Speaker 1: Hello, Welcome back to another episode of The Mark Moss Show,
Speaker 1: where we talk about the decentralized revolution, the way the
Speaker 1: world's changing right before our very eyes. And of course
Speaker 1: the three revolutionary cycles are politics, finance, and yes, technology,
Speaker 1: so we look at the world through those lens so
Speaker 1: we can see what's happening and understand what's happening, and
Speaker 1: of course make decisions to protect ourselves and come out.
Speaker 2: Ahead as all of this happens.
Speaker 1: Now in the world of finance, you know, we are
Speaker 1: witnessing three revolutions. There's a technological revolution on a fifty
Speaker 1: year cycle, of political revolution cycle on a tunifty year cycle,
Speaker 1: and a financial revolution cycle on an eighty year cycle.
Speaker 1: And it's pretty easy to see the financial revolution is here.
Speaker 1: The entire finance system that we have in the world
Speaker 1: today is completely breaking apart. We have way too much
Speaker 1: debt and we don't have enough production. There's not enough
Speaker 1: global GDP growth to manage the amount of debt that
Speaker 1: we have, so I mean the debt is growing fast
Speaker 1: than the production. Remember, wealth is not money, Wealth is
Speaker 1: goods and services. If the money grows faster than the
Speaker 1: goods and services does.
Speaker 2: Then you have massive inflation.
Speaker 1: You have more currency units, more money chasing a limited
Speaker 1: supply of goods. It pushes the prices up. So that's
Speaker 1: why your meat and your milk, and your cheese and
Speaker 1: your eggs and your gas in your house and everything
Speaker 1: else is getting so expensive. And part of it isn't
Speaker 1: just that the money supply is growing faster than the
Speaker 1: goods and services, but it's debt. And so debt does
Speaker 1: two things. One, yes, it crowds out the market and
Speaker 1: makes the price of everything go up, but it also
Speaker 1: is a drag on production, on productivity. It's like it's
Speaker 1: like putting on like one hundred pounds backpack and then
Speaker 1: trying to go run a marathon. It just drags it
Speaker 1: down because like, for example, I took on this debt.
Speaker 2: Let's say that I took.
Speaker 1: On this debt to buy this new piece of equipment
Speaker 1: from my office my company, and I was hoping that
Speaker 1: that would then bring me more revenue. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to take a thousand dollars payment on this new truck,
Speaker 1: but hopefully it makes me five thousand a month in
Speaker 1: new business. But let's say that that business doesn't come
Speaker 1: and now I'm just stuck making this thousand dollars payment
Speaker 1: on the truck, and now I can't afford to go
Speaker 1: do another thing because I got to sit there and
Speaker 1: make that payment on that truck. So drags things down,
Speaker 1: and of course we're front and center to another debt
Speaker 1: ceiling debate. Talked about this for the last couple weeks
Speaker 1: because it's coming to a head. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: we're witnessing what's known as the X date. The X
Speaker 1: date is the date that the government, like literally the
Speaker 1: United States government, the US Treasury.
Speaker 2: Runs out of money. That's the date.
Speaker 1: That's the date everything falls apart. And here we are
Speaker 1: running straight to that and it looks like we might
Speaker 1: actually hit it now. They say the US government won't default.
Speaker 1: You know, Biden's on there saying we won't default. We're
Speaker 1: not dead beats, we pay our debt, et cetera. I
Speaker 1: want you to just understand one thing clear. First of all,
Speaker 1: there's two types of defaults here, Okay, a hard default.
Speaker 1: A hard default is when they say we ain't paying
Speaker 1: we're not paying any of our bills, like we're not
Speaker 1: paying back our treasury, so we're not paying back our
Speaker 1: bond holders. That's not gonna happen, right, no government with
Speaker 1: a money printer will ever default on that. They're gonna
Speaker 1: pay that, but then there's a technical default, and a
Speaker 1: technical default will happen if they don't make a deal
Speaker 1: in time and it gets delayed a couple of days. Now,
Speaker 1: if it gets delayed a couple days, they'll just you know,
Speaker 1: take money from one place to another. They'll say, hey,
Speaker 1: i'll pay you next week, I'll pay you with interest,
Speaker 1: and they'll pay the bills like this gets resolved. Of course,
Speaker 1: they have a money printer, they're gonna pay it. But
Speaker 1: a technical default could happen if a deal can't be
Speaker 1: reached in time. And we're getting to that point as
Speaker 1: a matter of fact. This week, the Bide administration and
Speaker 1: the Republican side, McCarthy leading that side, have been meeting
Speaker 1: and they say they are not, I mean close to
Speaker 1: a deal. Now. I've gone through the details of that deal.
Speaker 1: I don't want to kind of recall all that roight
Speaker 1: off the top of them my head. But the Republicans
Speaker 1: have offered to raise the debt ceiling another one point
Speaker 1: five trillion.
Speaker 2: Now, to put that into.
Speaker 1: Perspective, in two thousand and eight, when there was a
Speaker 1: great financial crash, when the entire global financial system was.
Speaker 2: Crumbling, the entire it was a seven hundred billion dollar bailout.
Speaker 1: So right now the Republicans are offering them double the
Speaker 1: money that they needed in two thousand eight to save
Speaker 1: the whole world. Double that it's not enough. Democrats say no,
Speaker 1: no deal. Biden says no deal. So they've offered them
Speaker 1: that because they said, hey, we'll give you the one
Speaker 1: point five trillion. But over the next several years, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have to start cutting some of the budgets, like
Speaker 1: you just because the budget is projected to continue to
Speaker 1: grow bigger and bigger, bigger the deficit the shortcoming of
Speaker 1: the income and expenses. The deficit is projected to get
Speaker 1: bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger, which means, per
Speaker 1: the government's own plans the CBO Congressional Budget Office.
Speaker 2: Per the CBO's report, they're.
Speaker 1: Planning to continue to spend more than they bring in
Speaker 1: over the next several years, and not just spend more
Speaker 1: than they bring in, but continue to increase the gap
Speaker 1: and continue to spend even more and more and more
Speaker 1: as they're not bringing enough. So they're projecting for the
Speaker 1: deficit to grow from one trillion to two trillion to
Speaker 1: three trillion over the next decade. So the Republicans are like,
Speaker 1: hang on, hang on, hang on, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay,
Speaker 1: we'll give you the one point five trillion, Like that'll
Speaker 1: all that, But we can't continue to grow the deficit.
Speaker 1: We have to start trying to like rain this in
Speaker 1: a little bit here, and Biden says no deal. So
Speaker 1: you know what they're telling you, you know the Bide
Speaker 1: administration is telling you, is that they.
Speaker 2: Want the world to end.
Speaker 1: You know, eight million Americans are going to lose their job.
Speaker 1: You know, your Social Security, your Medicare isn't going to
Speaker 1: get paid.
Speaker 2: You know, they're telling you all that stuff. But that's
Speaker 2: that's that's not the truth.
Speaker 1: They're offering to pay one point five trillion. Are increase
Speaker 1: it by one point five trillion now, but you're gonna
Speaker 1: have to start cutting as things move forward.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: The by administration, so like I said, says we're gonna
Speaker 1: cut all this, it's gonna be tragic. Well, that's not
Speaker 1: what they're saying. They're asking for minuscule cuts or really
Speaker 1: keeping spending on where we were back in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: Now in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: Was a record year.
Speaker 1: We increased the money supply in the United States by
Speaker 1: forty percent from twenty twenty twenty twenty two forty percent.
Speaker 1: That was a record year for spending. And they're just saying, hey,
Speaker 1: we should just hold spending to there. And if I
Speaker 1: can recall, twenty twenty two wasn't that far back, and
Speaker 1: you can recall as well as we can both recall
Speaker 1: a year ago the world didn't end, bills got paid,
Speaker 1: eight million Americans were not laid off, Medicare and Social
Speaker 1: Security were still paid. So going back to that level
Speaker 1: doesn't sound so catastrophic.
Speaker 2: Of course, that's what we're being told.
Speaker 1: However, Janet Yellen, she's going around saying, hey, look guys.
Speaker 1: You know, Janney Ellen's the head of the Treasury, Treasury Secretary,
Speaker 1: and she's saying, hey, look, we're we're trying to get
Speaker 1: this dead deal done. We're going to get it done.
Speaker 1: It's not going to be bad. But what's important to
Speaker 1: understand is that regardless whether a deal gets done or not,
Speaker 1: it could still be really bad. In twenty eleven, we
Speaker 1: got really close to that, a deal was struck at
Speaker 1: the last minute, but yet the stock market. The SIP
Speaker 1: five hunderd dropped seventeen percent, seventeen percent, It's big dropped,
Speaker 1: and a lot of other markets dropped even more. And
Speaker 1: so the Democrats don't want that to happen. Now, the
Speaker 1: Democrats are basically they rolled out a letter demanding that
Speaker 1: Biden use a fourteenth Amendment to bypass all this and
Speaker 1: just raise the dead ceiling on their own, basically bypassed
Speaker 1: the entire government. The whole point of the government in
Speaker 1: the United States is that we have divided powers, so
Speaker 1: people can't use move move unilaterally. We don't have a
Speaker 1: king or a dictator. But they want to bypass that,
Speaker 1: of course. Ernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, John Fetterman, Richard Blumenthal,
Speaker 1: Tina Smith At Marky, Jeff Merkley, Sheldon Whitehouse, Peter Welch,
Speaker 1: they all want them to do this, just unilaterally decide.
Speaker 1: And Biden says he thinks he has the authority to
Speaker 1: do it.
Speaker 2: He says he can do it.
Speaker 1: Now it's going to be a challenge because they're not
Speaker 1: supposed to do it. So it's going to be a showdown.
Speaker 1: It's going to be a constitutional showdown if this happens,
Speaker 1: and either way. Regardless of what happens, this weakens the
Speaker 1: view of the government, It weakens the confidence that people
Speaker 1: have in the government. It looks horrible on the global stage.
Speaker 1: And regardless of what happens, there is massive amounts of
Speaker 1: money printing in front of us. All right, there's no
Speaker 1: way to pay the bills without increasing the limits. So
Speaker 1: Biden wants an unlimited checkbook. The Republicans are like, not
Speaker 1: only one point five trillion, We lose sight of these
Speaker 1: numbers go so big. So either way, there's massive money
Speaker 1: printing the head The only fight right now is over
Speaker 1: how much.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: If you're just tuning in, you're listening to the Markmaas Show,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about this decentralized revolution. I'm talking about some
Speaker 1: of the latest breaking news headlines from this week. I'll
Speaker 1: be back with more in a minute. Don't go away,
Speaker 1: I'll be her back.
Speaker 2: All right, welcome back.
Speaker 1: If you're just tuning and you're listening to the Mark
Speaker 1: mass Show, of course, always talking about the decentralized revolution,
Speaker 1: the way the world is changing, and we're looking at
Speaker 1: it through the lens of politics, finance, technology, and we're
Speaker 1: looking at some of the latest breaking news headlines. This week,
Speaker 1: so you can see exactly how this is playing out.
Speaker 1: And of course it's always technology that changes the world.
Speaker 1: We talked about the finance side just before the break.
Speaker 1: Hopefully you caught that. If not, no worries, I got
Speaker 1: you back.
Speaker 2: I got you back.
Speaker 1: You can catch it on the podcast. Just search the
Speaker 1: Mark Mass Show on your favorite podcast player, or you
Speaker 1: can jump over onto YouTube go to Market Disruptors, Market Disruptors,
Speaker 1: and you can watch me and listen to me at
Speaker 1: the same time over there.
Speaker 2: So if you miss it.
Speaker 1: Any of this, or you missed me one week, don't worry,
Speaker 1: go over there on the podcast or the YouTube channel
Speaker 1: and catch me.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: We just talked about the finance side, the debt ceiling problem,
Speaker 1: and now on the technology side is what changes the
Speaker 1: world the most, and that of course is bitcoin, this
Speaker 1: technological revolution.
Speaker 2: And I know a lot of you might.
Speaker 1: Be skeptical about the volatility of the US dollar valuation.
Speaker 1: It used to be fifty thousand or sixty thousand, and
Speaker 1: now thirty thousand, right, and so you kind of get
Speaker 1: some of that. But as I always say, the price
Speaker 1: is a distraction on brand new technologies. The price is
Speaker 1: a distraction, not always, but on brand new technologies. And
Speaker 1: what we really want to look at is two things,
Speaker 1: the growth of the network, and we also want to
Speaker 1: look at the technology development on the network. Now, technology
Speaker 1: scales in layers, just like the monetary system does. So
Speaker 1: gold was money and it was a base settlement layer.
Speaker 1: If I had the gold, I had the gold. If
Speaker 1: I gave you the gold, you have the gold. But
Speaker 1: then we moved into the information age, and so then
Speaker 1: gold added a layer too. The gold goes in the bank.
Speaker 1: They gave me a paper gold certificate. That's a gold
Speaker 1: claimant I owe you. Now we can move the paper
Speaker 1: much faster, but it's not as secure. Then we have
Speaker 1: checks that's layer three. Then we have a credit cards
Speaker 1: that's layer four. Now we have Venmo and PayPal that's
Speaker 1: layer five. And so we have all these different layers,
Speaker 1: and each of those layers offer us different trade offs.
Speaker 1: And Bitcoin, a lot of people say, well, bitcoin's old.
Speaker 1: Come on, Mark, Bitcoin's the stupidest, oldest, dumbest, slowest blockchain
Speaker 1: out there. We want something faster. Well, that's true kind
Speaker 1: of except for technology scales and layers. That's the Internet
Speaker 1: scales as well. If we want we had the internet,
Speaker 1: we want email great, We'll put another layer on SMTP.
Speaker 1: Oh we want security great through another layer on ATTPS.
Speaker 1: And that's how technology works. So if you make that argument,
Speaker 1: if you want to argue with me on that, that
Speaker 1: just kind of shows you don't understand technology.
Speaker 2: I hate to tell you that.
Speaker 1: We are scaling bitcoin layers and now we have these
Speaker 1: Layer two and we have Layer three applications on top
Speaker 1: of bitcoin. And so now with Layer two applications, you
Speaker 1: can already send bitcoin faster and cheaper and more private
Speaker 1: than any other cryptocurrency out there. So every other blockchain
Speaker 1: cryptocurrency says they're faster, cheaper and more private, Well they're
Speaker 1: all obsolete now. Now we're running NFTs on blockchain. So
Speaker 1: all these other blockchains that say, well, but we can
Speaker 1: do smart contracts and NFTs, well we're doing that on
Speaker 1: a Big One blockchain now, so those are all obsolete.
Speaker 1: And talking about new development, we saw announced at the
Speaker 1: Big One conference last week a new layer two protocol
Speaker 1: called ARC.
Speaker 2: And what's cool about ARC.
Speaker 1: Is it's giving you layer two scaleability, allowing you to
Speaker 1: be faster and cheaper and more private but easier. All right,
Speaker 1: So some people might say lightning, which is kind of
Speaker 1: the main layer two channel. Right now, people might say
Speaker 1: that lightning is difficult to use, it's hard to open
Speaker 1: up channels, things like that, and of course things get
Speaker 1: easier over time, so the problem that we have with
Speaker 1: it today won't always be the problem.
Speaker 2: That's what solutions are for.
Speaker 1: But what we're seeing is that now we have another one,
Speaker 1: a competing one, which is good more development, and this
Speaker 1: makes it way easier.
Speaker 2: That's really cool.
Speaker 1: And speaking of ARC, that's the name of this new
Speaker 1: layer two protocol. Speaking of ARC, we have Kathy Wood
Speaker 1: from ARC. She runs a large technology ETF called ARC,
Speaker 1: and she's talking about this week. She was talking about
Speaker 1: how the US, unfortunately seems to be losing this whole movement.
Speaker 1: She's the investment founder of investment manager ARC Invest, and
Speaker 1: she's talking about how it's losing the movement because of
Speaker 1: the regulatory system that it's imposing and how they're basically
Speaker 1: forcing this off the coast.
Speaker 2: She said, quote, it'd be nice if the US.
Speaker 1: We're leading this movement, but we're losing it, and we're
Speaker 1: losing it because of our regulatory system end quote. The regulators,
Speaker 1: the government, they don't like innovation, they don't like things moving.
Speaker 1: Christine Legard, who is the head of the IMF now
Speaker 1: she's head of the ECB European Central Banks. She said
Speaker 1: that innovation is a threat to our financial stability, and
Speaker 1: that's actually true. She's actually right. But that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: So yes, it's disrupting the old system, So yes, it
Speaker 1: makes the old system less stable, but in favor of
Speaker 1: a new, better system. That's called creative destruction. A new
Speaker 1: technology comes along that's so much better that it destroys
Speaker 1: the old way. Digital camera or digital photos on cameras
Speaker 1: were so much better that one hundred year old company
Speaker 1: like Kodak went out of business. Now Kodak could have
Speaker 1: stopped the entire digital camera movement and we could have
Speaker 1: just stuck having to use expensive and harmful chemicals in
Speaker 1: traditional old school film. Could have still been the biggest
Speaker 1: company today in that space, but we wouldn't have the
Speaker 1: innovation which has changed the world as we know it.
Speaker 1: And we want to have that. We want pictures to
Speaker 1: be easier, aster, cheaper, et cetera. And so that's what
Speaker 1: they want to do. They want to stop that. And
Speaker 1: these regulators are doing this, as Kathy would is saying,
Speaker 1: they're driving it overseas, but overseas are pretty hostile as well.
Speaker 1: We saw the European Union said that their banks could
Speaker 1: potentially stop or take over the cryptocurrency stable coins, and
Speaker 1: so they want to stop that. They want to you know,
Speaker 1: put all types of regulations there. Inside the United States,
Speaker 1: Senator Elizabeth Warren is literally running on a campaign to
Speaker 1: an anti crypto campaign, literally an anti technology campaign.
Speaker 2: It reminds me of the Luddites.
Speaker 1: I've ever heard that word before. The Luedites were the
Speaker 1: ones that were very opposed to the Industrial Revolution. So
Speaker 1: two hundred and fifty years ago, the entire world was
Speaker 1: you know, agriculture, farming and cottage industry, and then we
Speaker 1: had the Industrial Revolution that created machines.
Speaker 2: And the machines could do the work of five thousand men.
Speaker 1: But what about all those five thousand men?
Speaker 2: What are they going to do?
Speaker 1: And so the Luttites didn't want this to happen, and
Speaker 1: they tried to stop it. They tried to block it,
Speaker 1: they tried to prevent it. They went and damage it,
Speaker 1: they destroyed this technology because they.
Speaker 2: Didn't want it to be there.
Speaker 1: What's going to happen to the old system of working
Speaker 1: toiling by hand in the field. What will these five
Speaker 1: thousand men do. Well, it turns out they did, you know,
Speaker 1: science and medicine and technology and other more important things.
Speaker 1: And so these ludites like Senator Elizabeth Warren, they want
Speaker 1: to stop it, literally running an anti crypto campaign.
Speaker 2: It's insane.
Speaker 1: She's saying that this Digital Asset Money Laundering Act that
Speaker 1: she's trying to push forward is basically going to kill
Speaker 1: it as we know it, because again, it's a threat
Speaker 1: to their system. Now, the insanity that we have groundbreaking
Speaker 1: revolutionary technology like bitcoin, blockchain, cryptocurrency like AI that's literally
Speaker 1: going to change the world for the future for my kids,
Speaker 1: your kids, grandkids, et cetera. And we have eighty year
Speaker 1: olds in office making decisions now. The average age for
Speaker 1: a fortune five hundred CEO is fifty five. I don't
Speaker 1: think there's really any CEOs in fortune five hundred after
Speaker 1: like sixty five.
Speaker 2: They can't. It's not their fall.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry if you follow this camp, but you're just
Speaker 1: not up to the same technology standards as.
Speaker 2: The kids are.
Speaker 1: And to have eighty year olds passing bills like the
Speaker 1: Ledites trying to stop progress is insane. If you're just
Speaker 1: tuning in you're listening to the Mark mah Show talking
Speaker 1: about the decentralized Revolution, running through some of the biggest
Speaker 1: breaking news headlines this week as we look at it
Speaker 1: through the lens of politics, finance, and technology. Now coming up,
Speaker 1: I want to talk more about what's going on in
Speaker 1: the technology space, specifically getting more into AI, what politics
Speaker 1: are saying about AI, et cetera. And then I want
Speaker 1: to get into what the government's trying to do to
Speaker 1: again entrench their position and prevent themselves from being overturned.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about the deep state. I'm going to talk
Speaker 1: about that when I come back in a minute. Don't
Speaker 1: go away on your back, all right, Welcome back. If
Speaker 1: you're just tuning and you're listening to the Mark mass Show.
Speaker 1: Of course we're talking about the decentralized revolution each and
Speaker 1: every week, running through the latest breaking news headlines this week,
Speaker 1: and it has this makes my job a little bit
Speaker 1: easier because there's so much stuff to talk about each
Speaker 1: and every week. It's a little bit harder trying to
Speaker 1: figure out what to talk about because there's so many things,
Speaker 1: and you know, were before the break, we were just
Speaker 1: talking about technology and how we have eighty year olds
Speaker 1: in government that are making regulations to prevent new technologies.
Speaker 1: And this has always been the case. As I was
Speaker 1: talking about before the break, I was talking about the
Speaker 1: Luddites that literally tried to stop the industrial revolution. How
Speaker 1: dare we have machines that take away the hard work
Speaker 1: from men? Wouldn't you rather be toiling in the field
Speaker 1: every day, twelve fifteen hours a day, just to grow
Speaker 1: your food and survive.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't you rather have that world?
Speaker 1: Because that's the world we could have if we wouldn't
Speaker 1: have had the industry revolution, if those Ludites had only
Speaker 1: gotten their way, we'd still be in those.
Speaker 2: Dark ages, toiling in the fields by hand.
Speaker 1: It was the candle makers that tried to stop electricity
Speaker 1: because they didn't want light bulbs to put the candle
Speaker 1: makers out of work. Electricity is dangerous, it's gonna kill humanity.
Speaker 1: It's bad to be indoors. We need candles. It was
Speaker 1: the buggy makers that tried to stop the cars. Cars
Speaker 1: are loud, they're polluting, they're dangerous. How dare these cars
Speaker 1: move down these highways going fast?
Speaker 2: They could hurt people. The buggy makers, we.
Speaker 1: Can go, we can go down the line every time
Speaker 1: there's another technological revolution. There's a group of people, the
Speaker 1: incumbents that have the power, that don't want to lose that.
Speaker 1: The buggy makers didn't want to lose their jobs and
Speaker 1: lose the monopoly over that. The candlemakers didn't want to
Speaker 1: lose their jobs. Luckily for us at the time, you know,
Speaker 1: they didn't succeed, and we got the machine so we
Speaker 1: didn't have to toil in the field. We got the cars
Speaker 1: so we can get around the world. Luckily for us,
Speaker 1: we light bulbs so we don't have to sit there
Speaker 1: and breathe fumes from candles and doors all the time.
Speaker 1: Luckily they didn't have their way. But now we're in
Speaker 1: a situation that's a lot different. Now we're in a
Speaker 1: situation where we have revolutionary technology. It's rapidly growing and
Speaker 1: expanding and changing, and we have you know, cryptocurrency and bitcoin,
Speaker 1: we have ai et cetera that literally could change the
Speaker 1: world as we know it for the better. Technology always does,
Speaker 1: but the people that are fearing it are trying to
Speaker 1: stop it. And like I said, we have eighty year
Speaker 1: olds in office regulating this stuff. And I'm sorry, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm getting older too.
Speaker 2: I get it. Like we just we changed, like.
Speaker 1: We need young people full of energy on the job
Speaker 1: over there, and yet we're not seeing that. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, we're getting warnings from the government, like
Speaker 1: for example, this week, there's an article that came out
Speaker 1: and that said warning the twenty twenty four elections could
Speaker 1: be ruined because of AI. AI could ruin it because
Speaker 1: AI could make deep fakes, and we could basically make
Speaker 1: you know, deep fakes, which is like a video or
Speaker 1: audio from President Trump or President Biden.
Speaker 2: But it would be faked.
Speaker 1: And AI is so good now it can do this,
Speaker 1: and you know these deep fakes are going to be
Speaker 1: so good that you know they could be misleading voters. Well,
Speaker 1: if you're being misled by an AI, then you probably
Speaker 1: shouldn't be voting.
Speaker 2: How about that?
Speaker 1: How about we say that? And of course it's all
Speaker 1: for your protection. And one of the problems with the
Speaker 1: I with technology too is it tries to get co opted,
Speaker 1: so one group is going to try to use it
Speaker 1: against their other group. And so now we've seen there's
Speaker 1: been dozens and dozens and dozens of tests where we've
Speaker 1: seen that the AI right now, the big one is
Speaker 1: you know chat, GPT.
Speaker 2: Of course, Google just launched their bart as well.
Speaker 1: But how it's very let's say left.
Speaker 2: Leaning, shall we say right?
Speaker 1: So it's very left leaning and they would say they'd
Speaker 1: ask at certain questions and it would be very pro
Speaker 1: you know, left, and very con against the right, as
Speaker 1: we've seen that. And now so it's been co opted
Speaker 1: by one group and now it looks like we're going
Speaker 1: to have left wing GBT, and now we're going to
Speaker 1: have to have a right wing GBT, which is only
Speaker 1: going to divide the world that much more. So we
Speaker 1: already sort of have this. If you want to know
Speaker 1: why people are kind of so divided, it's because if
Speaker 1: you're watching let's say CNN or you know, one of
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, one of those government mouthpieces, you're getting
Speaker 1: a completely different set of facts than you will if
Speaker 1: you go watch like independent news journalists. And so it's
Speaker 1: it's no wonder, right, like, well, I watched this and
Speaker 1: they told me this. Well, no, I watched this, they
Speaker 1: told me this, and so then the two sides have
Speaker 1: been told two different stories. And when everything becomes politicized,
Speaker 1: that's what happens. And now they want to politicize AI.
Speaker 1: So literally, well, I asked chet, I asked right chat jubt,
Speaker 1: and it gave me this answer. Well, I asked left
Speaker 1: chat gubt, and it gave me this Whatever happened to facts?
Speaker 1: Whatever happened to facts? Whatever happened to data without opinion?
Speaker 2: And the problem is as.
Speaker 1: We start to use these technologies and we start to
Speaker 1: assign more and more of our thought process and critical
Speaker 1: thinking skills to these, unfortunately.
Speaker 2: We're going to get more and more and more of that.
Speaker 1: You know, critical thinking skills is something they.
Speaker 2: Don't teach you in school anymore.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, before the information age, the problem was how do
Speaker 1: I get enough information? The problem that we have today
Speaker 1: is we have too much information? So how do I
Speaker 1: discern it? And that's why we need critical thinking skills.
Speaker 1: If you had critical thinking skills, the AI deep fakes
Speaker 1: of Biden Trump probably wouldn't be a problem. You could
Speaker 1: you could cut through this, you could see this. If
Speaker 1: that was the case, it's very promising if we use
Speaker 1: it right. We saw an article came out this week
Speaker 1: that AI is the feuwture of offshore oil drilling, and
Speaker 1: shell Shell recently announced plans to use an AI based
Speaker 1: technology in its deep sea exploration and product production activities.
Speaker 1: So Shell can use this new technology to provide a
Speaker 1: safer way to get energy, a more cost effective way
Speaker 1: that could lower our costs of energy, conserve energy. Those
Speaker 1: are all good things I want that we should let
Speaker 1: this technology happen. We don't need a bunch of leadites
Speaker 1: trying to prevent this from happening, and we don't need
Speaker 1: it to be co opted by one political party or another.
Speaker 1: Now it's dangerous because I guess it can be used
Speaker 1: against you in a way where one side controls it
Speaker 1: and politicize it. We saw Google which has now launched
Speaker 1: their own AI called bart, And of course you probably
Speaker 1: know that Google makes its majority of its money from
Speaker 1: its AD platform, So it's no wonder that they're going
Speaker 1: to take their AD platform, their largest source of revenue,
Speaker 1: and their new AI tool and try to put that together.
Speaker 2: Which could be cool, it could also be bad. That's
Speaker 2: how tools are.
Speaker 1: Tools can be used for good, tools can be used
Speaker 1: for bad. Google saying that their new generative AI systems
Speaker 1: for advertising clients will compose text on the fly to
Speaker 1: play off what a person is searching for, and then
Speaker 1: it'll whip up product images to save them time and
Speaker 1: money on design work, So the AI will basically.
Speaker 2: Be trying to read your thoughts.
Speaker 1: It'll build a profile on you, it'll know what your
Speaker 1: search history is, it'll know what you're searching for, and
Speaker 1: will have this profile on you, and it can automatically
Speaker 1: start serving stuff.
Speaker 2: Up to you on the fly. And again, I mean,
Speaker 2: I guess that's good.
Speaker 1: Like I don't want to see ads for stuff I
Speaker 1: don't care about. I'd rather get to what I want
Speaker 1: faster so I can just get it and get off.
Speaker 1: So I suppose that's good. I want the games that
Speaker 1: technology gives me. I want to have more efficiency, right,
Speaker 1: I want that. I just don't want the technology weaponized
Speaker 1: against me. So I don't want it to build these
Speaker 1: profiles and then use that information to then manipulate me,
Speaker 1: or to change me, or to push me in a
Speaker 1: direction they see fit. But if it can literally, you know,
Speaker 1: help me, if it can literally make sure it's stuff
Speaker 1: that I want to see and not stuff I don't
Speaker 1: care about and don't want to see, If it can
Speaker 1: help me get to my answers faster than I want that,
Speaker 1: so it'll be good. We saw also they said that
Speaker 1: the first AI robot has now entered the workforce. We
Speaker 1: have the eve robot Eve robot that's been integrated as
Speaker 1: a security guard in an Android manufacturing site. So you know,
Speaker 1: technology can be good and bad. It really goes bad
Speaker 1: when it's used for bad purposes, when it's used against you,
Speaker 1: and we need to figure out ways to prevent that
Speaker 1: from happening. We don't need to have a left and
Speaker 1: a right CHTGPT. How about we just have one source
Speaker 1: of information. But the problem is is that we're trying
Speaker 1: to use AI to make informations for us as and
Speaker 1: taking away our skill of critical thinking. If you're just
Speaker 1: tuning in you're listening to the Mark Mass Show, we're
Speaker 1: talking about the decentralized revolution through the lens of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology. And of course it's always technology that changes.
Speaker 2: The world, which is why we're talking about that.
Speaker 1: And as some of the latest breaking news headlines this week,
Speaker 1: big changes are happening, and you know it's scary that
Speaker 1: they're trying to create regulations to stop it.
Speaker 2: But they'll only slow it down. You can't take that away.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be back with more headlines than a minute.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about what the government's doing to
Speaker 1: manipulate your thoughts.
Speaker 2: I'll be back with that in a more in a minute.
Speaker 2: Don't go away, all right, Welcome back.
Speaker 1: If you're just tune in, you're listening to the Mark
Speaker 1: Mass Show. We're running through some of the latest breaking
Speaker 1: news headlines this week so you understand what the heck
Speaker 1: was going on this week in regards to the decentralized revolution,
Speaker 1: of course, through lends of politics, finance, and technology. If
Speaker 1: you missed any of the previous segments, don't worry, I
Speaker 1: got your back. You can catch me on the podcast.
Speaker 1: Just go to your favorite podcast player and just search
Speaker 1: the Mark Mass Show. Or you can watch me in
Speaker 1: high def and listen at the same time. Just go
Speaker 1: to YouTube and search Market Disruptors and you can I
Speaker 1: mean there of course all the archives as well if
Speaker 1: you want to catch up on that.
Speaker 2: But you know, some big news this week.
Speaker 1: You know we've been talking about in the previous segments,
Speaker 1: talking about the way technology is changing things, whether it's
Speaker 1: you know, bitcoin, crypto, and how the government wants to
Speaker 1: stop that. And now AI is promising to do a
Speaker 1: lot of good and the government wants to kind of
Speaker 1: crack down and take away that. And it's kind of
Speaker 1: the same story where you have these people in power
Speaker 1: that don't want to lose power and they'll do anything
Speaker 1: they can to maintain that power. And this week we
Speaker 1: had some really, really really big stories.
Speaker 2: Pop up on that.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, the Durham Report came out. Now,
Speaker 1: the Durham Report is a report that we've been waiting
Speaker 1: on for a really long time, which was a very
Speaker 1: deep and long process of researching what was going on
Speaker 1: with the Trump.
Speaker 2: Russia collusion probe. It was a probe into that, it
Speaker 2: was a report into that. It was a.
Speaker 1: Special investigator that was assigned to this to figure out
Speaker 1: what the heck going on was going on and it
Speaker 1: was released and it basically confirmed everything that we already knew,
Speaker 1: which is Obama and Hillary and the intelligence community colluded
Speaker 1: conspiracy to create a fake Russia dossier, the Steel Report,
Speaker 1: and then colluded to work together to use it in
Speaker 1: coordination with the media to stop and block and even
Speaker 1: remove the sitting active president Donald Trump. It's literally what's
Speaker 1: called the coup. A group of people that are out Obama,
Speaker 1: Hillary are out working with the intelligence community, the military
Speaker 1: to oust to sitting president.
Speaker 2: That's a coup. It's a failed coup.
Speaker 1: Which is why they've been trying to stop it and
Speaker 1: block it from coming out for so long. Some key
Speaker 1: takeaways from the Durham report show exactly what happened and
Speaker 1: has reignited the debate about, you know, race and police
Speaker 1: in the United States. But it said that there was
Speaker 1: he found information to show that the police department had
Speaker 1: engaged in a pattern and a practice of racial profile.
Speaker 1: We found all, I mean, basically all the smoking guns
Speaker 1: of the report, that everything that we thought was in
Speaker 1: there was now they didn't, for some reason, recommend action,
Speaker 1: which is interesting.
Speaker 2: That they would.
Speaker 1: Come out with this and say that everything that we
Speaker 1: knew about Russia Gate has been confirmed, but yet we're
Speaker 1: not going.
Speaker 2: To do anything with it.
Speaker 1: Pretty interesting, But that would seem very interesting except that
Speaker 1: you have to remember that this was collusion with the
Speaker 1: intelligence and the FBI, So of course they're not going
Speaker 1: to recommend action when they were the ones in on it.
Speaker 1: You're not going to recommend or arrest yourself, are you?
Speaker 1: But luckily it's not. We have a Jim Jordan, one
Speaker 1: of the very few people that are left in government
Speaker 1: that I think is still trying to fight for the
Speaker 1: interests of the American people. And he's not going to
Speaker 1: let it go away easily. He talked about ways that
Speaker 1: he could pick up on the investigation leads from the
Speaker 1: Durham Report. As I said, you know, heavily criticized the FBI.
Speaker 1: It's probe into the links between you know this Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and Russia and me.
Speaker 2: He said, we're going to talk to our lawyers, that's
Speaker 2: what he said.
Speaker 1: He said, we're going to talk with the House Speaker
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarty and figure out where to proceed from here.
Speaker 1: He said, nothing's off the table because it's critical the
Speaker 1: American people understand how the government their agencies have turned
Speaker 1: on them and the taxpayer, and they want to get
Speaker 1: all the facts out. Yes, get all the facts out.
Speaker 1: That's what we need. Transparency. You know, you're here all
Speaker 1: the time. The government's fighting disinformation, misinformation, blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: There's only so much misinformation because we're left to well,
Speaker 1: we know we're being led in gas lit. We get
Speaker 1: no transparency, and so we're left to let our image
Speaker 1: nation run wild. If they want to stop that, they
Speaker 1: have to be transparent. They have to get this out there.
Speaker 1: Talking about that, you know, understanding this whole Russia collusion thing.
Speaker 1: This entire thing was started just to get Trump out,
Speaker 1: a coup, and as I said, the FBI was in
Speaker 1: on it now part of the SBI. We saw this
Speaker 1: week as well that there was a couple FBI whistleblowers
Speaker 1: that came forward, and these FBI whistleblowers came forward, made
Speaker 1: some reports and they had to go on, you know,
Speaker 1: into committee and give testimony, and they exposed FBI corruption
Speaker 1: and ongoing persecution of political opponents. In playing sight and
Speaker 1: Plane and Plane speech, they accused the FBI of engaging
Speaker 1: in highly corrupt and partisan activity during a House Judiciary committee.
Speaker 1: So the Durham report shows us that now we have
Speaker 1: people inside the FBI that are literally coming out and saying, yes,
Speaker 1: this is what's happening.
Speaker 2: It's happening. We were there.
Speaker 1: They voiced all types of all types of problems. And
Speaker 1: you know, something that Obama had run on was that
Speaker 1: he wanted to protect whistleblowers. But now all they do
Speaker 1: is retaliate against whistleblowers as.
Speaker 2: A matter of fact.
Speaker 1: Shameful Rep. Linda Sanchez, I believe from California. That's why
Speaker 1: I say shameful. She came out and just tried to
Speaker 1: smear these guys all over the place.
Speaker 2: As a matter of.
Speaker 1: Fact, I saw some of the testimony Rep. Linda Sanchez,
Speaker 1: Democrat from California, trying to discredit the FBI whistleblower on
Speaker 1: Thursday using a random Twitter account that shared a conspiracy theory,
Speaker 1: and she said, mister Allen, have you ever used Twitter?
Speaker 2: Yes or no?
Speaker 1: And mister Allen was the FBI informant and he says, yes,
Speaker 1: I have utilized Twitter, yes, ma'am. And Sanchez then said, okay,
Speaker 1: Twitter user name Marcus A nine seven, five, six, four
Speaker 1: or five and demanded to know whether that account belongs
Speaker 1: to mister Allen, and mister Allen said, Uh, no, that's
Speaker 1: absolutely not my account.
Speaker 2: It doesn't have my name, that's not me. But she
Speaker 2: didn't let it go.
Speaker 1: She went on to start reading from that and uh
Speaker 1: and read this post and she demanded that mister Allen
Speaker 1: respond to that, and he said, look, that's not my account,
Speaker 1: and she's and she says, you have to let me
Speaker 1: finish the question, and so she went on to read
Speaker 1: it and uh, He's like, look, that's not my that's
Speaker 1: not my account. Like, I don't know what you're trying
Speaker 1: to what you're trying to say, what you're trying to do.
Speaker 2: That's like, not my account.
Speaker 1: So she was basically taking some random account that said
Speaker 1: some random thing and say that he said it, even
Speaker 1: though he's saying, look, that wasn't me. Now, these FBI
Speaker 1: informants were not some right wing some no you know,
Speaker 1: no name informants.
Speaker 2: These were decorated officials.
Speaker 1: They had been received, you know, recommendations, they had been receiving,
Speaker 1: you know, one of them was like Agent of the
Speaker 1: Year or whatever at his post. These were not just
Speaker 1: some random wacko people here, and yet they're being smeared.
Speaker 1: I mean, think about that for a minute. Now, on
Speaker 1: top of all that we have, as all this is happening,
Speaker 1: we have reports where now the Democrats want to back
Speaker 1: a new bill for a new federal agency because we
Speaker 1: don't have enough. They want to create a new federal
Speaker 1: agency to police Americans for misinformation and.
Speaker 2: For hate speech.
Speaker 1: So they brought forth a new bill by Democrat Senator
Speaker 1: Michael Bennett from Democrat from Colorado called quote the Digital
Speaker 1: Platform Commission Act, and it would flag miss information and
Speaker 1: hate speech on the Internet. But they're the ones doing
Speaker 1: it now, I'm not saying both sides don't participate in it,
Speaker 1: but here we have. I've just rattled off multiple times
Speaker 1: where the misinformation has come directly from them. Literally, the
Speaker 1: Durham Report shows that Hillary and Obama and the intelligence
Speaker 1: community faked an entire dossier and used it to try
Speaker 1: to get a sitting president out. That is what's called
Speaker 1: misinformation disinformation. I literally just read you verbatim testimony from
Speaker 1: Democrat Sanchez trying to smear an FBI informant that literally
Speaker 1: that was misinformation.
Speaker 2: Anyway, I'm on a rant.
Speaker 1: If you're just to listen to the Mark Maas Show,
Speaker 1: we're of course talking about the decentralized revolution, the way
Speaker 1: the world is changing, and we can see it everywhere
Speaker 1: we look. We can see it in politics, we can
Speaker 1: see it in finance, and we can see it in technology.
Speaker 1: If you missed any of it, catch me on the
Speaker 1: podcast The Mark mass Show on your favorite podcast player.
Speaker 1: Are on YouTube at Market Disruptors, hit me up on
Speaker 1: Twitter at one Mark Moss and that's what I got.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for listening. Until next time,