Speaker 1: You're listening to Comedy Central.
Speaker 2: From the most trusted journalist at Comedy Center.
Speaker 3: Is America's only sources for news. This is the Daily too,
Speaker 3: with your.
Speaker 2: Home show up.
Speaker 3: A Hi, Nice to.
Speaker 1: See everybody night.
Speaker 3: It is job shill hold. Anyhow, we got a great
Speaker 3: joe for tonight. Ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 1: You're gonna be most pleased with this one. Our guest
Speaker 1: tonight economist or in cast is gonna be here later
Speaker 1: to discuss tariffs. Uh, you're gonna have a constrvative economist,
Speaker 1: bucking Les, a fair freak.
Speaker 3: Just watch it.
Speaker 1: But first we're gonna check in with our good friend Democracy.
Speaker 1: You gonna give him the old turn your head and cough.
Speaker 1: How's democracy doing?
Speaker 4: In some of his strongest comments yet, President Trump says
Speaker 4: he's considering his options to serve a third term in office,
Speaker 4: a breach of the Constitution's two term limit for presidents.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, considering the option? What are you trying to
Speaker 1: order off menu from the Constitution? Oh yeah, so you
Speaker 1: gotta have what do you got two terms? Here? But
Speaker 1: can I get it animal style? What are you gonna
Speaker 1: do with a third terminal? How does that work? Exactly?
Speaker 4: In a phone call with NBC, Trump saying, quote, there
Speaker 4: are methods which you could do it, including possibly urging
Speaker 4: his Vice President jd Vance to run and then seed
Speaker 4: power back to Trump. The President saying that's one method,
Speaker 4: but that there are others too.
Speaker 1: Yes, there are other methods that you tried one a
Speaker 1: few years ago. There are other methods for staying in
Speaker 1: power beyond when you are legally allowed to be there. Historically,
Speaker 1: some of them involve catapults, although maybe Trump has something
Speaker 1: more creative in mind with the dvanced thing. Have you
Speaker 1: guys heard of the movie Face Off. Yeah, so here's
Speaker 1: how it's gonna work. Trump will watch that movie as
Speaker 1: the military seeses his power. I'm sure witch Ford, Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer will say I will allow it.
Speaker 5: Because in the third term, we think is popularity will
Speaker 5: go down to the thirty.
Speaker 1: So aside for the president saying I'm not leaving, is
Speaker 1: there any other image of the shambalic state of our democracy?
Speaker 1: Perhaps something that looks like what you might get if
Speaker 1: you fed the destruction of democracy into an ai meme generator.
Speaker 1: All right, Elon musk Okay, the richest and most fertile
Speaker 1: man in the world, went to Wisconsin, where he came
Speaker 1: out in a cheese hat before giving million dollar checks
Speaker 1: to voters in an effort to influence the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: race in Wisconsin. Hey, hey, you know what that's about.
Speaker 1: You know what that's about, Elon. Their culture is not
Speaker 1: your costume, musk.
Speaker 3: Their people.
Speaker 1: Do not appropriate their dairy chapeause you can really get
Speaker 1: a sense of defraying of our democracy by tracing the
Speaker 1: arc of its symbolic headwear. It's still a tri corner,
Speaker 1: but it's not the same. Meanwhile, the process of streamlining
Speaker 1: our beautiful democracy continues apace, and a couple of months
Speaker 1: into Trump's second of his let's say four to seven terms,
Speaker 1: he continues to live up to his vaunted apprentice catchphrase,
Speaker 1: Ye faia.
Speaker 6: More than thirteen hundred workers now fired at the Department
Speaker 6: of Education.
Speaker 4: The IRS beginning to lay off more than six thousand employees.
Speaker 1: The Social Security Administration will cut seven thousand jobs.
Speaker 7: In the US Postal Service will Triman's workforce by ten thousand.
Speaker 1: HHS will be dropping around twenty thousand workers.
Speaker 8: The Department of Veterans Affairs looking to cut eighty thousand jobs.
Speaker 1: In the administration's defense, those veterans shouldn't have been having
Speaker 1: affairs in the first time. That's that's on them, And
Speaker 1: by the way, do we need a department for that?
Speaker 1: The layoffs have been harsh, unpredictable, and needless to say,
Speaker 1: the mainstream media has been outraged.
Speaker 9: So what's the endgame here?
Speaker 1: Killing American jobs? They're risking hurting those hardworking Americans.
Speaker 3: That bothers me.
Speaker 7: You're playing with real people's money, real people's jobs, and
Speaker 7: real people's lives.
Speaker 1: Rooting for Americans to lose jobs. I'm sorry, that's empathy
Speaker 1: for Tesla workers, apparently, Fox those are the only hard
Speaker 1: working Americans whose jobs matter. But the question is, with
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of civil servants being often haphazardly fired,
Speaker 1: is there any corner, no matter how small, of our
Speaker 1: current government that is safe from Musk's chainsaw of efficiency?
Speaker 1: President Trump telly NBC News he has no plans to
Speaker 1: fire anyone following that controversial signal group Chat, Veterans Affairs,
Speaker 1: Environment of Education, USAID give you because all is right
Speaker 1: at the Department of accidentally texting war stuff to reporters,
Speaker 1: but fear not regular civil service government parasites. Perhaps this
Speaker 1: incident offers an opportunity for you all to get the
Speaker 1: kind of job security that clearly doesn't come from the
Speaker 1: quality of your work, but the assiness of your kisses. So,
Speaker 1: for instance, this Friday, when you, as a civil servant,
Speaker 1: have to send in your mandatory email to Doge listing
Speaker 1: the five things you did that week, you can keep
Speaker 1: your job by following the same strategies that these careless
Speaker 1: snapchatters employed to keep their jobs. Number one, don't write
Speaker 1: down what did I do this week? You know I
Speaker 1: took my federal car and went to Hooters and cried
Speaker 1: there for seven hours. Nothing you want to save your job,
Speaker 1: point the same finger of blame that they did for
Speaker 1: their indiscretions.
Speaker 7: It's important to remember why this powerful action took place
Speaker 7: in the first place, because of Joe Biden's incompetence.
Speaker 10: A complete opposite approach from the fecklessness of the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: And contrast to Joe Biden.
Speaker 6: Did something that the Biden administration did not do.
Speaker 1: Did the job that Joe Biden wouldn't do. We take
Speaker 1: out people that the Biden team never could get it.
Speaker 1: What did you do this week at work?
Speaker 3: Number one?
Speaker 1: I repaired the damage done.
Speaker 3: By Joe Biden. How could I.
Speaker 1: Be up now at my job considering got bad Joe
Speaker 1: Biden up before? It's not possible. You need to be
Speaker 1: in your job to repair his damage. You were at
Speaker 1: the Hooters because Joe Biden wouldn't or couldn't rage eat
Speaker 1: that many wins. All right now, you might be thinking,
Speaker 1: these Dose guys are slicker than that. They're not just
Speaker 1: gonna fall for blaming Biden. That's why we hired you.
Speaker 1: You're sharp. It's not your only move.
Speaker 4: If you want to talk about classified information, talk about
Speaker 4: what was at Hillary Clinton's home that she was trying
Speaker 4: to bleach bit.
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's bit bleaching Who amongst us hasn't tried to
Speaker 1: bleach our own bits? I think obviously I'm referring to Anus's.
Speaker 1: So what are we talking about? Biden doesn't work? Throw
Speaker 1: a slash, he'll oh, all right, Number one, that's why
Speaker 1: you fill in. Blame Biden gets you eighty percent home.
Speaker 1: Hillary drives you the rest of the way in the
Speaker 1: trunk of her car shouting Benghazi. All right now. I
Speaker 1: know that's a bit of a big swing for your
Speaker 1: number one thing. Because here's the problem. Neither Joe Biden
Speaker 1: nor Hillary probably work in your office, which is why
Speaker 1: for the number two thing, you're going to write to
Speaker 1: the dose folks. You're going to bring that finger pointing
Speaker 1: technique a little closer to home. The Yemen Text group
Speaker 1: chat understood rule number one of self preservation. Me. No,
Speaker 1: it was that guy, because remember, you don't have to
Speaker 1: be faster than the bear. You just have to be
Speaker 1: faster than your slowest coworker. So, CIA director Ratcliffe, who
Speaker 1: are you faster than?
Speaker 2: I've understood from media reports, the Secretary of Defense has
Speaker 2: said the information was not classified.
Speaker 1: Boom. By the way, nothing like the director of the
Speaker 1: CIA going read in the paper. The Secretary of Defense
Speaker 1: was the guy to blame. I don't get reports. I
Speaker 1: just read the New York Guys. I've never done yet.
Speaker 1: He's blaming the Secretary of Defense. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseeth,
Speaker 1: what do you say.
Speaker 7: I'm wondering if you feel, as the leader of the
Speaker 7: Defense Department, you have any level of responsibility.
Speaker 10: Thank you for the question. I'm responsible for ensuring that
Speaker 10: our department is prepared and ready to deter and defeat
Speaker 10: our enemies.
Speaker 1: My biggest weakness. I'm glad you asked. I think it's
Speaker 1: that I rule too hard. I may be too awesome.
Speaker 1: Director of National Intelligence Telthy Gabbert, maybe you should have
Speaker 1: known if this was classified or who was on the
Speaker 1: text chain.
Speaker 6: I defer to the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council.
Speaker 1: Oh, the National Security Council has entered the chat. That's you,
Speaker 1: Mike Waltz. Do we have our say a blame census
Speaker 1: Jadie Vance.
Speaker 2: Members of the administration, including my dear friend Mike, have
Speaker 2: taken responsibility for it.
Speaker 1: That is the coldest my dear friend, Mike, I have
Speaker 1: ever heard anyway. Brutus you were saying about your your
Speaker 1: dear friend Caesar. Now President Trump, do you want to
Speaker 1: join the pylon? Mike Walls, I guess he said. He
Speaker 1: claimed responsibility. I would imagine had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: anyone else. It was Mike. I guess I don't know.
Speaker 1: I always thought it was Michael. Why asking me? I'm
Speaker 1: just an innocent passion by. I didn't see the accident, officer,
Speaker 1: but I got to tell you, it looks like classic
Speaker 1: Mike to make well, there you have. It looks like
Speaker 1: the bottle stop spinning on. Mike Waltz, Time for you
Speaker 1: to take responsibility. And French kiss that doze chainsaw, unless
Speaker 1: you've obviously got a more plausible explanation for our journalist
Speaker 1: ended up on your incredibly sensitive text chain.
Speaker 6: You know, Laura, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 1: Normally that's a disqualifying position for this administration.
Speaker 3: The go on.
Speaker 6: But of all the people out there, somehow this guy
Speaker 6: who has lied about the president, and he's the one
Speaker 6: that somehow gets on somebody's contact and then gets sucked
Speaker 6: into this group.
Speaker 1: It's not somebody's contact with your contact, and he wasn't
Speaker 1: sucked in by unseen gravitational forces. You added him to
Speaker 1: the fucking chat, which brings us to number two, number
Speaker 1: two on your dog list. What did you do this week?
Speaker 3: I did a ton of stuff.
Speaker 1: All of it was right until it was tricked by
Speaker 1: the lamestream media. Can I tell you something, It's very
Speaker 1: hard to write backwards. All right, you might save your
Speaker 1: job if you're a low level staffer, But what if
Speaker 1: you're in the department head and dog wants to know
Speaker 1: the five things that you did? How are you going
Speaker 1: to keep your job when it's your name on the bombs? Well,
Speaker 1: it's step three, confidently and definitively admit nothing. Thank you
Speaker 1: all for coming.
Speaker 10: I've heard it was characterized nobody was texting war plans,
Speaker 10: and that's.
Speaker 3: All I have to say about that.
Speaker 10: Nobody's texting war plans because I know exactly what I'm
Speaker 10: doing and exactly what we're directing, And that's all I
Speaker 10: have to say about this. I noticed this morning, how
Speaker 10: came something that doesn't look like war plans? And as
Speaker 10: a matter of.
Speaker 6: Fact, they even changed the title to attack.
Speaker 10: Plans because they know it's not war plans.
Speaker 1: Yet it We didn't endanger troops in a war plan.
Speaker 1: We endangered them in an attack plan. Who's the asshole
Speaker 1: that you know? He must be so upset that every
Speaker 1: time he lands, everywhere he goes the reporters keep finding
Speaker 1: him at every stop. He's probably like, shit, did I
Speaker 1: mistakenly add you guys to my travel group chat number three?
Speaker 1: What did I do? I would tell you, but your
Speaker 1: pride you're stupid to understand.
Speaker 3: But it was awesome.
Speaker 1: I'm awesome.
Speaker 3: That's number pot. So now.
Speaker 1: We got two more to go, right, four and five,
Speaker 1: sixty percent of your work reach is done. We're past
Speaker 1: hump day and cruising the TGIF and that sweet government
Speaker 1: cheese continues to roll in. Maybe by day four it's
Speaker 1: time you stop justifying your actions to DOGE and start
Speaker 1: celebrating your actions.
Speaker 2: And at the end of the day, what is most
Speaker 2: important is that the mission was a remarkable success.
Speaker 6: What we should be talking about is it was a
Speaker 6: very a successful mission.
Speaker 7: The real story here is the overwhelming success of President
Speaker 7: Trump's decisive military action against houthy terrorists.
Speaker 10: The last place I would want to be right now
Speaker 10: is a Houthi in Yemen.
Speaker 1: Not to be that grammar guy, but a Houthi is
Speaker 1: not a place you can't. But the point is, for
Speaker 1: number four on the list, if they're not buying one
Speaker 1: through three, what did you do this week at the
Speaker 1: Department of Agriculture? I bomb the shit out of the
Speaker 1: houthis that's now. Obviously these strategies may lead to some
Speaker 1: of your superiors saying things like, so, just bombing the
Speaker 1: hoo thie stops the whole problem, because I think we've
Speaker 1: been bombing Yemen for decades. Do we have a follow
Speaker 1: up plan to that? And will journalists be on that
Speaker 1: follow up chain two? At which point case we turn
Speaker 1: to number five. It's a hail Mary President Trump has
Speaker 1: spoken about how important it is for this administration to
Speaker 1: own their mistakes.
Speaker 5: We're bringing honor and integrity and accountability back throughout our government.
Speaker 3: We're going to bring transparency and accountability back to our government.
Speaker 1: You know the old statement the bucksteps here, right, famous statement. Well,
Speaker 1: I can say the same thing, the bucksteps here. Boom,
Speaker 1: that old Harry Truman chestnut. This is President Trump living
Speaker 1: those accountability values. Here he is. When he was first
Speaker 1: asked about the signal chat incident, I know nothing about it.
Speaker 1: You're saying that they had what I'm sorry, there's a
Speaker 1: buck now? What sounds just starting with the accountability and
Speaker 1: you people bought it? No, no, no, my friends. Number
Speaker 1: five is what let's to get out at Jeff free
Speaker 1: card when all other justifications fail. You can never go
Speaker 1: wrong with your last list on your doge. Five things
Speaker 1: you did this week should always be I have no
Speaker 1: idea what the f you're talking about? Hold on, I
Speaker 1: think I'm getting a call. And Trump has deployed this
Speaker 1: strategy better than anyone. For instance, when asked if we're
Speaker 1: actually deporting like gay hairdressers with real Madrid tattoos instead
Speaker 1: of venezuel and gang members the president stood on that principle.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 7: You have to speak to the lawyers.
Speaker 1: Or how about the Justice Department's bizarre decision to pause
Speaker 1: its case against Eric Adams if you promise to cooperate
Speaker 1: on immigration I.
Speaker 3: Know nothing about it.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, but those are just his central policies. Surely
Speaker 1: the buck literally stops with Trump. With the launch of
Speaker 1: Trump's own crypto coin, I don't know much about it
Speaker 1: other than I launched it. I don't know much about
Speaker 1: it other than I launched it President of the United States.
Speaker 1: I don't know much about it except I launched it.
Speaker 1: Crypto coin, nuclear missiles, I don't know much about it.
Speaker 1: I just launched them. Hey, mister President, did you take this? Yeah?
Speaker 1: What should I do with it?
Speaker 3: You launch it?
Speaker 1: You start to wonder does the buck stop anywhere with this? Dude?
Speaker 5: I don't know when it was signed because I didn't
Speaker 5: sign and other people handled it.
Speaker 1: But I don't know. You'll have to ask them. I
Speaker 1: don't know what it is though. I don't know what
Speaker 1: it is. I heard about it at the same time.
Speaker 1: Maybe you heard about it. I don't know anything about it. Uh,
Speaker 1: I don't know the situation. I know nothing about Wiki leaks.
Speaker 3: It's not my thing. I don't know her. I never
Speaker 3: met her.
Speaker 1: I have no idea who she is. No, I don't
Speaker 1: take a responsibility at all.
Speaker 3: I had nothing to do with that.
Speaker 1: January six January sixth is like your whole brand. I mean,
Speaker 1: like the hawk to a girl going actually, I only
Speaker 1: do hand stuff. Now, you're grossed out so many things
Speaker 1: that Trump seemingly has no involvement in. Is it possible
Speaker 1: he's been severed? Is that what all the choreography and
Speaker 1: merriment is about. Now, Maybe you're saying, hey man, it's
Speaker 1: pushing eighty. Maybe it's not a matter of trying to
Speaker 1: shark responsibility. Maybe he legitimately cannot remember any of this shit.
Speaker 9: Now, I have a good memory and all that stuff,
Speaker 9: like a great memory.
Speaker 3: Can I have a great memory?
Speaker 9: One of the great memories of all time?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: Well, then the only other thought here is that the
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't remember is a cynical strategy
Speaker 1: to avoid the buck stopping anywhere near you and evading
Speaker 1: accountability at all costs. If only there was one clip
Speaker 1: that answered that question definitively.
Speaker 9: Did I say have a great memory or one of
Speaker 9: the best of the world.
Speaker 3: One of the best of the worlds. What the report,
Speaker 3: I don't remember that.
Speaker 1: When we come back on past, don't go away? What
Speaker 1: about the shop?
Speaker 11: Yes tonight.
Speaker 1: He is the chief economist an American Compass. It's an
Speaker 1: economic policy think that. He writes the newsletter Understanding America.
Speaker 1: He's the author of the fourth company book, The New Conservatives.
Speaker 1: Please not go to the program or in caste marks
Speaker 1: shollow them around.
Speaker 9: Thank you for joining us, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: I wanted to have you on. I want to tell
Speaker 1: you I really do enjoy your writing. I follow the
Speaker 1: I don't know what they're called now, substack, blog, substack,
Speaker 1: and I read your books. I always find them. I
Speaker 1: don't necessarily maybe agree with all of it, but I
Speaker 1: always find it really interesting in really good faith. This
Speaker 1: is this idea of the new right on the economy.
Speaker 1: Can you explain what's the deviation from previous orthanoxy and
Speaker 1: sort of what that entails.
Speaker 12: Sure, I think the best way to understand it is that,
Speaker 12: you know, we went through a period of thirty or
Speaker 12: forty years where conservatives just had way too much faith
Speaker 12: in market. Just trust that you get out of the
Speaker 12: way and you're going to get great outcomes, and markets
Speaker 12: can give you great outcomes, but they don't guarantee great outcomes.
Speaker 12: And so conservatives have been seeing it, especially over the
Speaker 12: last decade, a lot of the things we care about,
Speaker 12: things everybody cares about. Do jobs pay enough to support
Speaker 12: a family? Are we too dependent on China for everything?
Speaker 12: Can we make computer chips in this country? Markets were
Speaker 12: perfectly happy to give us really bad answers on those questions,
Speaker 12: and so conservatives are starting to say, well, wait a minute,
Speaker 12: we actually have to care about this and we have
Speaker 12: to be prepared to do something about it.
Speaker 1: Now when you say this at the meeting with the
Speaker 1: other conservative economists, did they go.
Speaker 3: Leave us like?
Speaker 1: It? Really seems like that is fundamental heresy on You know,
Speaker 1: I've listened for years. The reason we can't do sort
Speaker 1: of social engineering or social policy or redistribution of wealth
Speaker 1: is the government's not in the business of picking winners
Speaker 1: and losers. That is now off. The new right is saying,
Speaker 1: actually we do.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think that's right.
Speaker 12: The new Writer's saying, actually, there are some things we
Speaker 12: really want to see when and that's what politics is.
Speaker 12: What would politics be if you just pretended you sort
Speaker 12: of didn't care about anything. You'd sort of have a
Speaker 12: lot of the very uninspiring Republican politics of the last
Speaker 12: few decades.
Speaker 9: I would say, Now.
Speaker 1: You started, though, you worked with Mitt Romney, who was
Speaker 1: considered the avatar of that. Was he open to this idea?
Speaker 1: Where did it start to find traction for you, that
Speaker 1: a more activist government, this sort of idea of economic
Speaker 1: policy as kind of social engineering. When did it start
Speaker 1: to gain traction?
Speaker 12: I mean, for me, it actually started working with then
Speaker 12: Governor Romney. Like you said, he was conventional in a
Speaker 12: lot of ways. One of the issues I was responsible
Speaker 12: for with him was trade policy, and we brought him
Speaker 12: the very typical here's what Republicans say about trade briefing said, well,
Speaker 12: that's fine, but what are we gonna do about China?
Speaker 9: And to your point about all the other.
Speaker 12: Conservative economists in the room, they were, what are you
Speaker 12: talking about? We don't do anything about China. If China
Speaker 12: wants to send us cheap stuff, we say thank you
Speaker 12: very much.
Speaker 1: In the meeting, what does it sound like when the
Speaker 1: monocles fall out of the eyes? It does it? Does
Speaker 1: it clink? It just feels like one of those like
Speaker 1: like there is great, the gas.
Speaker 12: The gaps are can be disturbing. Yes, there's to your point,
Speaker 12: there's a lot of religious fervor, frankly on what I
Speaker 12: would call the old right about some of these ideas.
Speaker 9: And when someone says something very common sense like.
Speaker 12: Well, wait a minute, maybe you know an authoritarian communist
Speaker 12: government that's trying to hollow out American manufacturing, Like maybe
Speaker 12: that's not really free market, right, I was saying. I
Speaker 12: was like, wow, that's that's a really important point. And
Speaker 12: I was the one to sign to sign and go
Speaker 12: off and try to figure it out. And what I
Speaker 12: discovered was that on the right of center, really going
Speaker 12: back to the mid nineteen eighties, there had just been
Speaker 12: no thinking about this.
Speaker 1: There had been a protecting that manufacturing base or our
Speaker 1: industrial center. And then I think in COVID you saw
Speaker 1: everyone kind of paused and went, oh, we don't have
Speaker 1: supply lines to make paper masks, like we don't have anything.
Speaker 1: Was that where you saw it really get a foothold.
Speaker 12: I think, you know, I think on the right of
Speaker 12: center it was the China problem was active even before COVID,
Speaker 12: because I think, you know, one thing, and it's important
Speaker 12: to say, this is a fairly recent conservative phenomenon if
Speaker 12: you go back in the history of conservatism, even if
Speaker 12: you look at Ronald Reagan himself, Reagan was a trade protectionist.
Speaker 12: He basically started a trade war with Japan because he
Speaker 12: did care about these things.
Speaker 1: This was in the days of Japanese car makers were
Speaker 1: making cars that were cheap or people were preferring him.
Speaker 1: They were dominating the market in America.
Speaker 12: And Reagan negotiated in an outright quota that Japan not
Speaker 12: even a terrify. Japan will not increase the number of
Speaker 12: cars it sends into America. And that's why we now
Speaker 12: have the American auto industry in the South. Honda and
Speaker 12: Toyota make American cars. Essentially because somebody like Reagan was
Speaker 12: willing to recognize trade is good if it's if it's
Speaker 12: fair and balanced.
Speaker 1: But I've amazing things about whether or not that five
Speaker 1: years later, it actually gave too much leverage to these
Speaker 1: Japanese countries and they got to drive very hard bargains
Speaker 1: for American labor in the South. For instance, they didn't
Speaker 1: build them in Michigan, they didn't build them where union
Speaker 1: labor was. They built them. They undercut union labor in
Speaker 1: some respects.
Speaker 12: They did choose to go to states with non union labor.
Speaker 12: The way that the unions were behaving at the time
Speaker 12: was one of the reasons that US automakers were falling behind.
Speaker 12: That level of inflexibility was a real challenge, and that's
Speaker 12: also something that you saw Reagan really take on in
Speaker 12: confront So, you know, I don't think there are a
Speaker 12: lot of people in the American South today who would say, boo,
Speaker 12: we you.
Speaker 9: Know, we wish the anout of sure to come.
Speaker 12: It was an enormous gain and the investments have led
Speaker 12: to much higher productivity over time. So I think that's
Speaker 12: that's the story of what we want to see more
Speaker 12: of and.
Speaker 1: Bringing that back and giving the country a resilience that
Speaker 1: losing that base actually cost us. And this brings us
Speaker 1: to Liberation Day, which is April second April second April,
Speaker 1: second market down, Liberation Day. The Trump tariffs, we don't
Speaker 1: know what they are, but we know they'll work and
Speaker 1: that we will live on Mars and what eight weeks.
Speaker 1: I don't know what's going to happen. Do you know
Speaker 1: what's going to happen on Liberation Day?
Speaker 9: I don't know what's going to happen.
Speaker 12: And I think that there has, you know, rightly been
Speaker 12: at this point a lot of criticism that the way
Speaker 12: that the Trump administration has been rolling a lot of
Speaker 12: this out is just leaving too many questions that if
Speaker 12: you want to do this right, you need certainty and predictability,
Speaker 12: clear communication, all.
Speaker 1: Core values of Trump administer fair, fair point.
Speaker 12: One of the interesting things about the Trump administration is
Speaker 12: that the team he has around him this time on
Speaker 12: the economics side. So Secretary of State Rubios said to
Speaker 12: the Treasury Scott Besson, his chief economic advisor, the US
Speaker 12: Trade Representative, He's really surrounded himself, I think with a
Speaker 12: quite strong team that thinks consistently about this. And so
Speaker 12: you know, that's something that that.
Speaker 1: Does he ever like ask them or that is.
Speaker 9: A fair question.
Speaker 12: And that's what I think everybody's waiting to see is
Speaker 12: can we sort of get this moving in the right direction,
Speaker 12: because it is important to say that that the direction
Speaker 12: is important here that right. You know, really for twenty
Speaker 12: five years, going back to when we let China to
Speaker 12: the WTO, we have pursued this model that says more
Speaker 12: free trade always regardless of what happens to American workers,
Speaker 12: regardless of what happens to American industry. We just want
Speaker 12: the cheap stuff, and that has been really damaging.
Speaker 1: You know, in some respects though we regard I think
Speaker 1: we're putting a certain motive on China when in fact,
Speaker 1: like these were corporations seeking the lowest water of wages
Speaker 1: and what they could pay people. And certainly labor can't
Speaker 1: travel the way that capital does. So you know, I
Speaker 1: guess the idea is we levy these tariffs and then
Speaker 1: these corporations that had been seeking this will all go,
Speaker 1: oh Okay, it's not worth our while anymore, and they'll
Speaker 1: reinvest in the States. Is that kind of the broad
Speaker 1: theory of it.
Speaker 12: Yes, The idea is that corporations are going to respond
Speaker 12: to incentives, and you go, you know, all the way
Speaker 12: back to Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations and
Speaker 12: the idea of capitalism. You want people pursuing profit to
Speaker 12: do that in a way that is also good for
Speaker 12: the society. Where I think a lot of economists and
Speaker 12: this is left end, right of center, got it wrong
Speaker 12: was to think.
Speaker 9: That's just always the case.
Speaker 12: As long as they're pursuing profit, it's going to be good,
Speaker 12: and it's only going to be good if it's within
Speaker 12: certain constraints, if the things that are most profitable actually
Speaker 12: are things that are good for.
Speaker 1: The country, and the government decides sort of what those
Speaker 1: constraints are, so they put guardrails around them. I guess
Speaker 1: the question I have is tariffs feel somewhat I don't
Speaker 1: want to say whimsical in the sense of oh, he
Speaker 1: you know, dances downstairs into two two and says twenty
Speaker 1: five percent on whiskey, like. But they are executive actions,
Speaker 1: and if you're a business making a I assume their
Speaker 1: plans are five year, ten year, twenty year. If they
Speaker 1: could just be repealed by the next guy and it's
Speaker 1: not legislation, is that really an effective incentive for bringing
Speaker 1: back all that man manufacturing.
Speaker 12: I think that's a very fair concern, and ideally it
Speaker 12: would be done through legislation. I think one of the
Speaker 12: things that's very encouraging is to see that we are
Speaker 12: increasingly now seeing a new bipartisan consensus that we do
Speaker 12: want to change.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I don't know that phrase was it started.
Speaker 12: When it started when President Joe Biden essentially kept all
Speaker 12: of Trump's trade actions, everything that Trump did on China,
Speaker 12: Biden kept and then even extended some But wouldn't like.
Speaker 1: The Chips Act, Right, wouldn't that be another way of
Speaker 1: incentivizing without setting up barriers that might be more unpredictable
Speaker 1: or might be flimsy or depending on the whim of
Speaker 1: an executive. Why don't they embrace that in the same way.
Speaker 1: Doesn't that add to getting the outcome you want, incentivizing
Speaker 1: bringing those jobs back. Why is that unpopular on the right.
Speaker 12: Well, it's only unpopular with some on the right. And
Speaker 12: I think it goes to where we started, which is
Speaker 12: this historical concern with the idea of sort of picking
Speaker 12: winners and losers at all, and a lot of concern that,
Speaker 12: you know, what's going to happen if government actually gets
Speaker 12: involved in giving particular benefits to particular companies. That being said,
Speaker 12: the Chips Act was bipartisan. I think there were maybe
Speaker 12: seventeen senators. You know, Jade Vance has been a supporter
Speaker 12: of the Chips Act, right, and so you know, I
Speaker 12: think again, that's that's a step in the right direction.
Speaker 1: Would you rather see it through that kind of industrial
Speaker 1: posit or through or is it a real balancing of
Speaker 1: all those various levers.
Speaker 12: I think you have to do both, because if you
Speaker 12: only do the CHIPSAC kind of thing, chips acs is
Speaker 12: great if you've got one thing that's really important.
Speaker 9: Almost everyone agrees you know.
Speaker 12: Steel and you know well, so this becomes question, now, right,
Speaker 12: do we really want Congress now going through and saying, oh, well,
Speaker 12: now we need one for steel, Well, do we know
Speaker 12: them from aluminum?
Speaker 9: Maybe? Well, do we need one for cars? Do we
Speaker 9: need one for airplanes?
Speaker 3: On?
Speaker 12: You know, that's both cumbersome and something that's very difficult
Speaker 12: to do well politically, Whereas one of what I think
Speaker 12: actually the benefits of tariffs is that they are quite blunt. Right,
Speaker 12: the tariff is sort of, if done well, a much
Speaker 12: broader policy that sort of shifts the baseline. And so
Speaker 12: I think you need that if you want to shift
Speaker 12: the basic decision making that that businesses are going to
Speaker 12: make generally, and then there's particular things you really care
Speaker 12: about that's when you also want to come in and
Speaker 12: give them support.
Speaker 1: Then did it surprise you Because we talk about China
Speaker 1: as being sort of this ascended economic power, And by
Speaker 1: the way, it's not just the manufacturing base of America
Speaker 1: that has been heard by that all the countries near
Speaker 1: China can't compete, you know, all around there Indonesia, you
Speaker 1: know they're struggling with a very similar thing. But then
Speaker 1: why go after Canada? Like what do you know what
Speaker 1: I mean? Like it just it all seems so weirdly vindictive.
Speaker 1: And then you're like, and then we're going to take
Speaker 1: over Greenland? Like it does feel a little less like
Speaker 1: rebalancing economic inequities. And we've decided on a new world
Speaker 1: order where big does what it wants and nation states
Speaker 1: we go back to a little bit of that colonialist
Speaker 1: model or imperialists or whatever it was. Is that the concern.
Speaker 9: I guess it's a fair concern.
Speaker 12: I think there's some truth to it that's not all
Speaker 12: bad when you talk about this new world order idea,
Speaker 12: which is that the United States has been sort of
Speaker 12: championing this liberal world order where we have essentially taken
Speaker 12: it upon ourselves to frankly absorb a lot of costs
Speaker 12: from other people. So in the trade world, it's not
Speaker 12: just China, it's also Germany and Japan and Korea. We
Speaker 12: are absorbing their production. They get the job done.
Speaker 1: You think we're buying influence, I would say so. The
Speaker 1: Trump view is they're abusing US and using US. I
Speaker 1: think the view I have is America wants to tell
Speaker 1: them what to do, and so by leveraging our military,
Speaker 1: might we have sway.
Speaker 12: But do we what do we? What have we successfully
Speaker 12: told Japan or Germany to do?
Speaker 1: Uh? I mean in general? Yeah, in the later Hosen,
Speaker 1: I think they've got down on it.
Speaker 12: It's it's it's no, no, no, no. This is this is
Speaker 12: a serious point. I appreciate the joke.
Speaker 1: But but but this is I guess.
Speaker 9: But there's a reason you couldn't answer the question, and
Speaker 9: this is.
Speaker 1: I don't know what we'd want them to do because
Speaker 1: I feel like.
Speaker 9: We don't want them to do anything. Then what are
Speaker 9: we maintaining the leverage.
Speaker 1: For, because well, the leverage is on when we want
Speaker 1: to go into a rock. I guess what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is what we want them to do? That was great, Listen,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it was right. But you have a
Speaker 1: guy like Jade Vance goes to Greenland and shits on Denmark,
Speaker 1: like Denmark lost as many people per capita in those
Speaker 1: wars as we did. Like they talk about you know,
Speaker 1: Denmark's not defending Greenland enough like and and we'll do
Speaker 1: it but aren't we doing it already like they're in NATO.
Speaker 1: So I guess my point is like that stable world
Speaker 1: order has mistreated the United States. I guess I don't
Speaker 1: see us as victims of a con game that Europe
Speaker 1: has been running on us. And like the idea that
Speaker 1: we want Germany to be able to fend off Russia
Speaker 1: on their own places us in very tenuous position? Does
Speaker 1: it not? Why I have a book at home about
Speaker 1: Germany and their position as a global military power where
Speaker 1: we didn't have sway right and they did what they wanted.
Speaker 1: I mean, it didn't work out.
Speaker 12: Frankly, I don't put a lot of creaties.
Speaker 8: I don't.
Speaker 3: By the way, it's also in No, No.
Speaker 9: No, I would pick up.
Speaker 12: The fun applause line that like, oh, the Germans will
Speaker 12: just become Nazis again, Like that's a weird racist critique
Speaker 12: of Germans.
Speaker 9: I don't see any reason to believe that.
Speaker 12: Let's let's be honest, it is let's look at the
Speaker 12: actual Germany seats. On what basis are you saying this
Speaker 12: is like something about Germany that we can't I think.
Speaker 1: It's there is an element within their society that they've
Speaker 1: deemed this is not me saying Germans will do that.
Speaker 1: This is Germany. This is I didn't say they'll become that.
Speaker 1: The leaders of Germany are fearful that they have this.
Speaker 9: I don't think they are.
Speaker 12: I think leaders of Germany really enjoy spending virtually nothing
Speaker 12: on their military, while the United States spends roughly four
Speaker 12: percent of GDP on ours, as we have been doing
Speaker 12: for decades with other countries.
Speaker 1: You think they're they're like freeloading on our on our military.
Speaker 9: There's no question they're freeloading on our military.
Speaker 12: You can say you like that they're freeloading on our military,
Speaker 12: but I don't think there's any dispute that that's what
Speaker 12: they're doing.
Speaker 1: I guess I don't understand the idea that they're freeloading
Speaker 1: and we want each nation state to build up their
Speaker 1: military to the point because to me, that makes it
Speaker 1: more likely if you build something like that, it's more
Speaker 1: likely you'll use it. Now that seems to be backed
Speaker 1: by general history. When people re arm, they tend to
Speaker 1: do it and use it. But I think the idea
Speaker 1: that Europe needs to like I guess what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is this is a fine adjustment that's being made with
Speaker 1: a sledgehammer, if that makes sense.
Speaker 12: I think that's a very fair point. I think where
Speaker 12: we started.
Speaker 1: On I was dying of will.
Speaker 3: I will all concede that one to you.
Speaker 9: Just yes, my five year old gets one point pain
Speaker 9: on every.
Speaker 1: See, I'll take that.
Speaker 3: Look.
Speaker 12: The new world order point that we started with, I
Speaker 12: think is very important here because with the Trump administration,
Speaker 12: and I think this is certainly Trump's view.
Speaker 9: JD.
Speaker 12: Fans has spoken about this, Marco Rubio has spoken about this.
Speaker 12: Their view is that this world order we try to
Speaker 12: establish in which the US does take on these burdens,
Speaker 12: and in your view, we benefit from taking on those burdens.
Speaker 1: I think it's a mixed bag. I would not say
Speaker 1: it's it's purely benefit. I think what we do spend
Speaker 1: on defense is kind of insane, and to have eight
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty military basis to project power across the world,
Speaker 1: I wholeheartedly agree with that. I think unleashing those forces
Speaker 1: through vindictiveness and like blaming them for victimizing US is
Speaker 1: not the methodology. Like everything else, like Doge's I always
Speaker 1: hate that straw man like we go. I don't like
Speaker 1: the way this is going Oh, you're not for efficiency
Speaker 1: like that same thing. Oh, you just want you want
Speaker 1: Germany to keep freeloading. That's not what I'm saying. And
Speaker 1: I think it's a misreading of that point and not
Speaker 1: being fair to the nuance of it. I understand that
Speaker 1: there can be adjustments in that, and that free trade
Speaker 1: can be rebalanced and all those other things, but they're
Speaker 1: breaking something that did serve us, maybe not phenomenally, but okay,
Speaker 1: And we had a really strong hand in building it,
Speaker 1: and now we're pretending like they did it to us.
Speaker 1: And that feels unfair.
Speaker 3: Oh I was doing.
Speaker 1: When I let me tell you some when I come
Speaker 1: on your studio show, I realized that's difficult to hang.
Speaker 1: That's it's not so fair. I didn't.
Speaker 9: Yeah, you know what I mean them and everything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but but talk about that a little bit.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 12: So, first of all, I think you're absolutely right that
Speaker 12: the US did construct this system, and I think if
Speaker 12: that doesn't mean that the US should not learn lessons,
Speaker 12: that doesn't mean that conditions don't change. But I do
Speaker 12: think it absolutely creates an obligation for us to be
Speaker 12: thoughtful in how we proceed, and I think it's a
Speaker 12: fair critique if we're not being thoughtful in how we proceed.
Speaker 1: That felt like a very different answer than Germany and
Speaker 1: Japan freeload on us.
Speaker 12: And you know that's also true, all right?
Speaker 1: Would you you know, do you think what do you
Speaker 1: think is going to happen? Or do you worry about
Speaker 1: the instability of not easing this transition? But is this
Speaker 1: a and look, I've read the whole like mar A
Speaker 1: Lago accord, and I don't know if that's a conspiracy.
Speaker 1: Is the idea that there's some master plan of we
Speaker 1: create this chaos, we cause all this thing to draw
Speaker 1: people to marrow Lago where they renegotiate our nation's debt.
Speaker 1: Is that something that you think is plausible? Or is
Speaker 1: what this is all about? Is that why they're not
Speaker 1: doing it in a way that seems more thoughtful.
Speaker 9: So let me say two things about it.
Speaker 12: The first is, I think a lot of the critiques
Speaker 12: of how it's being done are very fair, and I
Speaker 12: think it's important to distinguish that from the discussion of
Speaker 12: the principles, because I think the principles are important and
Speaker 12: we should want to have the right set of principles
Speaker 12: and not throw them out. If just because they're not
Speaker 12: being pursued in the way we might like. When it
Speaker 12: comes to something like the mar A Lago accord, I
Speaker 12: think what you see people talking about and trying to
Speaker 12: move toward is to say, if we think this sort
Speaker 12: of liberal world order system, first of all, even if
Speaker 12: it was serving the US well at one point, is
Speaker 12: not serving as well anymore. Second all, to some extent
Speaker 12: may just be going away anyway. China is now rising
Speaker 12: as a pure competitor. The US cannot be a unipolar
Speaker 12: hedgemon like it was when the Cold War ended. So
Speaker 12: if we accept that things are going to change, we
Speaker 12: should have a perspective on what we want to follow.
Speaker 12: And something that I've been writing about a lot is
Speaker 12: trying to interpret and decipher what that might look like,
Speaker 12: because again it's a very fair critique, they have not
Speaker 12: been as clear about it as we should want.
Speaker 9: Them to be.
Speaker 12: What I think we should want, and what, like I said,
Speaker 12: folks in the administration like a Marco Rubio or a
Speaker 12: Scott Bessen, who I think do write and speak thoughtfully
Speaker 12: about it, have pointed toward is the idea that we
Speaker 12: absolutely want a strong economic and security alliance. It's not
Speaker 12: going to be the whole world, because China is going
Speaker 12: to have its own sphere as well. But what we
Speaker 12: want to have within our sphere is a few things
Speaker 12: that in the past the US didn't necessarily ask for.
Speaker 12: We're going to want balanced trade, where in the past
Speaker 12: we were happy to let the manufacturing go elsewhere. We're
Speaker 12: going to want others to essentially own their own defense burdens.
Speaker 12: That doesn't mean we're not partnering and working together, but
Speaker 12: that everybody takes primary responsibility for their own defense.
Speaker 1: No NATO, no alliance like that.
Speaker 12: No, no, you can absolutely have an alliance like that, but
Speaker 12: the alliance is premised on if you are Germany, you
Speaker 12: are on the front lines of what the concerns in
Speaker 12: Europe are. If you are Japan, you are on the
Speaker 12: front lines of the concerns with China. It's not a
Speaker 12: matter of everyone simply turning and asking the US what
Speaker 12: the US is going to do. And then the third
Speaker 12: element is keeping China out and recognizing that China, to
Speaker 12: your point, China's just been doing China, doing what's best
Speaker 12: for China, but that that is not consistent with what
Speaker 12: the US and a US led alliance would want.
Speaker 9: And so if you want to.
Speaker 12: Yet, from where we are today to that kind of system,
Speaker 12: you are asking things of allies that they haven't been
Speaker 12: asked before. And so the question is, how do you
Speaker 12: make that a credible ask? Because I think it's fair.
Speaker 12: I don't think that those are unreasonable things to ask,
Speaker 12: but you are going to have to be willing to
Speaker 12: back that up and say, the old world, the old
Speaker 12: version is gone. Let's talk about what the new version
Speaker 12: could look like.
Speaker 1: And I think do you think they prematurely blew up
Speaker 1: the old version or you just you really felt like
Speaker 1: it just wasn't it wasn't functioning in that way anymore.
Speaker 12: I think the old version has I think the old
Speaker 12: version has been gone for a while at this point.
Speaker 12: That in the economic sphere, the idea of that sort
Speaker 12: of era of cheap goods, the air of cheap goods,
Speaker 12: the era of the US being able to simply sort
Speaker 12: of exert its military will on the world, the air
Speaker 12: of the US economy is being so much stronger than
Speaker 12: others that we could afford to absorb everybody else's production.
Speaker 12: You know, over the last ten to twenty year is
Speaker 12: the US, the typical working family has not been well
Speaker 12: served by that deal, I don't.
Speaker 1: Think, no question. And this is where so it sometimes
Speaker 1: gets listened. People have differing viewpoints and it can get
Speaker 1: confusing and trying to But here's where I think there
Speaker 1: can be great agreement working people making living wages. And
Speaker 1: I think that would be very surprising for someone on
Speaker 1: the center right to sort of agree with maybe the
Speaker 1: more progressive wing of the Democrats. But that is absolutely
Speaker 1: a value that we have lost. And do you think
Speaker 1: that's something that the right will follow you along with
Speaker 1: because it's something I think the left has been screaming
Speaker 1: about for a very long time.
Speaker 12: Well, I think we're moving in that direction, right, you know.
Speaker 12: I think it is a process of transition when a
Speaker 12: party reorients, term realignment gets used a lot. We're increasingly
Speaker 12: seeing working people coming into the Republican Party. We're seeing
Speaker 12: Republican leaders, folks like Marco Rubio jd Vance increasingly I think,
Speaker 12: speak credibly and seriously to some of their concerns. We're
Speaker 12: seeing more openness to the labor movement. You have the
Speaker 12: Teamsters president partnering with someone like Senator Josh Hawley on legislation,
Speaker 12: and so I really do think that that is happening
Speaker 12: I think the politicians will always be the lagging indicator, right,
Speaker 12: the folks in their seventies and eighties, the folks in
Speaker 12: their seventies.
Speaker 1: You're talking about the junior senators, Mitch.
Speaker 12: Mitch McConnell is unlikely to you know, suddenly adopt all
Speaker 12: of this.
Speaker 1: But if you look at count them out, I'm going
Speaker 1: to go one hundred and ten, he's going to be ready.
Speaker 9: You have more faith than I do.
Speaker 12: When you look at younger Republicans, both folks coming into
Speaker 12: the Senate. So I mentioned Rubio, advanced folks like Jim
Speaker 12: Banks from Indiana, Bernie Moreno from Ohio, all of them
Speaker 12: are more focused.
Speaker 9: On these kinds of issues.
Speaker 12: And then when you look behind that at the sorts
Speaker 12: of people I work with, the policy wonks, researchers, writers, journalists, lawyers,
Speaker 12: folks sort of forty and under, are overwhelmingly oriented in
Speaker 12: this way. And so I have a great deal of
Speaker 12: hope that as that moves to be the center of
Speaker 12: the party, you really are going to see a different
Speaker 12: Republican party that still loves markets and wants them to work,
Speaker 12: but has a much better understanding of their limitation, has
Speaker 12: much more concern for what is happening in the typical
Speaker 12: working family and wants to figure out how to keep
Speaker 12: their conservative principles but apply them somehow to use public
Speaker 12: policy and make things better.
Speaker 1: So socialism essentially, So I appreciate it. One final question
Speaker 1: and then I'll let you go because I know the
Speaker 1: final question is this. Are you concerned if they realign
Speaker 1: the trade? Look, corporations are as you said, they're profits
Speaker 1: seeking and that's how they go. Are you afraid that
Speaker 1: the globalization movement where they saw the lowest form of
Speaker 1: regulation and workers' wages, will just be translated into this country? So,
Speaker 1: in other words, in the way that China might have
Speaker 1: undercut the United States, Are you worried South Carolina and
Speaker 1: Texas undercut Wisconsin and Michigan and that this revitalizing the
Speaker 1: manufacturing base will fall prey to the same dynamics that
Speaker 1: we saw at fall prey to globally. Is that a concern.
Speaker 12: I'm not too concerned about that because that has always
Speaker 12: been a feature of American political economy. We've always had
Speaker 12: that sort of competition.
Speaker 1: We can handle that disagreement, we can and.
Speaker 12: I think that's the best way to think about more
Speaker 12: protection of the American market. There's been this idea for
Speaker 12: so long that free trade and free markets are sort
Speaker 12: of synonymous. If you like free markets, you want more
Speaker 12: free trade. But free trade with China does not advance
Speaker 12: free markets. It takes everything authoritarian and communist in China
Speaker 12: and imports it. Now your companies have to compete with that.
Speaker 12: And then now you need more safety net programs to
Speaker 12: support those who lose their jobs. You need more chipsacks
Speaker 12: and industrial policy. You have to respond on.
Speaker 1: So many people, like so many of the people that
Speaker 1: use those subsidies are actually working people. They're not. This
Speaker 1: isn't one of those like lazy people sitting on the
Speaker 1: couch coasting on the government. I'm like working people with one,
Speaker 1: sometimes two jobs that still have to subsidize it because
Speaker 1: they're just not paid enough. And it's it's very very
Speaker 1: sitting up. But this is listen, the book, the one
Speaker 1: the ones in Future Worker. This is your old book.
Speaker 1: What's the new one called.
Speaker 9: It's called the New Conservatives.
Speaker 12: It's a summary of what we've been doing at the
Speaker 12: last for the last five years at American Compass, developing
Speaker 12: this the Conserved Economics of the New Right, and it
Speaker 12: will be out at the beginning of and when you go.
Speaker 1: Back to them and you tell them, how was it,
Speaker 1: You'll say, like Stewart was right about at least one.
Speaker 12: I'm gonna tell because I called John Stewart a racist,
Speaker 12: I'm not sure that I was smart.
Speaker 1: It's all good, the new Conservatives, and I'm a substabs
Speaker 1: or anything.
Speaker 3: You've already the act. We'll about this that want I
Speaker 3: got something the mic and tell the go I'm gonna
Speaker 3: check it with.
Speaker 1: Your hooks for the rest of the week. Michael Cotton
Speaker 1: and Michael, what do you got for.
Speaker 3: John?
Speaker 11: You know, these Trump tariffs could tank the market this week,
Speaker 11: which is why you and you all need to diversify
Speaker 11: your portfolios. Okay, for example, I have bitcoin, but I
Speaker 11: also have NFTs crypto and meme coin. I am the
Speaker 11: pinnacle of diversity financially speaking, chump.
Speaker 1: So again, I think those are all digital. I think
Speaker 1: everything you mentioned was digital. Do you have you know,
Speaker 1: like a stocks and bonds and savings and it's not
Speaker 1: the nineties?
Speaker 11: Okay, cash all that garbage out and put it into crypto.
Speaker 11: Your money needs to be in safe assets like Sheiba, Bucks, Snaggle,
Speaker 11: jazz loin coin, growin coin, Tickle, Nichols and John the
Speaker 11: often overlooked logan Paul presents.
Speaker 1: I can't believe it's not money, trust me, John.
Speaker 11: If your life savings aren't in jizz pump, you're gonna
Speaker 11: feel pretty silly.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Michael Costa put it on in jis pump.
Speaker 1: Michael Costa, Ladies, what's something that people wouldn't know about
Speaker 1: the President? You're pretty close to him now, you spend
Speaker 1: a lot of time with them. What's something that people
Speaker 1: wouldn't know? I think the President is a good man.
Speaker 8: I think he is an honest man, and I've yet
Speaker 8: to see him do anything mean or anything that is
Speaker 8: wrong that I would say Marley wrong, not even once.
Speaker 10: Explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe by searching.
Speaker 3: The Daily Show wherever you get your podcasts. Watch The
Speaker 3: Daily Show week nights at eleven.
Speaker 2: Ten Central on Comedy Central, and streamful episodes any time.
Speaker 3: I'm on Paramount plus Paramount Podcasts mm HM