line,
Speaker 1: don't ask questions, don't put a flag on your back,
Speaker 1: even though it doesn't mean what I say it means. Now,
Speaker 1: we also see statistically that young men have a greater
Speaker 1: tendency to challenge those rules. We see that what we're
Speaker 1: seeing through lots of polls is that males are now
Speaker 1: starting to lean much more conservative. According to the Federal
Speaker 1: Monitor the Future Survey of twelfth grade boys are nearly
Speaker 1: twice as likely to identify as conservatives versus liberal. Among
Speaker 1: senior girls, the trend was actually the opposite. So why
Speaker 1: are young boys being turned off by left wing ideology?
Speaker 1: Could it be that they're sick of being told that
Speaker 1: their masculinity is oppressive and evil, that women actually run
Speaker 1: the world, that the best boys are actually girls. Are
Speaker 1: they maybe getting sick of having their thoughts and actions
Speaker 1: dictated by babysitters in middle management. Well, there's a school
Speaker 1: in Florida was making headlines. They're saying that Ron DeSantis
Speaker 1: is leading the charge over there, and they had a
Speaker 1: headline that says gender studies are out and jocks are in.
Speaker 1: Male toxic masculinity seems to be coming back. Now there's
Speaker 1: a TikToker that made a lot of noise ms petch
Speaker 1: and she bemoaned how as a liberal woman, is it
Speaker 1: really hard to find a man who's willing to play
Speaker 1: the more traditional masculine role in the relationship in today's
Speaker 1: day and age who's not a conservative? So she's asking
Speaker 1: why is it that I can't find someone to be
Speaker 1: a traditional masculine role model as a liberal. That's because
Speaker 1: the answer is because they're not. They're conservative. And I
Speaker 1: don't really like these labels. I don't like to use that,
Speaker 1: but that is the world that we're seeing. And now
Speaker 1: let me just be clear, we also need very gutsy
Speaker 1: women too. Now. Shout out to my wife. She is
Speaker 1: she will go to war on anybody trying to impose
Speaker 1: on our kids like this. And we need more mothers
Speaker 1: like this kid's mom as well, who sat there in
Speaker 1: the room with this teacher and challenged her and said, look,
Speaker 1: you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even
Speaker 1: know what the flag is. The flag is not about slavery.
Speaker 1: The flag is about the British and the Revolutionary War.
Speaker 1: We need more mothers like that as well. Now we're
Speaker 1: starting to see this seep into greater culture. We saw
Speaker 1: this week that CNN just had their third president hired
Speaker 1: in just the last eighteen months, and we're starting to
Speaker 1: see the same thing now. One thing that I think
Speaker 1: how this dovetails in is that we saw that the
Speaker 1: CNN president or the head of the new network now
Speaker 1: was purchased by David Zaslov. He also owns Discovery, HBO,
Speaker 1: Warner Brothers. And he said that we face pressure from
Speaker 1: every direction, structural, political, cultural, and you name it. He
Speaker 1: said that, he said that their news outlet is approaching
Speaker 1: peak disruption, and these are why why are they as
Speaker 1: a company facing structural changes and cultural changes? We know
Speaker 1: that we talked about the culture right with the difference
Speaker 1: of the men and the women, the difference of the
Speaker 1: administrators versus the real people. But why political? Why political? Well,
Speaker 1: there's a question that you should be asking ourselves. These
Speaker 1: are the signs that show where the world is going
Speaker 1: as we continue to break apart. And you know it's
Speaker 1: a structural change as well. Like I said that they're
Speaker 1: approaching peak disruption, it's always technology that changes the world.
Speaker 1: We no longer need to be on a network that
Speaker 1: feeds us linear content time after time, and so technology
Speaker 1: has changed the world. If you're just tuning in listening
Speaker 1: to the Mark Maus Show, I've been talking about the
Speaker 1: decentralized revolution, running you through the latest breaking news headlines
Speaker 1: of the week, keeping you up the date so you
Speaker 1: know what's going on and what to do about it.
Speaker 1: That's what I got, Thanks so much for listening,