Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to another episode of the Markmas Show,
Speaker 1: where we talk about the decentralized revolution. Of course, we
Speaker 1: talk about the way the world is changing, and of
Speaker 1: course we look at it through the lens of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology, three driving forces. Of course, we look at
Speaker 1: the convergence of those three things. And I like to
Speaker 1: bring you some education, some breaking news, and some interesting guests.
Speaker 1: And today I want to cover some of the latest
Speaker 1: breaking news stories that I saw this week that caught
Speaker 1: my eye that I think you should be up on,
Speaker 1: that you should be understanding what's going on. Now, we'll
Speaker 1: start with the top. I mean, out of the three things, politics, finance, technology,
Speaker 1: the thing that really drives the world, changes the world
Speaker 1: more than anything else, is technology. And of course we're
Speaker 1: witnessing the decentralized revolution and we're witnessing the decentralized technology
Speaker 1: at the same time. And of course that is Bitcoin. Now.
Speaker 1: One of the biggest drawbacks, or I shouldn't say drawbacks,
Speaker 1: One of the biggest attack vectors by bitcoin's opponents is
Speaker 1: that it uses is too much energy. It waste energy,
Speaker 1: they say, and so they suppose it's a big problem. Now,
Speaker 1: First of all, it wastes energy. What does that even mean? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, the amount of total energy that bitcoin
Speaker 1: uses is micro in comparison to the amount of energy
Speaker 1: used in the world, and it's micro compared to the
Speaker 1: amount of energy used for other things like what like
Speaker 1: clothes dryers, for example, use way more energy than the
Speaker 1: bitcoin blockchain does. And do you really need your clothes
Speaker 1: dried in a machine? Couldn't you just hang them up
Speaker 1: on a line in your backyard. The servers that power
Speaker 1: power YouTube uses more energy than the Bitcoin mind ecosystem,
Speaker 1: So it waste energy, supposedly, is what they say. But
Speaker 1: the amount of total amount of energy it uses period
Speaker 1: is less than lots of other things that I could
Speaker 1: easily argue would be a waste. But who's to say
Speaker 1: what is a waste? One's man's trash is another man's treasure.
Speaker 1: You might find that you need to go stare out
Speaker 1: into space for three hours a day, which is a
Speaker 1: total waste of your time in my opinion, But for you,
Speaker 1: it's what keeps you mentally sane, for example, And so
Speaker 1: what is waste? The one thing that I would argue
Speaker 1: potentially could be waste would be creating something that doesn't
Speaker 1: get used. So what do I mean by that? If
Speaker 1: I made a bunch of food and nobody ate it,
Speaker 1: and then I had to throw the food away, you
Speaker 1: could argue that might be a waste potentially because I
Speaker 1: made it and nobody used it. And so if we
Speaker 1: look at energy in that way, we could also say
Speaker 1: the same we look at the total amount of energy
Speaker 1: being created and then energy being created that's actually not
Speaker 1: used at all. Now, what do you mean why would
Speaker 1: energy be created but not used. Well, there's lots of
Speaker 1: power plants along around the world that create more power
Speaker 1: than the people drawing on that use and so there's
Speaker 1: wasted energy. And that's why places that California have the
Speaker 1: highest energy prices in the world, because we don't create
Speaker 1: enough energy for the amount of people using it and
Speaker 1: we have to import energy, so prices go up supply demand, right.
Speaker 1: But then there's areas around the country and around the
Speaker 1: world where they create more energy than it's being used,
Speaker 1: and so they're trying to sell it for anything they can.
Speaker 1: While in California on paying forty cents per kilowatt hour,
Speaker 1: there's places in the world that have it for self
Speaker 1: for two or three cents because nobody's buying it. So
Speaker 1: if we look at the amount of energy being created
Speaker 1: and not used, I could say that would be a waste.
Speaker 1: Bitcoin is only using a very small percentage of that energy.
Speaker 1: It uses the energy that's being created but not used,
Speaker 1: so it only uses a very micro amount. But on
Speaker 1: top of that, we saw that there was a major
Speaker 1: milestone that was talked about this week in that bitcoin
Speaker 1: mind is fueled by sustainable energy. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: there was this article that came out Cambridge Center for
Speaker 1: Alternative Finance study on Bitcoin Environmental impact, and it says
Speaker 1: that the sustainable energy use is at least fifty two
Speaker 1: and a half fifty two point six percent of bitcoin's
Speaker 1: mining total energy. So it says that if you care
Speaker 1: about ESG, then you might care that Bitcoin's adoption is
Speaker 1: all being done on sustainable energy. The Bitcoin Mining Council
Speaker 1: study found it uses fifty eight point nine percent of
Speaker 1: sustainable energy, so almost sixty percent. Now, for me, I
Speaker 1: think it's sort of ridiculous. I think this is the
Speaker 1: wrong number, wrong data to hone in on. However, for
Speaker 1: those people that for somehow feel that the amount of
Speaker 1: energy being used is bad, well then you can throw
Speaker 1: out that sixty percent of it is coming from sustainable uses. Now,
Speaker 1: the other point that I'd like to point out is,
Speaker 1: like I said, bitcoin doesn't compete for energy. Bitcoin bitcoin
Speaker 1: mining can't work in California because there's too much competition
Speaker 1: for energy the price is too high. Bitcoin mining can
Speaker 1: only work in areas where there's no competition, meaning there's
Speaker 1: too much power being produced because it needs to have
Speaker 1: two three four cent power. And so the amount all
Speaker 1: of the energy that bitcoin is being is consuming is
Speaker 1: using is the energy that would go to waste if
Speaker 1: bitcoin didn't didn't use it. Now, in regards to bitcoin mining,
Speaker 1: we saw that looking at the bitcoin price. I don't
Speaker 1: typically like to look at the bitcoin price. I think
Speaker 1: the price is the least interesting part. With new technology,
Speaker 1: we will look at the growth of the network and
Speaker 1: the development on the network. I want to talk about
Speaker 1: two of those, both of those things. But the growth
Speaker 1: of the network would be both the amount of users,
Speaker 1: you know, the new wallets, the users that are using it,
Speaker 1: potentially merchants that are accepted in etc. But we'd also
Speaker 1: look at the growth of the network. And you can
Speaker 1: measure the growth of the network through the mining capacity,
Speaker 1: the hash power and so we can see that the
Speaker 1: bitcoin miners we're talking about with energy use, we can
Speaker 1: see that the bitcoin miners are actually have been actually
Speaker 1: outperforming bitcoin most recently on the price. Part of that's
Speaker 1: because the bitcoin miners got so oversold, they sold them
Speaker 1: off so much, and they're bouncing back faster. It's sort
Speaker 1: of like gold miners versus physical gold. So gold miners
Speaker 1: typically go up more than physical goal because of the
Speaker 1: leverage that they employ, and we're seeing sort of the
Speaker 1: same thing in bitcoin mining. But it's important not so
Speaker 1: much that it's outperforming bitcoin, but what I see as
Speaker 1: important is that the amount of hash rate expansion. So
Speaker 1: you measure computers by the amount of hash rate they have,
Speaker 1: and what we can see is that the hash rate
Speaker 1: has been going up. As a matter of fact, it's
Speaker 1: up by one hundred and twenty nine percent over the
Speaker 1: last year, which is pretty amazing. That's a massive growth.
Speaker 1: So the growth of the network. The miners not only
Speaker 1: support the transactions, but they support the security, and so
Speaker 1: the more miners that are on the bitcoin network, the
Speaker 1: more security it has, and we see that it is
Speaker 1: going through the roof, which is a good thing. Now,
Speaker 1: I also want to talk about the development on the network,
Speaker 1: because we also want to look at what is being
Speaker 1: developed on the network. Now. A company that I've been
Speaker 1: working with, Zion Zion app zio n just launched its
Speaker 1: version two, which uses the Bitcoin network. They launched it
Speaker 1: using what's what Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, calls
Speaker 1: Web five and so basically Zion is a new social
Speaker 1: media app. You can download it now. To do it now,
Speaker 1: get your phone app, download the Zion app, and it
Speaker 1: uses the Web five standards. So you can have your
Speaker 1: own ID. It's called a d IDA Decentralized Online Identity
Speaker 1: d ID, and basically you can have your own ID
Speaker 1: that has all of your information, but you want that
Speaker 1: in a place that can be hacked or shutdown or censored.
Speaker 1: And so it uses the bitcoin blockchain, Bitcoin time chain
Speaker 1: to hash or to store that decentralized ID information. You
Speaker 1: wouldn't want to put that d ID into another blockchain
Speaker 1: like Ethereum or Cardano that could just change the rules
Speaker 1: and get censored, and so instead it goes into the
Speaker 1: Bitcoin time chain where it's censorship resistance. Now, Zion, like
Speaker 1: I said, just launched version to check it out. Ad
Speaker 1: me on there. I have a community. I'm setting up
Speaker 1: on there right now and there's over sixty thousand people
Speaker 1: waiting to come on. It's we have funding from Aaron
Speaker 1: Rodgers from the Green Bay Packers. Tony Robbins is now
Speaker 1: promoting this. You can see on his Twitter he posted
Speaker 1: this the day. But basically what this opens up is
Speaker 1: the ability for you to own your own community by
Speaker 1: owning your own ID. So if you've been afraid of
Speaker 1: you know, YouTube or Twitter or somebody censoring you, with
Speaker 1: an app like Zion built on top of the bitcoin blockchain,
Speaker 1: you don't have to worry about that anymore, and you
Speaker 1: can move messages and bitcoin and money around seamlessly. Check
Speaker 1: it out Zion, and this is a massive development on
Speaker 1: the bitcoin blockchain. Remember we're looking at growth of the
Speaker 1: network and development on the network. If you're just tune in,
Speaker 1: you're listening to the Mark Moas Show, we're talking about
Speaker 1: the latest breaking news stories this week in the decentralized Revolution.
Speaker 1: I have a whole lot more stories to govern. When
Speaker 1: we come back, I gotta take a quick break. I'll
Speaker 1: be right back with more. You don't want to miss it,
Speaker 1: so I'll be right back, all right, Welcome back. If
Speaker 1: you're just tune in, you're listening to the Mark Moas Show.
Speaker 1: Of course, we're talking about the decentralized revolution. We're running
Speaker 1: through some of the latest breaking news stories and headlines
Speaker 1: to keep you up to date so you know what
Speaker 1: the heck is going on out there in the world.
Speaker 1: You know, I want you to sound like you're really
Speaker 1: smart and paying attention when you go to those parties
Speaker 1: over the weekend. And so looking at some of these
Speaker 1: news headlines. One story that I've been talking about a lot,
Speaker 1: and not just me, it's been all over If you
Speaker 1: look at alternative news sources, you see it being talked
Speaker 1: about all the time. And that is a CBDC or
Speaker 1: a central bank digital currency. Now I've been out here
Speaker 1: pounding the table on it because they're bad. They're very,
Speaker 1: very bad. But it's not certain. It's not a foregone
Speaker 1: conclusion that we're going to have CBDCs. So let me explain.
Speaker 1: A central bank digital currency is very bad because of
Speaker 1: what it can do. Now, just real quickly, about eighty
Speaker 1: percent of all dollar transactions are already done digitally. We
Speaker 1: already have a digital dollar, in my opinion, meaning we
Speaker 1: use our debit cards, our credit cards, or Venmo or
Speaker 1: PayPal or wire transfers, all of those things. It's already digital.
Speaker 1: We don't really carry cash around or use cash anymore,
Speaker 1: at least I don't. Some people still depend on a
Speaker 1: lot of cash, and so we're already doing all our
Speaker 1: transactions digitally. A CBDC is no different than the dollar
Speaker 1: that we have now, meaning it's still a fiat currency,
Speaker 1: meaning the government can still just create as much as
Speaker 1: they want, and it's still move digitally, just like we
Speaker 1: move our dollars digitally today. The reason why it's so
Speaker 1: bad is because right now today the government can't really
Speaker 1: they can track it. They can get all the data
Speaker 1: from this, They can subpoena information from the credit card
Speaker 1: companies and Venmo and things like that. But a CBDCs
Speaker 1: central bank digital currency can be programmed, meaning they can
Speaker 1: program the set of rules into the money before you
Speaker 1: even get it. So, for example, they give you stimulus.
Speaker 1: They want to spend the money to stimulate the economy.
Speaker 1: So if you don't spend this money by Friday, you
Speaker 1: lose the money. Like China with a social credit score system,
Speaker 1: if you say mean things about the government, we take
Speaker 1: some of your money. If you're not saving enough, we
Speaker 1: give you positive interest rate. If you're saving too much,
Speaker 1: if you're hoarding, we have a negative interest rate. You
Speaker 1: can't you know, you've you've exceeded your meat allotment or
Speaker 1: your carbon allotment, and so you cut. You can't buy
Speaker 1: more meat, you can't buy more gasoline. You only get
Speaker 1: two plane trips per year, so you can't buy more
Speaker 1: plane trips, and so it's programmable in that way. Now, China,
Speaker 1: of course, being a communist country, has already rolled hers out,
Speaker 1: and other countries are trying to do the same. However,
Speaker 1: in the United States, where it seems like it's a
Speaker 1: foregone conclusion, and people in the United States already playing
Speaker 1: the victim card, like, oh, what can we do, There's
Speaker 1: nothing we can do. That's not true. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, there's a lot of pushback. Lots of lawmakers
Speaker 1: in the United States are pushing back against this. Been
Speaker 1: lots of legislation that has been proposed, and one of
Speaker 1: them came this week from good old Congressman Tom Emmer.
Speaker 1: He's a Republican from Minnesota, and this guy is on it.
Speaker 1: He has put a bunch of bills for it to
Speaker 1: really stop this down and basically the bill would effectively
Speaker 1: put an end to the debate over the creation of
Speaker 1: a Federal Reserve issued CBDC. Now, the Federal Reserve can
Speaker 1: control monetary policy, can control banking policy, but really it's
Speaker 1: the Treasury the government that has the ability to make money.
Speaker 1: So the Fed doesn't have the power to issue money.
Speaker 1: And Congressman Tom Emma has introduced a bill that would
Speaker 1: prohibit the Federal Reserve from actually issuing a CBDC directly
Speaker 1: to anyone. The bills titled the CBDC Anti Surveillance State
Speaker 1: Act and details that, except as specifically authorized under this Act,
Speaker 1: a Federal Reserve Bank may not offer products or services
Speaker 1: directly to an individual, or maintain an account on behalf
Speaker 1: of that individual, or issue a central bank digital currency
Speaker 1: to an individual. And it goes on further to say
Speaker 1: that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Speaker 1: and the FMOC Committee may not use any central bank
Speaker 1: digital currency to implement monetary policy. It's pretty good now,
Speaker 1: he went on. He tweeted out saying that any digital
Speaker 1: version of the dollar must uphold our American values of privacy,
Speaker 1: individual sovereignty, and free market competitiveness. Anything less opens the
Speaker 1: door to the development of a dangerous surveillance tool. So
Speaker 1: he gets it. He gets it. So we still have
Speaker 1: lots of good people in the government fighting the fight,
Speaker 1: trying to uphold, as he said, American values of privacy,
Speaker 1: individual sovereignty, and free market competitiveness. Now, there's been lots
Speaker 1: of other representatives that are getting on board with this,
Speaker 1: of course, mostly Republicans. Barry Loudermilk, who's Republican from Georgia,
Speaker 1: released a statement saying that he was quote proud to
Speaker 1: join forces with Rep. Emmer. We also have Rep. Andy Biggs,
Speaker 1: a Republican from Arizona, on board, explaining that quote unelected
Speaker 1: bureaucrats are driving us to an authoritarian state that can't happen,
Speaker 1: and so it is not a foregone conclusion. CBDCs are
Speaker 1: not here, and there's still a lot that we can
Speaker 1: do to push back on them. One of them is
Speaker 1: I know you don't want to hear this. It may
Speaker 1: seem like a waste of your time, but you can
Speaker 1: call or write your local lawmakers and tell them what
Speaker 1: you think about this. Because they do care about getting reelected,
Speaker 1: they should care what you have to say. And there's
Speaker 1: lots of people doing a good job. Tell them they're
Speaker 1: doing a good job. Tell them that they need to
Speaker 1: get on board with this if that may be the
Speaker 1: case now. Also other lawmakers pushing this forward is in Wyoming.
Speaker 1: The Wyoming legislator passed a bill protecting bitcoin private keys
Speaker 1: from courts. So with cryptocurrency, there's two keys. There's a
Speaker 1: public key, which is like your public address, like your
Speaker 1: bank account. I can give you my bank account right now.
Speaker 1: You can go deposit money in my bank account. That's
Speaker 1: my public address. It's like a locker. I give you
Speaker 1: my locker riders you can go slip an envelope in there.
Speaker 1: But then there's a private key that allows me to
Speaker 1: open that locker and move the contents. And so Wyoming
Speaker 1: legislator passed a bill protecting the private key from courts.
Speaker 1: It says that the state of Wyoman has passed a
Speaker 1: bill that protected citizens from having to disclose their private keys.
Speaker 1: It just needs to be signed by the governor now,
Speaker 1: so it's already been approved by the state Senate and
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives, it's way to be signed by
Speaker 1: the governor. So if you're in Wyoming, you should reach
Speaker 1: out to the governor's office and leave them a bill.
Speaker 1: But the bill states that no person should be compelled
Speaker 1: to produce a private key or make a private key
Speaker 1: known to any other person in any civil, criminal, administrative, legislature,
Speaker 1: or other proceeding in the state that relates to a
Speaker 1: digital asset. Pretty amazing. So, while most of the governments
Speaker 1: of the world are continuing to try to get you
Speaker 1: to give up all of your privacy, all of your
Speaker 1: ability to have any private property control that in Europe,
Speaker 1: the ECB and the EU Commission, they're trying to pass
Speaker 1: legislation to make it where you can't have a private key,
Speaker 1: where you can't hold your private property in a way
Speaker 1: that keeps it safe. But here in Wyoming, they're trying
Speaker 1: to pass a bill that says no government, no state,
Speaker 1: no court could ever force you to give up your
Speaker 1: private key. So you can see the difference that we
Speaker 1: have here. And while I know a lot of you
Speaker 1: feel that this is a it's a losing battle, that that,
Speaker 1: like I said, we're all victims here, we're not. It's
Speaker 1: not over yet. There's still a lot of people fighting
Speaker 1: the good fight. A couple other things I saw this
Speaker 1: week where we saw that Sam Bankman freed from FTX.
Speaker 1: He got charged with making three hundred illegal political contributions
Speaker 1: to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Turns
Speaker 1: out he got charged with conspiracy. So all your conspiracy theorists,
Speaker 1: there's actually such a thing as conspiracy. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, there is a law against it. And now
Speaker 1: Sam Bankman, freed from FTX, has been charged with even
Speaker 1: more counts of conspiracy for giving money illegally, twelve counts
Speaker 1: of conspiracy to making three hundred political contributions. Will be
Speaker 1: interesting to see if they pull those contributions back from
Speaker 1: the bankruptcy court. I just tune in. You're listening to
Speaker 1: the Mark Moss Show. We're talking about the decentralized Revolution.
Speaker 1: Talking through some of the latest breaking news headlines this
Speaker 1: week so you can understand how the world is changing.
Speaker 1: Now I got a lot more to talk about on
Speaker 1: a global stage, some big developments you do not want
Speaker 1: to miss. Somebody be right back with that in a minute,
Speaker 1: So don't go away. I'll be right back, all right,
Speaker 1: Welcome back. If you just tune innywhere listening to the
Speaker 1: Mark Moss Show. We talk about the decentralized revolution. Of course,
Speaker 1: talking about how the world is changing, and we look
Speaker 1: at it through the lens of politics, finance, and technology.
Speaker 1: And we're running through some of the latest breaking news
Speaker 1: headlines of the week. And one of the news headlines
Speaker 1: that we've already been talking about, so it's been going on.
Speaker 1: It's one of the biggest news stories is the trained
Speaker 1: develment that happened in Ohio. Now I've talked about it before.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a lot of information that continues to
Speaker 1: come out. We're still trying to figure out what's going
Speaker 1: on here. There's lots of wild speculation about what's going on,
Speaker 1: and then we have some sort of facts. I think
Speaker 1: it's important to understand. I think I think it was
Speaker 1: last week I framed it up on the show talking
Speaker 1: about how really I think a lot of what's going
Speaker 1: on with train derailments, food processing plans blowing up, fuel
Speaker 1: refineries blowing up, and things like that, the FAA, you know,
Speaker 1: shutting down, planes not running on time, a lot of it.
Speaker 1: You know, it's easy to go conspiratorial here and think
Speaker 1: that you know, someone's out to sabotage everything. The government's
Speaker 1: attacking us or teriffs are attacking it, which which is possible,
Speaker 1: but it's also possible that a lot of it might
Speaker 1: just come down to aging infrastructure. And as I was
Speaker 1: framing up the age of incompetence, and so we're now
Speaker 1: at a point where I reported last week people in Baltimore,
Speaker 1: I think twenty six schools nobody could pass math. In
Speaker 1: Chicago fifty five schools, not one single person could pass
Speaker 1: math or reading in a lot of these schools. Today
Speaker 1: they're at m I saw another report that there really
Speaker 1: have been no increase in education since the third grade.
Speaker 1: And so we're at this point where we have this
Speaker 1: age of incompetence, where people are able to pass high
Speaker 1: school without being able to read it write, And we're
Speaker 1: no longer advancing people based off of merit. We're now
Speaker 1: advancing people based off of identity, which obviously is a problem.
Speaker 1: Sho always be the best person for the job. And
Speaker 1: then on top of that, we're also forcing people to
Speaker 1: work in areas where maybe they shouldn't work. And so
Speaker 1: if I really really really want to get this position,
Speaker 1: like I heard from pilots for example, and so you know,
Speaker 1: people used to dream of growing up one day and
Speaker 1: to being a pilot, but now because of affirmative action
Speaker 1: and other identity politics. We're pushing people to become pilots
Speaker 1: who don't really want to be, and so that's going
Speaker 1: to lead to mistakes and job fatigue and problems. So
Speaker 1: there's a lot of that, but really I'll chalk up
Speaker 1: to the age of incompetence. But going back to this
Speaker 1: the New York Times, which again you should always be
Speaker 1: very suspect of anything The New York Times the Washington
Speaker 1: Post puts out because they're going to be very, very
Speaker 1: very leaning to one side of the aisland, and you
Speaker 1: should also be very weary, or not weary, but at
Speaker 1: least think critically about information you get from information on
Speaker 1: the other side. I remember always trying to separate the
Speaker 1: fact from opinion. But the New York Times put out
Speaker 1: this piece talking about how the Ohio train is it
Speaker 1: really a Chernobyl two point zero? You know, they're talking
Speaker 1: about how influencers across the political spectrum have basically overblown
Speaker 1: how bad this could be. Now, we do know there
Speaker 1: was a controlled burn of toxic materials. We do know
Speaker 1: that filled the air. We do see the pictures that
Speaker 1: is like this giant plume of black smoke. We do
Speaker 1: know that it's spread to Canada and New York. So
Speaker 1: those are fitter facts, right. We do know that water
Speaker 1: and soil got covered with those chemicals. We do know
Speaker 1: that lots of animals and fish have died, So we
Speaker 1: do know that that's all fact. Now how bad is it, Well,
Speaker 1: that's where we have to kind of go to some speculation.
Speaker 1: We do know the facts, we won't know a lot
Speaker 1: of the fact of how bad it is until later.
Speaker 1: But what the New York Times is saying is, of
Speaker 1: course right wing commentators have been particularly critical. Right wing again,
Speaker 1: what's up with the labels? Some people? How about? How
Speaker 1: about some people been critical? They've been critical, using the
Speaker 1: crisis to sow distrust about government agencies and suggest that
Speaker 1: the damage could be reparable. I would like to say
Speaker 1: that right wing commentators are not using this to sow
Speaker 1: distrust about the government. I would say the government sows
Speaker 1: its own distrust. So when the government continually lies to
Speaker 1: you us, when the government continually censors and silences people
Speaker 1: that want to have information on another side of the aisle,
Speaker 1: when the government stops all open and honest dialogue and debate,
Speaker 1: that's what sows distrust. I've used the example many times.
Speaker 1: If I was laying in bed late at night on
Speaker 1: texting somebody, and my wife looks over and says, hey,
Speaker 1: who are you texting? And I was like, oh, nobody, no, nobody,
Speaker 1: don't worry about it. Like she would start to have
Speaker 1: seeds of distrust. Who's he talking about? Who's he talking to?
Speaker 1: What's going on? Where? If I just gave transparency and
Speaker 1: I said, oh, it's my mom. She wants to plan
Speaker 1: a birthday this weekend, she'd like, oh, okay, great. And
Speaker 1: so the way that you defeat the seeds of distrust
Speaker 1: is by being transparent, by being truthful, by not lying
Speaker 1: over and over and over, by admitting when you've made
Speaker 1: a mistake. That's how you prevent seeds of distrust. It's
Speaker 1: not right when commentators that are doing that. It's the
Speaker 1: fact that we've been continually lied to. Now, we do
Speaker 1: know that the EPA, Environmental Protecting Agency and state officials
Speaker 1: have acknowledged the situation is disastrous in many ways. We
Speaker 1: do know that we do know that the air quality
Speaker 1: was not safe at some point. The EPA says it
Speaker 1: is safe from now. But the problem is, like I said,
Speaker 1: they're the ones that have sowed the seeds of distrust.
Speaker 1: Now we can see that people that live in the
Speaker 1: area are saying that they're getting rashes, they're getting headaches,
Speaker 1: they're getting other symptoms that could be tied to that.
Speaker 1: They've you know, some of them have returned to their
Speaker 1: homes and now they're seeing these these types of things.
Speaker 1: And so this is true, and we do know that
Speaker 1: people should be taking this their their health way more
Speaker 1: seriously than most people have. And so if I live
Speaker 1: in an area, I maybe wouldn't want to move back home.
Speaker 1: We also do know that other places like Cincinnati, for example,
Speaker 1: has cut off its drinking water from the Ohio River
Speaker 1: because of the trained development and the contamination. Now they
Speaker 1: believe it says quote believe that low levels of beautile
Speaker 1: accrelate seeped into the Ohio River through a small creek
Speaker 1: about three hundred miles north of Cincinnati, and so they
Speaker 1: have shut off water. Now, again, are we overblowing this,
Speaker 1: We don't know. But if a town has literally cut
Speaker 1: off their water because as they're afraid of this, well
Speaker 1: I don't know if we're overblowing that, that's a pretty
Speaker 1: big deal. Since then IAI's drinking water will be will
Speaker 1: water intake will will be closed sometime before the contamination
Speaker 1: is expected to reach the area of the river area.
Speaker 1: So we do know that they're expecting to travel down
Speaker 1: the river and they are going to shut that off. Now,
Speaker 1: one thing I did learn, and so let me just
Speaker 1: give you another perspective that maybe the right wing whoever
Speaker 1: these right wing influences and commodators are. One thing I
Speaker 1: looked up is that you know, while this train accident
Speaker 1: appears to be very, very bad, I didn't know, but
Speaker 1: I'm aware of now that we have lots of train
Speaker 1: developments every day in the United States. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, we averaged three trained deveilments a day a day.
Speaker 1: And so when you hear about, oh my gosh, why
Speaker 1: is there no one talking about this, well, there's three
Speaker 1: a day. Are they talking about three a day? So
Speaker 1: then I have to ask myself, well, is it because
Speaker 1: of social media we just hear about it more often?
Speaker 1: Obviously we have trained, trained romans. Or is it that
Speaker 1: we're having more trained romans that are really bad? And
Speaker 1: to answer that question, I saw this report that says
Speaker 1: kinetic attacks on US power grids spiked seventy one percent
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two. So what we're seeing is we
Speaker 1: are having fires and refineries, we are having trains derailed,
Speaker 1: We are having those things. But those types of things
Speaker 1: happened quite often. But are we having more trained incidents
Speaker 1: that have strategic or really bad stuff like we saw
Speaker 1: another one overturned with coal? So are we seeing more
Speaker 1: strategic stuff happening? And according to this that seems to
Speaker 1: be the case. There's been US power grid attacks have
Speaker 1: spiked almost doubled in the previous year. Duke Energy of
Speaker 1: Florida experienced several substation intrusion events in September, sabotaging equipment
Speaker 1: that resulted in a nine minute long outage. Central organ
Speaker 1: Daily said one of their substations was attacked on November
Speaker 1: twenty fourth. In December, vandals attacks ups in More County,
Speaker 1: North Carolina with gunfire, leaving forty five thousand people without power.
Speaker 1: Four substations in Washington were attacked on Christmas Day. Seventeen
Speaker 1: thousand people lost power. Earlier this month, a Florida man
Speaker 1: in a Maryland woman we're charged the conspiracy to attack
Speaker 1: a Maryland power grid. There are at least one hundred
Speaker 1: and eight human related events were reported during the first
Speaker 1: eight months of twenty twenty two, and so we can
Speaker 1: see that it does seem that there are attacks happening
Speaker 1: this and so we do need to be aware of this,
Speaker 1: and we should be able to trust our government with more.
Speaker 1: If you're just tuning in, you're listening to the Mark
Speaker 1: Moa Show talking about some of the latest breaking news
Speaker 1: headlines that happened this week in regards to the decentralized Revolution.
Speaker 1: I got more stories to run through that you don't
Speaker 1: want to miss, So I'm gonna be back with more
Speaker 1: in a minute. Don't go away, I'm gonna be right back.
Speaker 1: All right, welcome back. If you just tune in, you
Speaker 1: were listening to the Mark Moa Show talking about, of course,
Speaker 1: the decentralized Revolution looking at through the lens of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology, and we're running through some of the latest
Speaker 1: breaking news of this week. Now I discovered a story before.
Speaker 1: If you just tune and you missed it, but don't worry,
Speaker 1: you can catch me on the podcast on demand to
Speaker 1: search The Mark Moss Show and your favorite podcast player,
Speaker 1: or the Market Disruptors YouTube channel to search Market Disruptors
Speaker 1: on YouTube. Now, I was talking about the train that
Speaker 1: derailed in Ohio and of course that's not late breaking news,
Speaker 1: but we're talking about the development of that. And I
Speaker 1: also want to talk about another big story that continues
Speaker 1: to be developed, and that is this Chinese spy balloons.
Speaker 1: Now I've talked about this already, like I said before,
Speaker 1: so it's not breaking news, but I wanted to talk
Speaker 1: about it because we have more information coming in now.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of fear mongering and more mongering going
Speaker 1: on regarding the balloon I had talked about before, and
Speaker 1: I kind of posed the question before, why do they
Speaker 1: want us talking about the balloon? Like what is going
Speaker 1: on there? What's this intention? What are they trying to
Speaker 1: get from us? And so if we if we look
Speaker 1: in this a little bit further, maybe this helps us
Speaker 1: answer that question, which will come back to you. But
Speaker 1: what it looks like is that there were four balloons
Speaker 1: that were shot down, and the first one appears to
Speaker 1: be a Chinese balloon. And we know that the balloon
Speaker 1: supposedly lingered over, you know, or flew over a couple
Speaker 1: of Air force bases. It flew over our air Force
Speaker 1: bases that had our intercontinental ballistic missiles. It also passed
Speaker 1: by some nuclear capable bomber fleets things like that, and
Speaker 1: they say that this path suggests that China's gathering intelligence
Speaker 1: for either maybe a first or second strike of America's
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. We can also see that, so maybe they're
Speaker 1: trying to spy on us, but is that really what
Speaker 1: they're doing. So we can see that now they're saying
Speaker 1: that the spy balloon is now beginning of a nuclear
Speaker 1: fear campaign from China. So they're saying that maybe they're
Speaker 1: trying to scare us that there's going to be this
Speaker 1: nuclear attack and they can you know, now they have
Speaker 1: access to all this information. Now we need to you know,
Speaker 1: be prepared to go to war with China and things
Speaker 1: like that. But if we look at there's a there's
Speaker 1: some other stuff that shows that maybe that first balloon
Speaker 1: was China's, maybe it was a weather balloon, maybe it
Speaker 1: was a spy balloon, but the other three that were
Speaker 1: shot down were not. And as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: the other three that were shot down appeared to not
Speaker 1: be Chinese and might have even been from the United
Speaker 1: States itself, and they were just weather balloons. Edward Snowden,
Speaker 1: who is the you know, kind of infamous whistle blower
Speaker 1: NSA whistleblower. He says, the hysteria over these balloons being
Speaker 1: shot down over America and Canada is a distraction from
Speaker 1: the story that Seymour or Hirsch broke about the US
Speaker 1: being responsible for blowing up the nord Stream pipeline. So again,
Speaker 1: why do they want us focusing on these balloons? One
Speaker 1: of them might have been a Chinese balloon, maybe it
Speaker 1: was a spy balloon, maybe it was a weather balloon.
Speaker 1: We know the other three most likely weren't, and they
Speaker 1: might have even been American weather balloons. So why do
Speaker 1: they want us focused on that? And so it's sort
Speaker 1: of like this magic trick, you know, slide of hand,
Speaker 1: look over here while we do something over there. And
Speaker 1: so what was going on that they don't want us
Speaker 1: to look at? That's one question to ask, you know.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg reported the US government has assessed that three unidentified
Speaker 1: objects down since last Friday were likely for commercial use
Speaker 1: and not foreign intelligence gathering. Now, as best as I
Speaker 1: can tell through the research that I've done trying to
Speaker 1: make sense of this situation, China has over three hundred
Speaker 1: satellites in orbit, and with those satellites, they could read
Speaker 1: the text on a gravestone, they can listen to conversations.
Speaker 1: They might be listening to me recording this conversation right now.
Speaker 1: And so if they have three hundred satellites, they're already
Speaker 1: capable of reading text on a tombstone and listening to conversations.
Speaker 1: Why do they need to fly a weather balloon? Hm,
Speaker 1: that'd be a good question. Why would they need to
Speaker 1: use a weather balloon if they already have everything they
Speaker 1: need now? There could be maybe it was a test run.
Speaker 1: Maybe they want to try to put you know, some
Speaker 1: sort of like an EMP into a weather balloon and
Speaker 1: detonated or you know, some some chemicals and detonate and
Speaker 1: let it let it rain down across. I mean, maybe,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe that's the case. I don't know the answer,
Speaker 1: But what I do think about is why does the
Speaker 1: government all want us thinking about this balloon? So, like
Speaker 1: I said, Edward Snowden says, maybe to cover up for
Speaker 1: the story that said that US is responsible for the
Speaker 1: North Stream pipeline. As a matter of fact, there's more
Speaker 1: information coming out. I saw a story today saying that
Speaker 1: I believe it was this Swedeen released report that basically
Speaker 1: says that they've kind of come to the same conclusion
Speaker 1: as well. Of course, anybody with a critical rational mind
Speaker 1: might draw that conclusion themselves as well. So maybe that
Speaker 1: was it, or maybe it's because they want us thinking
Speaker 1: that China is spying on us, that China is trying
Speaker 1: to attack us, or get ready for an attack, so
Speaker 1: that they can get the people or the American people
Speaker 1: sentiment to shift towards China not like China, and so
Speaker 1: that the government, the US government could then get ready
Speaker 1: for a war with China, could use that to sanction
Speaker 1: more against China. So, for example, we saw more sanctions
Speaker 1: going through today or this week that could potentially limit
Speaker 1: all investments into China. And so if you're invested into China,
Speaker 1: you may have trouble getting your money back out. If
Speaker 1: you have money in China, I'd probably be pulling that
Speaker 1: money out of China. But it also in retaliation. Now
Speaker 1: China is now sort of financially attacking the United States,
Speaker 1: and so now they're saying no Chinese corporations can use
Speaker 1: the Big four accounting firms anymore, which could be billions
Speaker 1: of dollars of economic loss. And so maybe they're trying
Speaker 1: to get the American sentiment behind this. So we can
Speaker 1: get behind that. We don't know. But the question is,
Speaker 1: why are we shooting down our own balloons? Why are
Speaker 1: we making this big deal about this now? Why are
Speaker 1: we making a big deal about one balloon when they
Speaker 1: have the satellites to already see everything. Why are we
Speaker 1: making a big deal about one balloon when they have
Speaker 1: bought up all our farmland, when they've bought land next
Speaker 1: to our strategic military bases, when they continue to flood
Speaker 1: our borders with fentnol, which is a mass casualty attack, Like,
Speaker 1: why are we worried? Why are we not worried about that?
Speaker 1: But now all of a sudden, we want to be
Speaker 1: worried about a balloon. It's an interesting point to make.
Speaker 1: And again, we need to be where they want us
Speaker 1: to be geared up for this war with China, because
Speaker 1: China is actively attacking the United States. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, they're attacking us from many ways in including
Speaker 1: with the dollar. And so what we can see is
Speaker 1: that China has gone around trying to crush the dollars
Speaker 1: demand they're now using their yuan in trade with Iraq.
Speaker 1: The Iraqi Central Bank announced Wednesday that for the first
Speaker 1: time it plans to allow trade with China to be
Speaker 1: settled directly in yuan instead of the US dollar. M
Speaker 1: we know that Chinese currency would boost the balances of
Speaker 1: Iraqi banks with accounts with Chinese banks. We see that
Speaker 1: China has also done this with Iran, They've done it
Speaker 1: with India, they're doing it with Russia, and so we
Speaker 1: can see that now Russia has now has now basically
Speaker 1: moved their foreign reserves to the yuan. I believe seventeen
Speaker 1: percent of their central bank holdings are now in yuan,
Speaker 1: and so we can see that there's this attack that's happening,
Speaker 1: and it's coming from all sides. They've gone around and
Speaker 1: made long term strategic buys on all the core commodities,
Speaker 1: so they've been locked up natural gas and long term contracts,
Speaker 1: oil and long term contracts, minerals, metals and long term
Speaker 1: contracts gold, nickel, palladium, etc. And they're basically taking all
Speaker 1: of this off of the market, cornering the market, if
Speaker 1: you will, and then working with these countries to take
Speaker 1: oil and stuff in yuan and then starting to switch
Speaker 1: all these other currencies or governments of the world to
Speaker 1: move into a digital yuan, or not a digital but
Speaker 1: into a Juan denominated system. Now what comes next is
Speaker 1: a digital Yuan system or CBDC system that then could
Speaker 1: bypass the entire FED banking, fedwire and swift monetary system
Speaker 1: the dollar. The dollar at its core is a payment network,
Speaker 1: and they can set up their own payment network. And
Speaker 1: so maybe, just maybe all of this stuff about the
Speaker 1: balloon is a big distraction to get not a distraction,
Speaker 1: but is used to get our sentiment to ready be
Speaker 1: ready to go to war with But that's just maybe
Speaker 1: my own assumption. I'd love to hear what you have
Speaker 1: to say. Hit me up on social media at one
Speaker 1: Mark Moss. If you just tuned in, you're listening to
Speaker 1: the Mark Moss Show running through some of the latest
Speaker 1: breaking news headlines this week for the decentralized revolution. And
Speaker 1: that's what we got. Thanks so much for listening. Until
Speaker 1: next time,