Oh, hello, friends. This episode of the podcast is brought to you by. On it.
In the interest of full disclosure on, it's a company that I'm one of the owners of. And it's what we call a total human optimization company. What we specialize in is supplements, strength and conditioning equipment and even workouts that choo choo passed.
And one of those is the on six body weight at home workout program that is now available on your PlayStation four.
You can stream workouts directly from your TV through little star app on your PlayStation four today. And they're designed and implemented by on its chief fitness instructor, my friend John Wolf, who is I've worked out. I've been very fortunate to work out with a lot of really brilliant people when it comes to what they call in the business, the world, the physical culture. Steve Maxwell, he's a bad motherfucker. I go down the list, but John Wolfe is one of the most impressive people I've ever worked out with.
He he knows so much about the human body and about strength and conditioning and the cutting edge of modern techniques. And his group of world class instructors work with him on this program that was developed for use with no equipment. And the program focuses on improving your strength, your conditioning and your overall fitness and well-being motherfuckers, and most research has shown that when a person is vigorously active and in shape, they maintain a stronger immune system.
In addition to greater mental acuity and physical endurance and ready for this happiness. A lot of unhappiness is tied up in your body through bullshit and stress while working out at home has never been more convenient fuckers. There's no need for any fitness contraptions or purchasing more equipment that you don't have. Just stream the program from your PlayStation four through little star app today. Start today, and you could be looking and feeling your best and just sick.
That's why I have a hard time with the words six six short weeks. Were brought to you also, also, Patrick growls, Trager grills people.
What's the best way to cook food? I'll tell you. Fire in wood. What's the best way to use fire in wood? A Trager Grill, Trager grills are the first of all, what they are is pellet grills and wood pellet grills are is if you order a bunch of oak from a lumber yard. Well, they have to cut that oak and then they would take the sawdust from cutting that oak and they would compress it to squish it together.
Now, using the natural sugars of the wood with no additives, no chemicals, they produce these pellets. Then you pour these pellets into a hopper. The hopper through the trigger grill fills feeds this rather into a worm drive. And that goes to a heating element and it catches fire.
It's like a super advanced version of the most primitive way to cook and the most delicious.
It's the best way.
Fire in wood is the way to go, people, even if you're just eaten vegetables. Also, they have an amazing application, Trager Grills has an app that has 15 hundred plus recipes, and you can control your grill from anywhere you raise and lower the temperature, shut it off, check the meat probe, 12 different wood pellet varieties, big game blend, hickory, mesquite, apple, cherry pick, alder, oak, maple and more. Trigger owns its own lumber mills people.
Wood pellets are made in the good ol U.S. of A.. And you can get a Trager Grill online or in ten thousand plus stores nationwide. So visit Trager grills dot com slash Joe. That's t r a e.g. r g r i. L l. S Trager grills dot com slash. Joe, we're also brought to you by. The motherfucking cash up, the motherfucking cash app. People. If you don't know now you do the cash app is the easiest way to send money between your friends and family without having to hold on to some paper.
Dirty paper, cash, cash Kashyap is also the easiest way to buy Bitcoin, and with cash app, you could automatically purchase Bitcoin daily, weekly or even biweekly known in the industry as stacking Satz S.A.S., which is short for Satoshi, who's the guy who created Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is a transformational digital currency that acts as a decentralized peer to peer payment network powered by its users with no central authority.
Now. You might say, look how long before that becomes real money. Well, four months ago, you didn't have to wear a mask everywhere, mother fucker.
The world changes. And of course, when you download the cash app and you use the referral code, Joe Rogan. All one word, you will receive ten dollars and the cash app will send ten dollars to our good friend Justin Ren's fight for the forgotten charity building wells for the Pigmies in the Congo. Justin is a fucking awesome human being who, if you talk to him about it, basically saved his life by becoming connected to these pygmies in the Congo and developing this charity and building wells for them and recognize that clean water is one of their biggest problems.
It's an amazing program and the cash app is a big part of that.
So they give 10 bucks to Justin Ren's charity every time you sign up, when you download it from the App Store or the Google Play store today and you use the referral code, Joe Rogan, you get ten bucks and ten bucks goes to a fuckin amazing cause.
That's the cash app. Yeah.
We're also brought to you by stamp's dot com. Oh, my goodness. Do you need to send things through the mail? You don't want to go to the post office with those freaks.
Listen to me. There's a lot of people out there walking around, getting stuck, standing next to each other. Social distancing at the post office was always difficult, right? Lines. You don't want to deal with those lines. You definitely don't deal with them like a regular post office line. They'd be around the block. You don't have to do that. Stamps.com, you covered.
Dot com brings to you all of the amazing services of the U.S. Postal Service right to your computer in the safety and comfort of your own home, your office or anywhere. You're hunkering down right now. You don't have to go to the post office anymore to get those amazing services. Stamps, dot com has got you covered. They're awesome. They can send you anything. You use your regular computer and a regular printer and you can buy and print official U.S. postage for any letter, any package, any class of mail, 24/7, anywhere you want to send.
And when your mail is ready, you just leave it for your mail carrier, schedule a free pick up or drop it in the mailbox.
The same mailbags. Some like it, it. Or drop it in the mailbox to better keep both of those. Make it look like I'm a loser. Don't do that. Fix it. I'll say it again. Simply use your computer to print official U.S. postage 24/7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it. And once your mail is ready, you just leave it in your mail. Formato. To simply use your computer to print official U.S. postage 24/7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
And when your mail is ready, you just leave it for your mail carrier, schedule a free package, pick up or drop it in a mailbox. There is no human contact required. It's that simple. And Stamps.com will give you great discounts like five cents off every first class stamp. And up to 62 percent, 62 percent off shipping rate.
Stamps.com is a no brainer, saves you time and money and keeps us safe. Right now, listeners of this podcast will get a special offer that includes a four week trial plus free postage and a digital scale without any long term commitments. Just go to Stamps.com, click on the microphone and at the top of the home page and type in j. R e. Stamps.com and enter j. R. E. Stay safe, my friends.
All right. My guest today is in Connecticut and I talked to him through the wonders of Al Gore's Internet. It's it's awesome to do these shows because you can talk to people that really can't make it in here, especially today during the Kofod 19 times. But it's a little clunky sometimes. It's neither his four fault, rather, nor mine. I don't believe, but he's awesome. And I really appreciate him sharing his perspective, whether you agree with him or disagree or just open your heart and your mind people and listen to the wonderful, sultry tones of Peter Schiff.
Joe will gain experience.
Bye bye. Hello, Peter. Joe, good to see you again.
I like to see how it leads, but nice to see you.
I like how you have the Euro Pacific capital above your left shoulder. Very nice. Very wise.
Well, this this is my studio in my basement here in Connecticut where I'm hunkered down. Well, you know, in honor of doing your show, I poured myself a glass of scotch.
Oh, so I have it. I feel like I'm sure you have something to drink, but I wanted to toast your Spotify deal.
Oh, thank you very much. All right. I've got a bottle of my good friend Josh Barnetts war bringer war master Ed.. Ms. I smoked whiskey. So I'll have.
Oh, here's to you and Spotify. I mean, I think they're getting a cheap. You probably could held out for more money. Well, you don't know how much you got. Well, I just know what the public says. All right.
They don't know much I got either, but thank goodness she got more. I'll drink to that.
I'm very happy. Spotify is awesome. I'm very happy. I'm just I'm I'm happy to be with a company where they have a vested interest in my success, like work together.
You know, the beauty of capitalism. You know, I mutually beneficial voluntary relationships.
Yeah, they go. Exactly. So why are you in Connecticut and Puerto Rico? Well, you know, I live in Puerto Rico. And thanks to my appearance on your show, a lot of other people now live there, too. I just got to tell you how many people I run into and they say, Peter, you know, I moved here because of you. And that's a really how'd you hear about, oh, Joe Rogan. That's a lot of people have come out here.
But I don't think you've been to Puerto Rico. I've never been to Puerto Rico.
Yeah, I guess I got an open invitation to come visit me. I put shop. I got I got a nice place on the beach for you.
What's their comment situation like with The Cove? It's a choice, you know. This is. It's hot now. It's you know, it's July, August. And so I would rather be in Connecticut. I love the weather here in the summer into the fall. And we still maintain a house here. You know, the house I lived in before we moved to Puerto Rico. So now this is more of a summer home. And so we're here for the summer, although we may be here into the fall.
I think we will, because the children, the schools, you know, are going to be remote now. So normally, I would come back to school, start in mid-August in Puerto Rico. So we would normally come back then. But since they're going to be taking the classes online, we'll probably end up staying in Connecticut for a little longer. Which. Which I like. But I really enjoy Puerto Rico. It's a great place to live.
You can't beat the tax break. So, you know, this is going to be an important thing, especially if Biden ends up winning, which it looks highly likely that that's going to be the case. I think a lot more people are going to be coming down there to try to escape what will be real confiscatory levels of taxation. So, you know, people could look into it. But, yeah, I mean, it's a real, real great place to be.
Well, let's let's get into that. So you you think that Biden has a very high likelihood of winning? Here we are. Let's just two people come upon this in the future. Today is the 14th, 14th of July, and we're a few months away from the election. You feel like it looks like Biden is moving into the direction of eventually winning.
I think he's already moved in that direction. And so the question is, can Trump change that direction between now and Election Day? And I think it's going to be very challenging. Maybe his best opportunity is going to be the debates. We'll see. I don't think the big problem for Trump and I voted for Trump the first time. And, you know, I was initially going to vote libertarian, which is something I do. And by the way, there isn't there was a candidate, Joe Jorgensen, who you should have on your show.
If you if you thought about it. But there is a woman running for president and she will be on the ballot in every state. Joe Jorgensen from the Libertarian Party. And so everybody who thinks there should be a woman president. I actually agree right now. And that's who we should elect. Is that what you're voting for? Is that who you're going to vote for? Well, I can't vote for anybody. I live in Puerto Rico. But so to recap, as a part of the United States, sort of.
It is it is part of the United States. But no, you know, from the revolution, no taxation without representation. So what happens is when you move to Puerto Rico, you no longer have to pay the federal income tax or the Obamacare tax, which is great. But then you can't vote for the president and you don't have any member of Congress. You don't have a senator. So being in Puerto Rico, I have no representation in Congress and I can't vote for president.
But the tradeoff is I don't have to pay the taxes. So, you know, that's a good tradeoff that I'm, you know, pretty much everybody is willing to make. So I can't vote. And normally I vote for the lesser of two evils anyway. And most of the time I vote for the loser. So as far as I'm concerned, giving up my right to vote for the loser is not much of a sacrifice. But, you know, if I couldn't vote, I would still be living in Connecticut.
And it would be a total waste of my vote to vote for Trump because he has no chance of winning Connecticut. So I would vote for Jorgensen, even though I know she can't win. I would rather at least give her a vote of support because I wouldn't be wasting my vote because, you know, it does matter. Connecticut is going to go for Biden in a big way. And so it's, you know, voting for anybody does really matter who you vote for.
This is a state like like Connecticut. But as I was saying, the problem for Trump and I was one of the few people who was in the media saying that I thought Trump had a real good shot at winning. I didn't know it was in the bag, but I thought that he was more likely to win than lose. You know, even though everybody thought it was a long shot. And the reason that I thought that Trump could win is because Trump was telling the truth about how bad the economy was.
He was it regurgitating the lies that the Obama administration had been telling or that Wall Street had been telling about how we had a real recovery. I knew that we had a bubble inflated by the Federal Reserve and that beneath that bubble where you could see the stock market at record highs and these phony unemployment numbers. I knew layed a weak economy. And Trump knew that. Two and Trump spoke to the forgotten men and women of this bubble economy, and his message really resonated about how we were a shadow of our former self that our industrial might had decayed.
We had all these big trade deficits, that the stock market was a bubble. All the numbers were fake. The real unemployment number rate wasn't five percent, but 20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent. And that he was a nonpolitician. He was going to clean house. He was going to drain the swamp. He was going to put politics aside and big bring a businessman's perspective to Washington brain that swab, eliminate the national debt. Right. Make America great again.
And that message resonated with a lot of people. And a lot of those people were named maybe afraid to be honest with the pollsters, because they didn't want to admit that they were going to vote for this racist, misogynist or whoever the media was portraying him. So I thought he could win and he did. But here's the problem. Now that he's been in office for three years, he didn't drain the swamp. He made the swamp deeper. Right.
He didn't make get rid of the deficit. I mean, the deficit is bigger than ever, even before kov it. All he did was nurture the bubble that he inherited from from Obama and help make it get bigger. He became a cheerleader for the stock market and he didn't care. It was a bubble. All of a sudden, all the government numbers that were fake under Obama were all of a sudden real, like they just came down from God on a tablet of mine, Sinai.
And he began talking about this low unemployment and his booming economy, the greatest economy in the history of the world, the greatest economy ever. And none of that was true. And so you have the same people who voted for Trump thinking that he would shake things up, thinking that he would throw a monkey wrench in the system and make their lives better and their lives aren't better. There are worse. People have more debt. You know, the bubble got bigger.
The trade deficits that Donald Trump criticized are bigger now than they were before he was elected. And obviously, the deficits are much bigger. Even before Cobh, it. So I just don't see how Trump convinces those swing voters, those blue collar Reagan Democrats in the Rust Belt who decided they had nothing to lose. And so to take a chance on Trump. Why should they vote for him again? I mean, now they may take a chance on Biden, even though, I mean, Biden doesn't represent any any change from the status quo.
He's just more of the same. But, you know, once you're the insider and Trump's now the insider, you know, he doesn't have that edge for re-election.
What do you think went wrong? And why do you think Trump just made this swamp deeper? What do you think that he was deceptive when he was running? Do you think the influence is once he got into office, were greater than he anticipated? What do you think happened? Well, I have no idea. I mean, you know, even Ronald Reagan, right? Ronald Reagan when he was elected and he was a very principled conservative. And unlike Trump, you know, he was you really talked a walk, the walk, not just talk the talk.
And he was a big supporter of Barry Goldwater who didn't make it. You know, when he ran against Lyndon Johnson. But when Reagan came in, he really wanted to shrink government. I mean, he campaigned about getting rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, or I forget. He really wanted to shrink government and cut spending. But he was never able to do that. Right. He was able to cut taxes, but he wasn't able to cut spending.
Trump never really campaigned on cutting spending. He didn't want to talk about that because he didn't want to alienate any voters. So he just talked about cutting taxes and he did, you know, officially cut taxes, but he actually raised taxes. That is the important thing that you have to recognize is that government spending is taxation and what happened in government spending under Trump even before it went through the moon with Koven, ITN. And we'll get to all the Cauvin stuff.
But even before then, Trump signed on to all kinds of increases in government spending, more spending on the military, more spending welfare, huge increases in government spending. That those are tax hikes. Now, Trump cut income taxes, but the income tax is just one way the government pays for spending because all government spending has to be paid for by the public one way or another. We don't get any government for free. Everything the government does costs us money.
So every dime they spend represents taxation in some form. And what they've been doing is they've been printing money, right. The Federal Reserve prints money. And in fact, right now the Federal Reserve is printing about fifty five cents out of every federal dollar that's spent. So more money is being printed and spent than collected in taxation. But all that printing, all that spending that is being paid for by a printing press, we don't get that for free.
There is a cost. See, when the government takes our money through an income tax, they take my money that I earned and they give it to somebody else who didn't earn it. And now that person spends the money. But because I don't have it, I can't spend it. I can't invest it or save it. I don't have it anymore than government took it from me in taxes. But if the government doesn't take it from me, they just print money and they hand it to somebody else who didn't earn it and didn't do any work and produce any goods or provide any services.
They just, you know, gotten money from the government. That still costs me, because what happens is when that money is spent into circulation, it bids up prices. And so prices are now higher than they would have been had that new money not been printed. And so now everything that I want to buy costs more than it otherwise would have cost either. The prices went up or it prevented prices from going down. And so now my purchasing power has been diminished.
And so easy, the government takes your money through an income tax or a sales tax or something, or they take your purchasing power through an inflation tax. And so that's what Trump decided to do to pay for government through inflation rather than taxation. But what we know from history is that is the most expensive way to pay for government. And in fact, it hits hardest the middle class and the poor because the rich have a lot of assets. They have a lot of debt.
Were they not consumer debt like on a credit card, but were they borrow money to accumulate income producing property to buy companies, stocks, things like that? And so inflation helps those people. Right. If you if you have debt to buy assets, inflation wipes out your debt. But if you're just saving money and working for a living and getting a paycheck, the inflation tax is very heavy on you. And that inflation tax is going to get much, much higher.
Underbite it right for all the talk about all these big government programs. And we'll talk about that that he wants to pay for by taxing the rich. The rich aren't going to pay those taxes. Most of the money is going to come from the poor and the middle class through the inflation tax. But getting back to where I think Trump went wrong. So Trump gets into office when he had promised to make America great again. And the reason that America is not great is because government is too big.
Right. When America was great. Right. We had very, very small government. Government was an afterthought. Right. On all levels, maybe state, federal and local. Maybe it was five percent of GDP. We didn't have an income tax, corporate or personal. We didn't have Social Security. We didn't have all, you know, minimum wage or any of these any of these laws. We had a very, very tiny government because government was tiny.
The economy got very big. We had all kinds of freedom. And because we were free, we were very productive and the living standards were rising and we were eradicating poverty. We were making all kinds of strides. The greatest economy in the history of the world was produced from the freest people in the history of the world, which was the. States. Well, Trump wanted to make America great again. The only way to do that would be to to shrink government, cut government spending and free up all those resources back into the private sector so that they can be used efficiently again.
But the problem is, how do you cut government spending when every single program has its own constituency that benefits from it? And so once you once you're there, you can't cut anything unless you're willing to stand up to all the politicians and the special interest groups. And apparently, Trump wasn't willing to do that. I mean, Trump, when he when he got into office, became a politician or maybe he was one when he ran for office. But he was more concerned about getting re-elected, which is a shame.
He probably won't. He should have used the bully pulpit and used his office right away to level with the American public, to look him square in the eye and tell them that government is too big and and spending needs to be cut, including things like Social Security and Medicare and all these sacred cows that nobody would gore. Trump should have been the guy to do it. He should have said, the buck stops with me. I don't care if I don't have a second term.
And he should have vetoed all of those bills that he signed. He never should have agreed to allow that, allowing the debt ceiling to go up. He should have enforced that debt. And we now have twenty six and a half trillion of debt. Right. When he came into office, it was just under 20 trillion. So we've already added six and a half trillion since he became president. I would not have allowed the debt ceiling to go up at all.
Not one nickel. And I would have forced the government to cut government spending. And that's what Trump should have done. But but he did want to do it because he was more concerned about the politics of it.
Would you say I would. Are you running for president? You really do not just say what I would do, that I do this, Peter. Are you ready to do this? I'm not running. But we need someone to see this, I think I can be the first Puerto Rican president. I'd be. Do you ever watch the sweat hogs? Yes, sure. Yeah, I'm on Epstein. I'm a Jew.
Epstein played my brother in an episode of Newsradio. Really? Yes. He played my older brother, who was a priest to beat us up.
I was Gabriel Kaplan's show. That was 1970. I can be a Puerto Rican Jew. Yes. I can't vote. Right. I can't vote for the president, but I can run. In fact, I can be the only person elected president who couldn't vote for himself. That's hilarious. Now, I'm so glad you're on here today because you have a unique ability to illuminate all these areas of finance and taxing and Wall Street that most people just simply don't have the understanding or the knowledge to lay out for the lay person like myself when you walk free.
I appreciate that. And, you know, you've got a great audience. And I'm hoping to clear up a lot of misconception out there, because I've been saying, you know, the only thing that spreads faster than the Corona virus is ignorance about economics, about about finance. And so I want to clear that up. And, you know, a good place to get started is to really talk about the current state of the U.S. economy and where we were right leading up to Cauvin 19, because, you know, Donald Trump is out there claiming that we had this great economy.
Right. That just got screwed up by Koven 19.
We had to shut it down, but we didn't. We had an enormous bubble. There was nothing great about it other than the size of the bubble. And the reason that it collapsed so quickly was because what happened was Cosied 19 was a pin prick, that bubble. In fact, the bubble was already deflating before Cauvin. It started to deflate in the fourth quarter of twenty nineteen. That's when the Federal Reserve stopped hiking interest rates and then started cutting them again and started doing quantitative easing again.
And then Kova, 19, came in. It was like a giant spear that put a gaping hole into a bubble that was already deflating and it just accelerated.
Peter. Why did that happen? Why did that process take place before Kova 19? Well, because, again, Trump was very critical of Janet Yellen during the Obama years. Rightly so, because Yellen kept interest rates artificially low to make Obama look good by propping up the stock market and the real estate market with cheap money. But doing that is what prevented a real recovery that would have benefited Main Street. And so those are the people that Trump was tapping into, the guys on Main Street that were getting screwed as the guys on Wall Street were being enriched by by bad monetary policy.
So Fed was Trump was right to criticize Yellen and then he didn't want to reappoint her because supposedly he was going to reappoint somebody that would do the right thing. But as Powell was doing the right thing, albeit too slowly, Powell started to correct the problem by raising interest rates and shrinking the balance sheet. But when that began to impact the markets, Trump was like, oh, he started criticizing him. You know, we're going to fire you.
You did your terrible Fed chairman. He was doing the right thing. We need higher interest rates and unfortunately, higher interest rates means the stock market's going to go down. I mean, that's just the reality. The real estate market's going to go down. You know, we're addicted to cheap money, like a drug addict is addicted to heroin. But if you've got a guy addicted to heroin, the solution isn't more heroin. So he stays high.
The solution is, OK. No more heroin. And now you're going to go through withdrawal. So the economy started to go through withdrawal as the Fed was withdrawing that cheap money. And Trump was like, no, I don't want I don't want withdrawal. Who's going to vote for me if they're you know, everybody is hungry. I want to party again. I want the stock market at record highs. And so, you know. But still, because we we did this.
We never actually had a real recovery. We just, you know, put more air into the bubble. But, you know, when when Cauvin started. This is important to understand. So Koven 19 hits. And all of a sudden, you know, and I don't even know I've seen some of your discussions on on the podcast about Cauvin itself and whether or not the threat is being exaggerated. Is it really as big a health threat as a lot of people say?
And, you know, I'm not an expert there. You know, I tend to I tend to always be suspicious of government. And I kind of think it's being exaggerated, like most stuff. But I'm not a doctor. I'm not an immunologist. And so I think let's just take them at their word that that it's as bad as they say. I just want to focus on the economics of it. But so when it hits and people, you know, people start, you know, staying home and they're not going out and, you know, and the people start losing their jobs and the economy starts tanking.
Right. The government comes in as if it's the government's job to rescue the economy. And the politicians say, in fact, Trump himself said, oh, we're at war. I'm a wartime president. It's like World War Two. Remember that when he said that? Yes. Yeah. Tours were to. And we have to sacrifice. Americans have to sacrifice to be Koban 19, the way, you know, the prior generation sacrificed to beat Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan.
We have to sacrifice. Except what we're doing now is the complete opposite of the actual sacrifice that Americans were asked to make during World War Two. Right. Apart from the fact that 16 million young men went off to war and risk their lives apart from that sacrifice. The people that didn't go off to war, they actually sacrificed. Right. So because nineteen forty one when the war started. Not even 10 percent of Americans paid any income tax at all.
Fewer than 10 percent. Real. Nineteen forty two. There was a victory tax. And after the victory tax, more than a third of Americans began paying income taxes. They weren't paying any income taxes before the war. All of a sudden, they're paying income taxes. And in 1942, they state they created the withholding tax, which Americans you know, we pay it today. You think it was always there? Up until nineteen forty two. Nobody had any income taxes withheld from their pay.
What happened was if you were among a few people who actually paid income taxes, you didn't write a check until April 15th of the following year. You made no payments, you made no quarterly payments, you had no payroll withholding. That started as part of the victory tax. So massive tax increases on Americans. In addition to that, the U.S. government told Americans, we need more money than this. You need to loan us money. And so the Treasury started selling these war bonds to the public and middle class Americans bought the equivalent of trillions of dollars of war bonds.
So the government taxed the middle class and borrowed from the middle class to pay for the war. And this is in 1940. We just went through the Great Depression. So these are Americans that just lived through a 10 year depression, the worst period in American history. Yet they had enough money to loan trillions to the US government and to pay much higher taxes than they were paying before. And in addition, nobody got a bailout. No businesses. If you ran a restaurant and nobody was coming to your restaurant because your customers were all fighting a war and the ones that weren't fighting a war were now working harder to pay higher taxes.
And people weren't taking vacations. They weren't going to theaters. They weren't staying in hotels. But none of these small business owners got one nickel from the US government. The government didn't loan money to anybody, didn't bail anybody out. What are we doing now? The opposite. The government is how things go so fast. The government is loaning holdaway.
Wasn't that. But that's a different time, right? This is a time of a united country that it's facing a global threat from a tyrannical German Nazi regime. This is a different situation than dealing with a virus.
I mean, no. Well, first of all, it's Trump and other people that made the comparison to World War Two. I understand that if this was a global threat. This was a real war. This was actually worse. Believe me, Koven 19 is not as bad as having a World War nutty. Right. I would much rather fight a disease than to fight Hitler and Japan. I mean, this is not as bad as what people had to deal with in the 40s.
Would you agree with that? Of course. Yeah. Of. OK, but. But the concept is the same. Government had to spend a lot of money fighting this war. And where did it get the money it had and get it from the people. Right. And people were, you know, disrupted. A lot of people lost money because of World War Two. It wasn't their fault if you ran a restaurant and now your customers weren't coming because they went to fight the war.
It wasn't your fault that your business dried up. Let me can I pause you for a second day? Do you think that, first of all, we we had to do something to stop the spread of Kovil 19? Do you agree? Yes, I agree.
But the government. We are going to have to bail anybody out. We have a problem. You have to deal under. Peter, deal with our issues, Peter. We have a problem listening to each other. Let me explain it to the people that are listening. We're on Skype. And unfortunately, when you talk and I talk, we can't kind of hear each other and you're not wearing headphones. So it's it's weird. I got I got the earpiece.
OK, OK. But there's a little bit of a delay to just let me. It's this is one of the reasons why I stress it's so much better to do these things in person. Yeah. And I understand that it's impossible for you to do that right now when you have a situation like Kov at 19 and these medical experts say, hey, we've got to do something, we've got to shut down most of what we do. We've got to shut down a lot of businesses.
We got to shut down schools and make things remotely. There's going to be a situation where there's going to be a lot of people that are not going to be able to work. But we want to keep these businesses alive. This is a very unique situation. And this is not like any situation we've ever faced in my lifetime. What do you think could have been done? That would have been a better solution than what the government did in terms of bailouts, in terms of telling people to stay home.
Like what could have been done?
Yeah. Well, first of all, you have to remember that the government doesn't have any money, right? The government only has money it takes from the people one way or another. Right. Grover Cleveland, who is a president in the late 19th century, he was quoted, had a good quote. He said, While the people must support the government, the government should never. The people and so I agree. Let's say we have to shut down the economy temporarily.
People should have enough savings to weather the storm. Businesses should have enough savings to weather the storm like they did in 1940. Average Americans had lots of money in the bank. They weren't loaded up with debt. They didn't have credit card debt. They didn't have student loans. They didn't have car loans. They weren't they were solvent even after a Great Depression. They they were solvent. We lived in a bubble economy. Everybody was paycheck to paycheck.
Nobody had anything. Businesses couldn't survive if their revenue stop. Workers couldn't pay their rent if they didn't get their salary. That's not right. That's that's part of the bubble. Right. So the fact that we were so ill prepared for a rainy day is because we had no rainy day fund. You should have been able to deal with this on our own. Right now, we're not getting a free money from the government. The government is.
Peter, we're at now. We basically locked down somewhere around March. We're four and a half months in or four months in now. That's a long, rainy day. Four months is a third of a year. There's very few human beings that have enough money to last for months. I'm sure you do. And I do. But most folks out there listening don't have enough money to live and feed their families and pay their mortgage or pay their rent and pay their car payments for four months.
That's a long fucking time.
Right. But they're going to end up suffering much more in a year or two or three as a result of the massive inflation that has been unleashed to finance all the bailouts and the stimulus.
Don't you agree that it's a good idea to do something just to keep everyone alive, just to keep businesses alive, just to keep well people in their homes, just to keep. Well, first of all, first of all, a lot of the businesses should have failed even before. I mean, the Fed has been keeping a lot of businesses afloat. That failed years ago. Hold on. Let's talk. Maybe Cauvin would have been the final nail in their coffins and now they've got another lifeline.
But these businesses are damaging the economy. See, businesses that are not profitable in a free market should shut down, OK, because they're squandering lives.
Can I talk to you? Let's talk about my business. I'm in the business of comedy. Comedy clubs are suffering terribly right now because there's very few states that are allowing people to go out, wear masks, socially distance and go to comedy clubs. L.A. is not allowing any of that. And they haven't since March. The Comedy Store, which is my home, has been shut down since March. All these clubs have been shut down all across the country through no fault of their own.
It's not like it does it, but it doesn't. It's not their fault. I understand the reality, but it's not like they've done anything wrong.
It's the state of California. If the state of California is going to order businesses shut down and then the state of California wants to provide some kind of gloom relief, let California do it and let California impose higher taxes on whoever they think should one day. We can't just use the Federal Reserve as a piggy bank, that the Federal Reserve cure is going to do more damage than the corona virus disease. And I think if the states knew that they would have to bear the economic consequences of their own decision making, they would do a better cost benefit analysis on what they shut down and how they do it.
Right. Right now, every state is like, oh, let's shut everything down and the federal government is going to bail everybody out. So we don't care if we put people out of work because they're going to get these enhanced benefits from the U.S. government. Oh, we don't care if we shut down businesses because they're going to get these peepee grants from the government. But if the federal government let every state know, look, you make a decision this, you handle this the way you want and you pay for it.
Right. So you do a cost benefit analysis because thinking that everything is free, that is the problem. I understand we are doing so much damage to the economy. People have no idea we are going to get such a massive economic collapse, far worse than what I thought was coming. You know what? I did your show last few times. This is going to be much worse. We are compounding the mistakes of the past with much bigger mistakes.
I mean, if you think it's bad now with the civil unrest, it's going to get a lot worse when there's enough. There is no food when we run out of stuff. Can I pause you? Yeah. Last time you were on, you were predicting the bubble of commercial real estate and a lot of other issues. What what do you think is different about that situation now? And how how much does that compound what we're dealing with currently?
Well, obviously, the corona virus has made, you know, that the problem worse for commercial real estate. I mean, commercial real estate is going to get killed for so many reasons. It was, I think, before Cauvin. But kov it again just accelerated the process. But obviously, if you are a retailer, you know, no one's coming into your store, your restaurant. If you if you've got a gym, if you've got a movie theater.
So you're not collecting any rent. So you want to default. And so now your landlord's not getting paid and he might have a mortgage and now he can't pay because he's not getting rent. You've got all these office buildings where a lot of offices now, like my company, almost all my people are working from home now. I mean, I got some people to come into the office, but I got a lot of you working from home. And so a lot of companies are thinking, hey, I don't need all this commercial space.
I don't need this big office anymore because more of my people are working from home. So now you have pressure on the rent. So that was already happening. You know, you had we work that blew up and they had you know, they had rented all this space that was now on the market for sublease. But all this was inflated by the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low to prop up these bubbles made that real estate bubble very, very big.
And so now it's going to be far more disruptive when it pops. But it's got pop, you know, trying to prevent bubbles from deflating by trying to blow more air into them. Just makes it worse. Maybe you delay the day of reckoning a little bit, but you make the day of reckoning much worse because now you have additional mistakes that you need to record with.
I understand. So it's essentially like a pull off the Band-Aid situation. And we we have to have a healing moment. You have to let things collapse that need to collapse. That should have been done a long time ago because of mismanagement. Yeah, and you have to understand that we're ripping the Band-Aid off a wound that the government inflicted us with in the first place. Yes, the free market never would have screwed us, screwed us up this much.
It was government interference in the free market. That's why, you know, capitalism gets a bad name. That's why, you know, we talk about on one of these earlier podcasts about when I went to Occupy Wall Street years ago and I went down in Zuccotti Park because you had all these young protesters who were blaming Wall Street for the bailouts and for the financial crisis. And I would say, no, it's not Wall Street that took the bailouts.
Blame the government for providing the bailouts, for making them available, blame the Federal Reserve for funding all this and inflating the bubble. Yes, but, you know, the interesting thing, if I tried to do that today, if I tried to go to one of these protests, one of these Black Lives Matter protests, rallies. Do you think they'd be civil? You think I could do that? You think I could walk into a crowd of hundreds of people and take the opposite position and walk out of there?
You know, it would be a beautiful day unscathed.
They would beat you to death. One hundred percent. Yeah. So, I mean, I certainly would see the loss of civility in just 10 years. Well, it's it's not just the loss of civility.
It's a loss of opportunity and the loss of faith in the system and the future if we stand the same path. That's part of the problem.
It's that people don't believe that if we keep going the way we're going to things will work out in an in an equitable, fair and balanced way.
And that's where I think people deep same point I wanted to make, though, to when I went back to America in 1940, was to show that the American middle class, you know, was real strong. They could afford to pay for World War two and four and to provide for their own families. You know, because now they keep comparing where we're to now because we're running up as much debt now as we ran up during World War Two. But we had the capacity to pay it back back then.
That was the point. That debt went way down. Debt to GDP went way down in the decades after World War Two because Americans had the capacity to pay back what they borrowed to fight the war. We don't have that capacity now. I mean, the debts never going to go down. The debt is going to keep on rising and rising and rising until the dollar implodes. See, that is the real crisis that we're headed for. It's going to be a collapse in the value of the dollar.
Because right now we're printing money. And the government is sending it out and people are able to buy stuff with it. Right. But that's going to come to an end because the world is no longer going to accept US dollars as the reserve currency. See, that's the unique privilege that we've enjoyed for several generations now and that we've abused to the point where we're going to lose it. See, right now we're able to print money and we use that money we print to buy all sorts of stuff that the rest of the world produces that we didn't have to produce ourselves.
But producing goods requires capital. It requires labor. It requires land. It requires real resources. But we get all the stuff for free. We just create money. And here you go. And they send us stuff. And then to make it even better for us, they take the money that we send them to paper and they loan it right back to us at very low rates of interest. They buy our bonds. They buy our mortgage backed securities.
So Americans get to spend all this borrowed money that they didn't save. We get to consume all the stuff that we didn't produce. And so we have an artificially elevated standard of living. We live beyond our means. That's going to come to an end because foreigners are going to realize that we're never going to stop printing money, that the deficits are never going to be brought under control, that we're going to have QE infinity zero percent interest rates in perpetuity and then they're not going to want the dollar anymore.
And then the dollar is going to crash and we're not going to be able to import anything anymore. And the only things we're going be able buy is the stuff we make ourselves, except we don't make much stuff anymore. So prices are going to go through the roof. That is the real economic consequences. And so it's not going to matter that the government sends you a stimulus check if you can't buy anything with it, because the government can't create purchasing power.
They can print all the money they want, but none of that printing money adds any purchasing power. They don't grow any food. They don't produce any products, nothing. They just print money. Right.
But there is if if the government gives money to people, they will be able to buy things and people still are making things. But now but when the dollar's value collapses. See, you can't keep printing trillions and trillions of dollars and expect the dollars not to lose purchasing power. Right. Right. Because paper money. All that does is that allows us to divvy up what we produce. Right. You have all these Americans now who used to be working, doing something right.
They were helping to produce a product. They were providing a service. And now they're just at home collecting a check. Right. So they're getting money for nothing. They didn't put anything into the pot, but now they want to take out of the pot with their money. Well, there's nothing in the pot. Right. So now the prices of everything in that pot have to go up because there's no there's no extra stuff. There's just more buying.
Peter Ancelet, what's been I'm sorry is as an economic expert. What would you have done differently if you could have advised this government? And we were let's let's go back to March when everything was shutting down. What would you have advised differently? Again, first of all, I would allow I would allow the states to be responsible for their own policy. So you you decide what you want to do in your own state as far as you know.
What do you want? What businesses you want to close? You know what what you want to do and you pay for it. And if you think that certain businesses or individuals need to get money, then the state will provide it based on local taxpayers. But what I would have done on the federal level is I would have dramatically cut government spending, you know, even after Koven 19, because government spending is a drain on the private sector. It's a drag on the economy.
It's the government taking resources away from the private sector where they would be used efficiently and squander them in the public sector.
So net positive for it's inverted a kind of puzzi. I would have lighten the burden. What would you have? What we have. And when you say lighten the burden, what would you have cut and how would you do that? When you think about all different aspects of the government that are essential things that need to be in place. What would you have cut most of most of the government money is. Is transfer payments where the government takes money from one person and gives it to somebody else?
I mean, the government shouldn't be doing that. That's not why we have a government. America government is here to secure our own. Explain that. Protect our property, not steal it.
Couldn't explain that. What you mean by transfer payments. Well, that's when the government takes money from one person through taxation and just hands it to somebody else. Or now through inflation, the government just prints money and gives it to people that it thinks needs it. But that's not what government. But let's look at the BPP and let's let's look at that or the Kahrizak. Right. Okay. Look at all the damage that the Kahrizak act did to the economy.
So, first of all, let's look at the payroll protection plan that everybody wants to brag about. Right. What a complete fraud this was. I said from day one, this would be a cesspool of fraud. You know, we found out last week that there were six hundred approximately hedge funds, private equity funds, asset management companies that got peepee loans. And they're not even loans because you don't have to pay them back. So it's free money.
Right. And I could have gotten one of those loans if I wanted to. I just didn't want to lie to qualify. You stop independently. Can you stop?
Six hundred firms did somewhere that most people don't know that these hedge funds got this money. Most people think this money went out to American businesses to keep these businesses from collapsing. Because we need restaurants. We need, you know, movie theaters and all these all these various American businesses that we assume this money went to prevent from collapsing. Explain that, please. Yeah, well, you didn't have to.
All you had to do is apply. And according to this, the Small Business Administration, as long as the money you asked for was less than two million. They didn't ask any question because in theory, you are supposed to need the money. Right. You are supposed to have some disruption. Like if you run a restaurant and your restaurant is shut down. You don't have any revenue. There's nobody eating in your restaurant. So you have no money coming in.
So how do you pay your your waiters? How do you pay your your busboys? You have no money. So the government was like, oh, we'll give you some money as long as you don't fire your workers. We'll give you some money to pay your workers. But a company like mine. Right. My my God. I have two or three companies I could have taken money from and I didn't. But you look at my like my ass.
Imagine copying your specific asset management. I'm making more money now than I was before. Koven And I always said, if that's the case with most firms that are in my industry, can you explain that? Revenue was never shut down.
How is that possible? How are you making more money? Because all I do is charge fees to manage people's money. I didn't stop managing their money because of code. I mean, we just keep on managing it and we keep on billing for our fees. We bill every quarter. We weren't even shut down. Even in Puerto Rico where they were shutting down everything. I mean, I was considered an essential business, financial services. So I you know, people come to my office, even though I let a lot of them work from home and member all of our customers, they talk to us on the phone.
So when I want to talk to a customer, the customer doesn't drive down in my office. Know, just call me on the phone. And so there is no physical contact. So there isn't any disruption. All of the revenues that the hedge funds were getting at the asset management companies, all that revenue continued unabated. Not a single job was in jeopardy. Right. All these companies that got government money so that the government wants to pretend that these loans saved jobs, they didn't save these jobs.
These jobs were never in jeopardy of being lost. So all that happened is that it's a windfall. The asset management companies, the hedge funds, they got extra money from the government to make their profits even bigger. On top of the fact that the Federal Reserve printed all this money, which inflated asset prices, we charge fees on those assets. And so as the Fed inflates assets, Wall Street has inflated fees. We make more. It was a double bailout for a lot of these Wall Street firms.
So that was one of the frauds. But even in a case where the government is actually giving companies, giving money to companies that need it. Right. That otherwise would have fired their workers.
Look, we don't know what the future demand for restaurants and bars and theaters is going to be. I personally believe that demand is going to be diminished for a long time. It's not just a temporary thing. I don't think it's going to come back to the way it was, especially since the way it was was a bubble. That's what people don't get. They say we want to go back to the way it was before Cobh. We can't reflate that bubble.
We have to start spending less. We have to save more. And that means we can't go out as often. We need to build up our savings again because we've depleted it. So there's going to be less demand for restaurants. There's going to be less demand for a lot of things. We have to let these companies downsize. Look at the airlines. Americans are going to be flying. I'm less. There's no question in my mind that domestic air travel is going to be down for many, many years, even after Cauvin is is cured.
So the airlines have to shrink. They have to lay people off. They have to be profitable. They have to effectively utilize resources. So to the extent that the government prevents businesses from laying off workers that really shouldn't be laid off, they ultimately compromise the viability those businesses. And in the long run, they may end up putting people out of business that would've stayed in business. Maybe they maybe somebody had one hundred employees and maybe they could have downsized to 30 employees and at least those 30 employees would have a job.
But instead, they keep those employees on the payroll for long enough to the point where the whole company has to go out of business and now everybody loses their job.
Now, when you say hedge funds were able to receive PPE and you're saying that they did so while they were still earning profits and there wasn't any diminishment of their income, why were they able to receive P.P.? Well, that's the problem with government programs. There's always fraud. Look, whenever the government is giving out free money, people try to qualify for it. Now, you can read the fine print. I know a lot of other people can say, hey, you know, Peter and said, as long as your business was affected by Cauvin and look, yes, my business was affected.
I mean, people worked at home that used to work in the office, but you had as you had to basically testify or certify that the money was necessary to support the ongoing operations of your business, which for most of these firms, it wasn't. And you also had to say that you had no other source of capital, which, again, people were lying. But the government basically said if you asked for less than two million dollars, we're going to look the other way.
We're not going to vet these loans. But hold on. They actually Disneyland's to they actually say that they're not recourse. There's no collateral. So a lot of businesses that we're going to fail anyway and that we're going to lay off all their workers took the money. They're still going to lay off all their workers. But now they're not going to have to pay the money back because they're going to bankrupt their business. And once your business is bankrupt, even though you fire all your workers, you're under no obligation to repay the loan.
Did they actually say that if you asked for less than two million dollars, we're going to look the other way?
Were you taking from it? Well, that was what it says is will assume that you're filing an honest claim. Right. Guess they're saying that if you if you asked for more than two million dollars, we're going to vet the claim and we're going to take a look at your situation. But it said on the Small Business Administration that we'll just assume you're being honest. Right. So if you ask for less than two million, will assume you're being honest.
Well, the minute they say that I should I mean a lie. That's the problem. So many people lie. Whenever the government has a program, it gets abused. That that's part of the problem with government spending. Right. Everybody tries to qualify like just like the unemployment benefits. This crazy deal with the enhanced unemployment benefits. You have a lot of people now who are being paid twice as much not to work as they were earning when they were working.
Now you create that kind of incentive. You have a lot of people now. The last thing they want is to go back to work because they're making so much more money, not working than they were when they were working. And most of these people, if you have a job where you're making, you know, can fifty eight dollars an hour or 20 dollars an hour, chances are you don't love your job. I mean, you're not working because you enjoy what you're doing.
You're working because you need the money. You need to pay the bills. Well, if you can make the same amount of money or more without working, I mean, who's not going to go for that? I mean, I don't blame anybody for not wanting to work if the government is paying you more not to work than what your boss was paying you to work. And, of course, you know, there's more than just working. You have to get up early in the morning.
You've got to fight traffic, you know. You know, you've got other expenses. Maybe you've got to put your kids in daycare. You've got, you know, laundry, you know, dry clean your clothes. Women, women can spend an hour in the morning doing their hair, doing makeup. They don't get paid for that. But they've got to do all that, you know, and add all that to commute time. I mean, so there's a big cost of working.
And then, of course, you give up all your leisure when you're at work. You can't have fun. The government now has create a situation where people are getting paid to have fun. So, I mean, how do you end that? What politician is now going to take this away?
I understand what you're saying about that. And I do agree with that. And that was really shocking to me, that people that I know who have friends that are on unemployment don't want the economy to reopen because they would lose money. And I was like.
Look, I know that you can hire people, but you can't get hold of the hold on. Did you work? I get more money not working. Plus, you know, it's something we'll do. Peter. Peter. Hey, Peter. Peter. Hold it. Give me cash. Do you want to end? They're unemployed. Peter can keep getting those benefits and then they take a job under the table for cash. Hold on. What's going on?
I believe that. But but that doesn't make sense with hedge funds. With hedge funds. If you're talking we're talking about small businesses. Does a hedge fund qualify as a small business? And we're talking about receiving PDP. And as long as it's under two million dollars, it's no questions asked if they can't demonstrate a loss of income. How were they receiving this money and what should have been done differently?
Look, I. Look, as soon as I heard about the program, I went online and I doubt, you know, I got the application just to see what it was. You don't have to prove anything. All you have to do is you have to have fewer than 500 employees, which is pretty much everybody. I mean, most of us in this business don't have five hundred employees. And then what you did is you just listed your payroll.
Right. And they gave you three months of your payroll. So whatever you pay all your workers. Right. And it was cap. So if you had some people that were making a million dollars a year, they wouldn't cover the whole thing. Right. It was like, I forget what the limit was, maybe one hundred grand a year or something like that. But what they did is you could take all of your payroll for all your. Please.
And then take three months worth of it. And the government's said, we will give you a loan, no questions asked for three months of your payroll. And as long as you don't fire more than a certain percentage of those people, you never have to pay the money back. So it didn't say anything about proving that you actually needed it. Proving that, you know, that your revenue went down. So the government opened up an opportunity for all sorts of people.
I mean, I could have had a few hundred thousand dollar if I wanted it. All I had to do was lie and claim I needed the money. But, you know, look, I as much as I don't want the government to have money and I'm already living in Puerto Rico, so I'm not paying taxes. So, I mean, people can say I'm a hypocrite because I'm living in Puerto Rico, but I'm not committing fraud. I'm I'm I'm I'm being honest.
Anybody that wants to pay less taxes is free to move to Puerto Rico. But I didn't want to commit fraud. I didn't want to sign a document and attest to the fact that I needed the money when I knew I didn't. And what business owner needs the money like that? I mean, if you're managing other people's money for a living and you can't handle, you know, a downturn in your business and what business do you have managing people's money if you can't even manage your own?
I can't believe that anything under 500 employees is a small business. That seems like. Yeah, well, that seems like a regular business. Like what? What the fuck. World we live in. In where five hundred employees or less is a small business. That seems like, you know, a business.
Yeah. Well they're not. Well believe me, they're not like big corporations that have thousands and thousands. And they're also there was other criteria like how many locations you can have. I can't remember all of it. But, you know, a lot of the people that applied were just self-employed people. Yeah. You know, so and so they were businesses of one. And so they got to, you know, they got their own pay. But you didn't have to prove because a lot of people's businesses were not disrupted, because if you didn't work with the public in a public setting.
Right. If you just sat at a desk and worked on a computer and a telephone, you know, your business wasn't disrupted. So why do you need any government money? Yeah, kudo's. Even if you needed the money, the federal government shouldn't supply it by printing money. People don't realize how much damage we have done to this economy. The US government, the Federal Reserve is doing far more damage than Cauvin, 19. That's what people don't get.
We're going to we're going to reap the whirlwind for what the government is sowing. Well, kudos to you for not taking that money. I really appreciate that giving your understanding of what's legal and not legal and the fact you're willing to move all the way to Puerto Rico to avoid federal income taxes. Kudos to you.
I didn't only do it for the taxes. I didn't know her lifestyle and all that kind of stuff. I mean, the taxes make it. Make it, make it affordable. Fine. But there are other reasons. So I was gonna move the floor harder. I mean, you know, I was going to go down there and so I ended up going to Puerto Rico.
Listen to me. Fuck Florida saw that shit off and sell it to the Russians. I'm happy that you didn't take that money. I really am. But I really I want to understand what would have been the best maneuver if if the federal government had. Let's imagine that you and Trump were best D. And he's like, hey, Peter Schiff, what should I do? What should I do? We're gonna have to do something that we have this covered 19 situation.
We're gonna have to protect the citizens, the United States, from this weird novel corona virus that we don't really totally understand at the moment, especially in FAP in February and March. We really didn't understand what the consequences of this virus were. What do you think they should have done differently? Yeah, well, again, first of all, we have to acknowledge how weak the economy was before Kova, right, that we didn't have a great economy.
This economy was a mess. That people were broke. Right. Everybody was living paycheck to paycheck. Everybody was levered up.
Can I see where can I stop? Yeah. Yeah. But he has to recognize the fact that we it was pouring out and we had nothing saved for a rainy day. Yeah. So we need to acknowledge the fact that we have to understand why were we so broke. Can I still. I was so hurt and he is right.
This is so frustrating to do these things with a delay. I'm so sorry. But when Trump talks about Colvard, he talks about it being this interruption for this world's greatest economy. This thing that he had created during his administration. What's wrong with that narrative? What's that? That's a lie. You know, that's one of the things that frustrates me about Trump is pretending the economy was great because somehow he thinks that because he's president, the economy should be great.
I mean, that might be his own ego. On the president. So he must have a great economy, but we don't. It's the same economy he inherited from Obama. Only more highly leveraged. And it's all the debt. It's all the corporate debt, all the individual debt, all the government debt. That's why we're so ill prepared for any crisis, whether it's COBA 19 or anything else. We were broke before this happened. I said it's raining out and we've got no rainy day fund.
So the first thing we have to acknowledge is why was the economy so screwed up? How did it get screwed up? And that was because of the Fed keeping interest rates too low. Discouraging people from saving. Rewarding people from borrowing. Putting too much emphasis on the stock market and not enough on the real economy and government spending. Too much money. Government making us less productive by spending too much and regulating too much and subsidizing too much. So we screwed up the economy.
So what we need to recognize is, OK, we need to reverse all that. Right. And yes, now we have an extra reason to do that because now we have Cauvin 19. But we need to restore sound money. We need to let interest rates go up. We need to let asset prices go down. And we have to build up our ability to deal with Cauvin 19. Instead, we're just printing even more money. We're juicing up the economy with even more debt.
We're pushing up the Nasdaq to new highs. This is not productive. So this is making the problem worse. That dwarfs Koven 19. But I agree, because of all the mistakes of the past, because of all the bad monetary and fiscal policy, we were not prepared for this crisis. We weren't prepared for any crisis. Like we couldn't fight World War Two again, like we fought in 1940. We're a shadow of its former self. We don't have the industrial might.
We don't have the savings. So we don't have the tax base for the government to tap into, tap into, to actually pay for a war. We just have a printing press and we can only use that because foreigners are dumb enough to accept our money. And, you know, they're not going to be accepting it much longer. So this is bad news, right? Any way you shake it. America has a day of reckoning. And I would have rather had Trump level with the public and say, you know what?
The day of reckoning is now. And yes, I know Cauvin 19 is bad, but we've got a lot of other problems, too, and we have to deal with it. We've got to pay the piper. Right. They were saying nobody has to suffer. Nobody has to sacrifice. You know what? We have to suffer. We have to sacrifice. I'm not happy about that. But it's better than the alternative, which is kicking the can down the road again so that we have to suffer even worse, which is that's the deal with the devil that we made.
So we should have, you know, make government smaller. And look, maybe we maybe we should have dealt with the crisis more like Sweden. You know, I mean, a lot of people are given shit to Sweden. But, you know, Sweden didn't want to make that bargain. They didn't want to print all this money. They did. They bore their own costs. And so they had a different approach that didn't do as much economic damage.
And, you know, our economy was so screwed up. I mean, the Swedish economy is in much better shape than ours and not because they're socialists like Bernie Sanders thinks because they're not because they're actually more capitalists, that we are Sweden's more capitalist than we are.
You know, the rich pay lower percentage of taxes in Sweden than we do. You know, they don't even have an inheritance tax. It does. No estate taxes. Really? Zero. No. Yeah. I would have never would. Sweet Sweden. Sweden became a very rich country because they were a capitalist country. And once they became very rich, they experimented with socialism, which was an unfortunate experiment because there's no reason to experiment with socialism, because every time it's tried, it failed.
But they decided to try it. And of course, it failed. And so they had to start rolling it back once they saw all the damage that the welfare state in Sweden was creating. So they started dialing it back. And and now they've gone a long way. They haven't eradicated it completely. But, you know, and if you look at the tax proposals by Joe Biden, I mean, we're going to go so far above Sweden as far as the confiscatory reck levels of taxation.
I mean, look what Joe Biden is wants to do with the income tax, the corporate tax and the personal tax. He wants to raise the corporate tax from twenty one to twenty eight, but then he wants to raise the dividend tax from twenty four where it is now to about. Forty something ish. I forget the exact amount. But corporations are taxed twice. Right. The tax when they earn the money. And then when they distribute it to the owners.
So you have to add up both rates. But then he also wants to apply Social Security taxes to those dividends, not just the Medicare taxes. So he basically wants to take the corporate and the effective corporate tax rate up from about 40 percent where it is now to about 60 percent. That's where he wants it know, which is a you know, a huge increase or 70 propaganda. So it's it's a massive number. And it really is fascism because the government ends up owning all these businesses, because if you if you take more than half of the income of a business, I mean, you basically own that business.
I mean, it's your business. You're getting half the more than half the income. Right. So the government is really nationalizing all these corporations. That's a fair taxation, but it's not the corporations as the individual shareholder. Right. They're the ones that own the business.
That's a very important way to look at it, the way you look at it there, where half of the income is going to someone else. I wanted to stop you for a second, but I wanted to hear that rant. There's a connection that people make from the connect socialism to empathy, socialism to kindness, socialism to people that are less greedy. Socialism to people that are more interested in a community. This is this is coming from a person like myself who has no economic.
Eighty six percent of what I know about the economic world is from you. So I'm I'm an idiot. All right. I listen to people who are experts. But when I think of the idea of community and of helping people out, I think of the idea like what? What's wrong with some socialist policies? We have the fire department. That's a socialist policy. Nobody wants a fire department to be only for people who have money. We want the fire department to be for the community.
It does matter if you have zero dollars, if your house is on fire, we're all going to pay for the fire department to come put it out. We all have a vested interest in keeping your house from burning down and you dying and the whole community from burning. Right. We have these stret.
Well, there is a big difference between this type of hope. But hold on. So, Gramps, you're right. You're 100 percent right. But it's the idea behind it that comes from idealistic people. And I'm putting myself in this category. I am often naive and idealistic, but also ruthless in my assessment of human character. It's a big contradiction because I think there's a lot of people that really could do more than they're doing and they know they could and they want to make excuses.
And it's part of the reason why throughout history they've left people behind. There's certain people that if you had a tribe and you had to make it over this mountain and Bob is fucking lazy, he's like, you've got to carry me, bro. Mike, Bob, we're both walking. Come on, man. Bob's not supposed to make it. He's not supposed to make it. We want him to make it. But we don't want our kids to die.
We don't want our mom to starve. We've got to keep going, Bob. You lazy fuck. Come on, bro. There's always been people like Bob. And it's part of the program with humans. So I'm a contradiction way. But hold on a second. Best way I care. I understand. But I'm gonna give you I. That's what attracts people to socialists ideas. It's just they're nice that they want everybody to do better. Shrillest socialist ideas are very appealing.
I get that. And that's why they're very popular with young people who don't know any better. They don't have enough life experience.
But this is understand. Peter Schiff, this is the bridge, because a guy like you who really understands economics can talk to a guy like me and we can explain it to everybody because otherwise we just have. And I'm definitely not arguing with you, but your argument versus people who disagree with his argument, you have this. But there's a there's an opportunity to make this bridge. And for us to understand. He's hoping. I think I can hear the anti-Semitic bridge.
And I know because I want to help people evolve from being socialistic and capitalist because capitalists aren't mean. Yes. They just understand the unintended consequences of these well-intentioned programs. When that the left is in favor of. But they don't understand that they actually backfire and make all the problems that are trying to solve. Worse, it isn't a majority of the program with your labor or fire department isn't the part when you have a local fire department. Right, that a fire department is there to put out any fire at any house.
Right. So everybody in the community benefits from having a fire department. It's not there just for one person. It's for everybody in the community. We're talking about where the government takes money specifically from one person and gives it to somebody else. Are there specific benefit because they think they need it for whatever problem, whatever reason they need the money?
Agree. And this would be like Bob wanting money from you are lazy, Frank, but you're talking about. I am all in favor of private charity. I'm all in favor of people. Volin. Terribly helping out their fellow man. And Americans will do that. I mean, we didn't do that. We did that a lot more in the past when the government didn't take so much of our income and taxes. We had a lot more money, like I mentioned, Grover Cleveland, when he said that quote about the government not supporting the people.
There was a bill to appropriate ten thousand dollars for some farmers in Texas who had been hit by a drought. And Grover Cleveland vetoed the bill because he said, look, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to give money to people just because they need it. I mean, this is not right. We can't take money from the taxpayers and just give it to somebody because we feel they're in need. And so he vetoed that bill.
But after he vetoed it, the farmers got more than 10 times that amount of money in private donations from individual Americans who wanted to help out. That's that's good. That's how you get your own money at a charitable giving. That is great. That is noble. Yeah, but when you steal money from somebody else and give that money, there's no nobility in that. That's theft. Doesn't care what you do with the money after you steal it.
Stealing is wrong.
I see what you saying. I like what you're saying. Is there an opportunity where these two things can merge, where people can realize like, hey, we need less taxes and more charitable donations and it's both possible and you would probably save money and we could figure out a way to distribute that money in an equitable way that you have control over. So if there's certain. Oh, yeah.
Charities that I really feel strongly about, like cancer, these people who are likely the people who are likely to give the most to charity are wealthier people because they have more discretionary income. And if you have a lot of wealthy people who are paying 40, 50 percent taxes and I was doing that, I was paying about half of my money in taxes before I moved to Puerto Rico. Right. I didn't have any special tax breaks. I paid about almost half my money in taxes.
So because half the money went to the government, I had a lot less money that I could be charitable with. I mean, I have I had all the money I needed to take care of myself. The money that was taken away from me by government was money that I would have invested to help grow the economy, or maybe I could have used it in direct charitable giving. And the other benefit of when you allow more private sector charity, private sector charities are much more efficient because they really care about the people they're trying to help.
Governments don't give a damn when you have a government program. That program exists to benefit the bureaucracy of the program. So they squander the money. And the last thing they want to do is, is end poverty, because then they there's no longer a need for their program. They want to perpetuate dependency. You know, if you go back to the Great Society in the 1960s, if you look at the declining poverty rates in the nineteen forties, nineteen fifties, nineteen, you know, leading up to the 1960s when we had the, you know, all the civil rights and all those big war and poverty, we were beating poverty, we were kicking poverties.
But poverty rates were really falling in this country until the government declared war on poverty and then poverty won. That is the problem. The government created poverty. They didn't. They eliminate it.
Well, what should they have done differently? They should have allowed free market capitalism to keep lifting people out of poverty. Look, the reason people are poor is because they're not earning enough money. Well, how did people earn more money? They become more productive. How do you get more productive? You acquire skills and you have capital. You your your employer provides you with capital that makes your labor more productive. And because you're more productive, you can earn more money.
And that lifts you out of poverty. So it's free market capitalism that lifts people out of poverty. And so the smaller the government is, the more capitalism we have, the more wealth we can create, the more employment opportunities we can create. Government just gets in the way.
Can I in for a second. So you what you're saying is there's an opportunity. Be compassionate without like the demand for you being compassionate by the federal government. And if people spend less money on the government, then there's opportunities for them to donate more money to charities. And this is the better. This would be a better way of managing our money and our charity and all these things. Yes, it's much more efficient. Voluntary. Give you a look when people give money voluntarily their own money.
They don't want it to be squandered. They don't want it to be wasted. I mean, whenever you give the charities, you always look at the charity and you want to know, hey, if I give you a thousand dollars, how much of it is used in bureaucracy and how much goes to the recipients? Isn't that their box? And you can say, hey, we're going to take 10 cents to run the charity. And actually, 90 cents is going to go to the people that we're trying to help.
Right. But the government in some way around, they'd taken a dollar and only 10 cents actually goes to the people that need the money. The rest of it is absorbed in the bureaucracy. There's no incentive to be efficient. Charities have to be efficient or nobody will give them money. Government has no incentive to be efficient because they take your money. There's no voluntary interaction there. They take your money from you. And so they can be as inefficient as possible.
But then the private charity wants to help people out so they no longer need the charity. The government wants to keep people impoverished. So they're in constant need of the charity because that way they can get their vote. The government knows if they steal money from Peter and pay Paul, that they'll always get Paul's vote. And that's what they're concerned about. They want to keep people and trapped in poverty so that they'll be reliable votes.
Is that what they want? Or do they just want to maintain this system that they have control over?
Because if they just released everything to the public sector, like if it's Bill or the private sector, it's a good thing. But if they just at least. But if they everything from policing to the the water purification to everything they do, if they just went instead of the government handling everything, they just allowed it to the private sector. But how would we manage whether or not they were doing the good of the people overall? That's what everybody's worried about, what everybody's worried about as big business, assuming this monopolistic, gigantic monolith, that it crushes everything before it and pollutes the rivers.
That's what we're worried about. So the idea of the government stepping in for businesses to keep business from only growing and not growing with concern for the consequences of all the other people around it, that's where everybody gets real suspicious. Right. When you go and they shouldn't be, and this is something that always kind of bothers me, that people just attribute sinister motives to private businessmen. Yet they think politicians are angels and just there to do the Lord's work.
Right. I mean, there's just as many greedy people who go into politics as who go into business, in fact, probably more. But there's a big difference. See, I have protection because if a greedy person goes into private business, his greed can only help me. Right? Because the way a business grows and gets bigger is by selling more products and services. Well, why would I buy those products and services? I have to like them.
I have to think they're better than the products or services that some other businesses is offering me. And I have to value those goods and services more than the money I'm voluntarily exchanging to get them. The beauty of the free market is that you have all these businesses who may be greedy, competing with one another to best satisfy my desires, my needs to make me happy. And if they don't make me happy, if they can't satisfy my disease, I don't buy their products.
So they think they have to win me over. They say they have to woo me and seduce me to get my business. So I don't have to be worried about a greedy business man who wants to make money because he could only make money by making my life better. On the other hand, you take a greedy person and you give them the power of government. They can make my life miserable. They don't have to get me to voluntarily do anything.
They just take my money by brute force and they just do to me whatever they want. So where you have to fear, greed and power is when it's in government where it can actually harm you, not in the private sector. I can help you. I know a home is going to say, well, what if there is a criminal? What if somebody is stealing my money? Yes, they're violating the law. And we need government to protect me from thieves.
But businessmen that are honestly convincing me without fraud or deception, but are being honest and I'm buying their product, that, you know, their greed doesn't help me. It doesn't hurt me. It only helps me.
I think I think we're in agreement on a lot of this, especially what you said, that we'd need government to protect people from a business getting out of control and demonizing people. But it doesn't mean that capitalism in of itself is a demonic thing or a bad thing. It's a good thing, though.
And you think Canelo doing now, but all the Wall Street bailouts. That's not capitalism. Right. But banks that were overly leveraged in 2008 should have been allowed to fail. Investors should have lost money. None of this is capitalism. Bailing out companies that should fail is not capital losing its corruption.
Do you think it's a crime? Like when when you say it's not capitalism, then what is it? Well, I mean, you can call it statism, a crony capitalism, fascism, so it means a lot of ways you can describe it corporatism, but it's not free enterprise. It's not capitalism. Failure is an important part of capitalism. Right. Because if you look at the signs of economics, what is economics about? It's about how do you satisfy unlimited human desires, unlimited demand with limited resources.
Right. We have scarce resources. They're not infinite. We have so much land, labor, capital. And so we have to figure out how to organize our resources in the way to satisfy as many demands as we can. And so businesses compete with each other for those resources. And the businesses that combine them in a way that they can generate a profit, that means that they're adding value. That means that the goods they're producing are more valuable than the resources they consumed in the process of producing them.
So that's a good thing. But when businesses are taking resources and their products cannot recover the cost of production, they are squandering our resources and those businesses need to fail. So those resources can be freed up to be utilized more effectively by some other entrepreneur doing something else. So we need companies that can't generate a profit to go bankrupt. That that the profit and loss is the thermometer that tells you if you're doing the right thing. If you're making a profit.
Keep doing it because you're creating value. If you're losing money, then stop. You're destroying value. Your business is making us poorer. So the market is trying to function so that we can have an optimal amount of economic growth. Then you have the government coming in and deciding to subsidize businesses that it doesn't want to fail because, oh, we might lose some votes. You see, there's a there's a concept about the scene and the unseen and politicians are concerned about what you can see, because when the politician bails out a company and they save the jobs of these workers, everybody can see that and they can take credit for the jobs they supposedly save.
But what you don't see are the jobs that were never created or might have got destroyed because the government misdirected capital from where the market would have put it to where the government wants it. So we destroy productive jobs in order to save non-productive jobs. That makes us poorer. But the politician takes credit for the good that he supposedly does, but he doesn't get any of the blame for the bad that nobody can. Actually, a tribute to his action is.
Is it possible that there could be a cap on the amount of. We all agree that everyone needs to be some regulations.
Right. In terms of environmental impact and a bunch of different things that corporations can do wrong with regard to fucking over their workers or whatever they're doing wrong.
There has to be some government. You can't just allow people to thrive and do whatever they want to do. You have to have some sort of regulation dreadful side.
You can't violate people's rights. But give me an example. When you're saying there has to be some rules to protect workers from their employers. Like, what are you talking about there in particular?
Well, I mean, if you have a company that gets enormous, just absolutely enormous and they control all the jobs in the region, they could really dictate how much money people get per hour. And they could make it really poor and terrible. And you could see the people have the right to just leave or find something else or create a better future. That is possible. I mean, they can do that.
But if something looming budget. But assuming there's business Januarys and Norm is really big. Right. Right. Not because it had some special monopoly granted to it by the government. Right. It didn't get a big government subsidy just commercially. It didn't have that law making it illegal to compete. But this company got so big in a free market that meant it got really big because it was just providing the best services to its customers. But also, if it was able to employ that many people, it must have been offering those people a good deal.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have taken the job right. Because businesses are paying for two things.
That's not really true. That's not necessarily true, because if there was no other jobs available. If you look at it, there was a bit brighter.
Would have it would have been some jobs originally. I mean, there's no way that there's just one business in the entire community.
But if you're born into this and you're 16 years old, you're shit out of luck. And that good immigration does have control over you. If you're if you're born into it, if you're 16 years old, OK, you're in high school and get your first job. And the only job is at Wal-Mart. You're working at Wal-Mart. If that's all you have. Well, assuming Wal-Mart is the only potential employer now, I would say that that's not going to be the case.
Usually amusing that you're not getting a job when you're 16 is probably because the minimum wage is making you unemployable. And we can get into that discussion because I'd like to talk about minimum wage. But first, let's talk about how businesses compete for workers just like they compete for customers. Right. Because I have three businesses. I hire people. Right. And I just can't pay my workers. You know, a tiny wage because they're not going to work from it.
Don't you read? They're happy you had a mom wage that really demand.
There's plenty of people that are bidding against me for those same workers. Right. And so I have to pay the market rate. I can't just underpay them. They'll go work someplace else.
I understand. But if you do, you think there should be a minimum wage? No, there should be zero minimum wage.
Wow. That's. We've discussed that before. I know. But I still uses that. I don't think there should be a minimum wage is because I think individuals should be free to accept employment opportunities that they want to accept. See, the minimum wage doesn't hurt businesses. It hurts individuals that have low skills. And that's always the problem when you when you have people defending the minimum wage bill are opposing minimum wage hikes. They always say, oh, it's going to hurt businesses because, you know, it's going to increase their labor costs.
You know what? It doesn't necessarily increase their labor cost because they don't hire as many workers. They hire skilled workers instead of unskilled workers. They automate. They find ways to do without workers. They outsource. They they hire people in other countries. The minimum wage law hurts the most low skilled people, and they tend to be young people, teenagers, minorities that you get get hit the hardest. You know, before we had all these programs, you know, that the black teenage unemployment rate once upon a time was actually lower than the white teenage unemployment rate.
Now it's like double or triple as high. But before we had all these laws, it was actually lower because they got disproportionately impacted by the minimum wage law, which prices them out of work. I mean, what age is your 16 year old made?
When were these laws implemented? Well, the minimum wage didn't really start until the Great Depression. So it started. But it didn't apply to there were a lot of jobs. It were exempted from it. So it really started kicking in more in the 1960s and then it really started. Can I ask you a Plainwell?
Has anybody ever tried to have no minimum wage as an experiment, like maybe a town or city?
Well, first of all, we had no minimum wage before it was implemented and we had much lower rates of unemployment, real unemployment rate, countries that don't have a minimum wage. There not that many left anymore. I mean, most countries have made this mistake because the minimum wage is good politics, because it sounds good. Right. If you're for the minimum wage, it sounds like you care, right? Oh, yeah, we know. But is anybody against, you know, people working for low wages?
OK. So it sounds good, right? But all you do is you destroy jobs and you destroy employment opportunities. But there are countries like Singapore, for example, has no minimum wage, you know.
And we know that, don't they? Well, don't think you Singapore, don't they? Can you if you graffiti shit.
Right. I mean, I know. I know they frown at that on that over there. That was a famous place to talk about that. What about. I know we're talking about minimum wage. I know Sherlyn doesn't really I mean, there's other countries that have some kind of weird minimum, but, you know, it's not the same as as ours.
I feel like I feel like there could be a minimum wage.
And we still hold the same value that you're talking about in terms of competition to keep people from getting fucking shitty with their employees. Have you ever seen an employer like yell at their employees or like being like one of those corporate gathering situations where someone has a lot of control over their employees? Now, imagine if that guy was making all the money and he was only giving these employees a dollar an hour and making them but live in a long.
But it's not have slavery. I agree with you. We remain angry. The. If you like it. If you think it's the best alternative. Look, people quit all the time because they can get a better job. Right. So by definition, if the best job I can get is the job I have and nobody will offer to pay me more money, then I'm not underpaid. If nobody will pay me more, it's a free, open market.
There's all kinds of employers out there. And remember, you're free to work for yourself. Nobody forces anybody to accept the job. Everybody can start their own business. Everybody can be self-employed. Right. So if you don't think your boss is paying you what you're worth, then quit and start your own business. I failed.
I completely feel where you're coming from. But couldn't we just say that there's a level of paying? If you make someone work 40 hours a week and they don't have enough money for food or shelter after 40 hours of week? Couldn't we say that maybe that is not a good level like me? Let's look just as a community. So everybody agrees. We're all competing. But let's let's make it so that if someone is under your employment and it's a human being and they're doing 40 hours of work every week, they should have enough money for food and shelter.
That seems reasonable as a community. I know we you're saying in terms I know what you're saying from like this economic standpoint. I know what you're saying. Like, let your free market capitalism, but let it ride. Figure it out. Get paid what you're worth. And if you don't feel like you're getting paid enough, quit. I understand what you're saying, but wouldn't it be nice? Let's backtrack then.
OK. So good in general. Right. If you don't have any skills. Right. If the most you're able to earn at your job and let's say there's no minimum wage and you're just a young kid, you don't have any skills. Right. And the most you can earn is four dollars an hour. That's because, again, it's you're paid based on your productivity. Businesses are there to make a profit for the owner of the business because that business man is taking a lot of risk, is bearing the potential for losing money.
Of course, he has to, you know. And so a businessman is not going to hire somebody if they're not adding value to the business. So if somebody can add five dollars of value to my business, I'm not going to pay him seven twenty five an hour because I'm going to lose to twenty five for every hour that person works. So the only way I can hire somebody who is providing five dollars worth of value is if I can pay him four dollars and then I can make a dollar for every hour he works on.
But the business is not there to lose money. They're there to make money. So let's say you're a young kid and you can only provide five dollars worth of value. And so you get a job for four dollars and your employer makes a buck an hour offer you. Chances are you don't have a family. You're young. You're living with your parents. You don't have rent. You don't have, you know. So making a little bit of money is OK.
You just need some spending, maybe go to a movies or maybe go out on a date or something. You don't need a lot of money. What's important is the work experience, having that job, developing some skills, getting your foot in the door, step on that first ladder of the job, the rung of the job ladder, so that by the time you're 30 and you're ready to settle down and get married and have kids, you've now increased your skills to the point that you can make fifty dollars an hour where you can afford to support a family.
If you try to tell a business that you need to pay somebody who has no skills and as minimal economic value, if you have to pay that person enough. So they can support a family. Nobody is going to hire that person. All you're doing is pricing those people out of a job. So it's really good to say it's not right. If somebody is working and only making, you know, ten dollars an hour and they can't support a family.
It's not the employer's responsibility. It's not his fault that he's hiring somebody that doesn't have a lot of skills. And if you impose that minimum wage, all you're doing is making it impossible for this guy to get a job. It really what the minimum wage law is, is it makes it illegal for you to work unless you have enough a certain amount of productivity. So if the minimum wage is fifteen dollars an hour, what that means is if you only have ten dollars an hour worker productivity.
Right. You can't work that. You have to turn down every offer of employment you get. If someone offers you ten dollars, twelve dollars, that's illegal. You can't accept those jobs even if you want them, even if you think that that's the beginning of your first step on a road to higher wages in the future. The governor says, no, you can't accept that unless you can find somebody who will pay you fifteen dollars an hour. It is illegal for you to have a job that is not good economic policy, that is and is not even compassionate, because now you've taken away all the honest ways that somebody can make a living and they end up turning to crime.
A lot of times I see what you're saying, and that actually makes a lot more sense the way you're framing it about like if you only provide ten dollars worth of value to the company, why should they pay you fifteen dollars? And they know. I agree with them. I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. You're making me think about it in a different way for sure. I think a lot of people would say, well, if they're really only providing ten dollars worth of value, do you really need the person you're streaming?
Ten dollars worth of value is still value. Yeah, I see what I mean. Look. Think of all these. Look, I get very frustrated all the time. You know, when I make phone calls and I can't talk to a human being, I have to talk to a a computer. And the reason for this is because we've price the human beings out of the market.
Well, you know what young kids can work for?
What's the what's horrible about this for all of us is when when you do do that and you know, you're dealing with these goddamn computers, it's like we're we're losing part of our connection when it comes to doing business. We're doing. I like if I do business with a company, I like to be able to call them up. I like that there's. I'd love it if there's a thing when I'm when I'm doing something. I like to make contact with the person if everything is being done through automated systems.
It's getting weirder and weirder for us. More Maurella.
Yes. Do you remember do you remember back the original back to the future. Guys, remember when when he when he goes back to nineteen fifty five the first time and he sees that car pull into a gas station and like five people descend on the car and start watching the windows. Yeah. Checking the tires. Doing all that stuff. Right. What happened to all those people. I guess that all nations were like sort of for the minimum wage.
Destroyed all those jobs. I worked in a gas station and Jimmy working the gas station. I never did.
But I look, I deliver groceries. I delivered pizza. I worked in a shoe store. I had all kinds of jobs in high school that, you know, that probably kids don't have those opportunities today. They just they they think, you know, they think they can't get it. But going back to the gas station. Right. Be like pumping your own gas. I do. Because I used to. I used to work at a gas station.
And I know what happens when you let kids pump your foot. Could gas.
I don't want anybody to pay this bill. They fuck up. Some weirdo is gonna highly flammable fluid next to a piece your property and they get to stick it.
I think look, I think if we didn't have a minimum wage, you'd have a lot more kids working mostly for tips. I used to tip of you. Remember, I'm still old enough to remember tipping the guy then my gas.
Yes. Check your tires. No, but but you know what used to happen? These young kids that got low paying jobs as pump jockeys, what they would do between fill ups as they would go and hang out with the mechanic, you know, is there working on cars and they would get a free education and auto mechanics and they would actually learn a trade. Have you ever seen these guys? I mean, we'd have more auto mechanics. They get a skill.
Some of these guys would end up, you know, opening up their own service stations. But it's yeah, it's good to allow young people to have employment opportunities, not to price them out of the market by just by mandating a minimum wage. I mean, the minimum wage benefits high skilled workers unions by by eliminating competition with younger, lower skilled workers. You're forcing employers to hire high skilled people instead of a more numerous number of lower skilled people.
That's what happened.
Have you ever seen the movie The Hustler with Paul Newman? Jackie Gleason? It's a great movie. I saw the remake with with. What's his name? Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise. Yes. And also a movie with a debate. But the point my point is they're both good movies. They're great movies.
But in the beginning of The Hustler, Paul Newman pulls into a gas station and he tells the guy, check the air and tires, check the oil, do all this. And the guy filling up, mr. They go out there and they have like they they do all kinds of shit for you. It's not just as simple as they pump your gas, they pump your gas, check your tires, check your fluids, they do everything.
But there was less people in that car. Two cars were in better shape because, you know, every time he went into a gas station, somebody made sure you had enough oil. They made sure your tire pressure was good.
Well, more reliable today. Those those cars were bullshit postcards like you had to check the air. You had to check the tires. He was bleeding oil. But it's just interesting to see the dealer they used to have.
Look, they used to have ushers in movie theaters. Yep, I remember. Just show you to your seat with that. There was the service sector has really been obliterated. All these low skilled look, they're working on these kiosks now. Look, they're going to get rid of all the workers anyway. Ultimately, all these fast food restaurants just can't be anybody there. They're all going to look like self serve gas stations. Yeah, you're going to go in.
You're going to order off your smart phone and the food is going to come come down a shoot through some machine. Yeah, there's there's gonna be nobody there.
I worried we're going to, you know, theaters. I really worried about that movie theaters that we're going to lose movie theaters.
Well, we're probably we lost drive ins. You know, there's some of them are coming back. But once upon a time, we coming back on. And because of Kofod, people love them.
Now, it's a great idea. Great way to be socially distant and still watch a movie with a bunch of other people.
Yeah, but look, that's. Things evolve. I mean, now, look, I know people have giant screen TV's now. They don't cost a lot of money. That's the beauty of capitalism. I remember the first, like, kind of like high def TV I ever saw. I went into a department store. Not the part. Like a good guy is one of those electronic stores. And I remember looking at it, I was amazed because I it was like, oh, this is like looking through a window.
It was like because people don't realize how bad the pictures used to be unless you actually see an old TV, you know, one of these with the tubes compared to what we look at now. I mean, you can't even watch one of those things. But, you know, we didn't know how bad it was until something better came along. But when I first saw that, I was like, oh, my God, this is incredible. But I didn't buy it because it was ten thousand dollars.
And that was a lot of money to me back then when I was in my twenties, a ten thousand dollar TV, I could buy a car for that. I wasn't gonna spend that much money on a TV. Now you get those TV's four, five, six hundred bucks. Yeah. And there are Internet enabled in there. You know, they're smart and do all this stuff. But so now, you know, people don't need to go to the theater as often because they have good quality at home.
They've got all kinds of streaming services they can see. And so if the if if we're evolving to the point where more people are chillin at home with Netflix, then the theaters have to evolve. I mean, and you know what? So we can use those resources. We can do other things. I mean, businesses have to find other ways to make me spend my hard earned money at their at their establishment. But by the way, that the example of a television set, because you hear this all the time, is a little bit of a tangent, but it's an important topic, you know.
So. The reason that I didn't buy that ten thousand dollar TV, it wasn't because I did want it is because I could afford it, right? But some people were rich enough to afford it and they bought those TV's. And because some rich people bought those ten thousand dollar TV's, the companies that made them got money so they can figure out how to make them make them cheaper. And then the price came down to five thousand and then more people bought them.
And as more people bought them, the companies got bigger and they invested in R&D and they found out how to make them better and cheaper. And so the free market reduces prices. And when prices go down, we buy more stuff. But now you have all these politicians trying to sell us a bill of goods that we need inflation that the special reserve has to make sure that prices go up every year, because if prices go up, don't go up.
They say we won't buy anything. We're all going to sit back and wait for lower prices, which is a bunch of nonsense. People buy televisions, they buy computers, they buy cell phones. They know that if they wait a year or two, they'll be cheaper. But they don't wait because they only only time you wait to buy something is if you can't afford it. And then you wait until you can afford it. You know, the first cell phone you ever watch showed the movie Wall Street?
I talk about that scene all the time, him walking on the beach with that brick. Yeah. Money never sleeps. Those cell phones, those cell phones were like, I don't know, five grand back then. And if you made a phone call it the phone call, it was like a dollar every every 30 seconds. Yeah. I remember my first cell phone. I would like I would have to get off the phone so quickly because I didn't want to spend the money.
What would you have people. I would wait till the evening or the weekends to make the calls because it was too expensive to make the call.
You know, during the during the day, I remember those days. Roaming member roaming. Yeah.
You get charged crazy money. I mean, you got charged extra long distance. I mean, it used to cost a lot of money to dial long distance. I mean, there's no such thing I can call I can call somebody in Asia, you know, on WhatsApp. And it's free. And I can see them. Yeah. Yeah. This is the beauty of capitalism. Yeah. The free market brought the prices down and now more people own these products.
So the government is trying to tell us that we need rising prices. We don't. Businesses make more money when prices go down, because when prices go down, their costs go down. And what's important is not the price, but the margin, the difference between your cost and your price and the lower the price, the more customers you have. And if you sell more units, you make more money. So this is all nonsense. But that's the beauty of capitalism.
It makes things cheaper and better. Government makes things worse and more expensive. Right. Every service that the government provides you with, whether it's education or health care, it gets more expensive and the quality goes down. Everything we get from from private sector gets cheaper and the quality goes up. That's why we want to limit what government does to the smallest amount of stuff and let the free market do everything else because it's going to do it better. I see what you're saying.
It sounds beautiful. If it was that simple. Do you think it's really possible to manage this whole country that way? Really? Genuinely.
Well, we should probably we have some real good democracy gets in the way. That is the. That's right. Because you have these politicians that want to get votes. Right. And the way they get votes is they promise to steal something from one person and give it to the person who votes for them. That's the problem. And then in order to stay in power. Right. Governments basically take what amounts to bribes from businesses to basically protect them from competition or bail them out.
We've given the government too much power. And you can't blame the private sector for trying to get that power to be used in its advantage, because if it doesn't do that, one of its competitors will get it and it'll be used against the government is like the mafia. Right. And people have to pay protection money for the government to leave them alone and to to kind of set them against somebody else. You know, there's a there's a great movie.
I might as well plug it because the sequel is coming out. But the guys that produce it, they did a really good job. It's the bubble movie. Right. And if you go to let us disagree, dot com and you could see this movie. But it the guy that produced the Jimmy Morrison and I remember he came to my office and film me. This is he started it back in like 2010 or something because he wanted to talk to the people that predicted the 2008 financial crisis and get their perspective on what the government did wrong.
And so this is a whole movie about the history of how government is screwed stuff up all the way back to, you know, that the Great Depression, because there is you know, there's a lot of misinformation out there about why we had the depression. People say, oh, it's because we had too much capitalism. It's not. It's because we had too much government. We had a depression in 1920 that nobody knows about because it ended so quickly because the government did nothing.
The reason we had a Great Depression in the 30s was because Herbert Hoover did the same type of stuff that Trump is doing. Herbert Hoover was the first big interventionist president that started spending money to prime the pump to try to make it better. We can't just sit back and allow people to lose their jobs. And so Hoover interfered in the economy and helped create the Great Depression. And then Roozendaal came in and just expanded on Hoover's failed programs. And the Great Depression spanned the entire decade of the 1930s.
We didn't get out of the Depression until nineteen forty five when we ended the Second World War and government finally started to get smaller. But this movie goes all the way back to that and then it goes to the housing bubble. And so it's a great movie to really show how the government creates these problems with well-intentioned programs. And this the sequel is about to come out, which is about the next crash, which is the one that's coming. Right.
And it's coming soon. And because of what we just did after Cauvin 19 and the mood that we're in right now, I mean, I am so terrified of what's coming in this country. I mean, the popularity of socialism has risen so dramatically because we have discredited capitalism by preaching it, by not and not practicing it all. The damage that has been done to the economy in the name of capitalism has given it a black eye. You know, there are real problems in this country.
And I'm very sympathetic with people on the left who point out some real problems. Now, racism isn't one of the top. Let's forget about that. But there are a lot of problems there, not because of racism there, because of too much government. And those problems are real. And I want those problems solved. But I understand that the solutions that everybody has. We're going to make them much worse. And the way we're going to finance it by printing money so we can pretend that we're going to tax the rich, that's not going to work.
You know, we've tried to tax the rich before. In fact, people don't know this. The only reason we have an income tax is because we were going to tax the rich in 1913. That's the only reason. And the government told the public, if we have an income tax on Rockefeller and Carnegie and Vanderbilt and it was only going to be like two percent tiny little little teeny tax. The government said, well, well, it will eliminate tariffs.
That's why we had an income tax to get rid of tariffs because tariffs were paid by the average American. I mean, people back in 1913 were smart enough to know that consumers paid tariffs mean Donald Trump is trying to pretend that the Chinese pay his tariffs. They don't. Americans pay every tariff that Trump has imposed their attacks on Americans. That's what they are. And so what Hoover said, we're not Hoover. But Woodrow Wilson said was, hey.
Let's tax the rich with an income tax and we can eliminate these tariffs that the average people are paying. And we made that deal. But now average Americans are paying income taxes at levels far higher than anything contemplated for four for Vanderbilt, the Rockefeller and Carnegie. So, look, taxing the rich doesn't work. And you know what? A lot of the wealth that Bernie Sanders and I know you had him on his show and, you know, but a lot of the wealth that his ilk wants to tax is gonna be destroyed by the very taxes that they want to impose.
And they're not going to collect anywhere near the revenue that they think they're going to get. Instead, everything is going to cost much more than they think. And they're going to have to pay for it by printing money and they're going to destroy the value of the currency.
If you're a person who was advising a president or a governor how to fix an economically disabled community, if you have a community that's always had a history of poverty and crime and drug use and gang use in these communities, what would you do?
How do you use this idea of, like, capitalism to fix something that clearly requires some charity? It requires first of all.
Right. First of all, we can we can stop making the problem worse. We can decriminalize drugs and end the war on drugs, just like the war on poverty. It's backfired. The war on drugs is a failure. Right. People look in a free society. People have a right to to consume what they want to consume course. I especially want to do drugs. Let them do drugs. Right. And even if those drugs are harmful, adults can make decisions and deal with the consequences of their decisions, especially the legal alternatives are just as bad.
Right. But the problem is when you when you have the war on drugs and you and you make it a crime, now, you incentivize criminal activity because whenever something is illegal, it's much more expensive than it would be if it were illegal. And now you create this huge profit opportunity for criminals to come in and fill that demand because people still want the drugs. They just can't buy them legally through a reputable source. The only way they can get them is, you know, illegally who are criminal.
So this is a great example of what we've needed in Mexico. The best example of that in Mexico. Right.
And then what you do is you increase the cost of the illegal drugs. So let's say there's a heroin addict and now heroin is illegal. And so heroin is very expensive. Well, where is this heroin addict going to get the money to buy that heroin? He goes out and steals. I mean, most of the robbery is committed by drug addicts because they need the money to buy their expensive heroin. Well, if heroin were legal, it would be much cheaper and they wouldn't have to steal.
Of course, you know, we trade all these other sometimes. I'm not saying that people shouldn't do heroin, but they should be free to make a decision, but they shouldn't have to rob other people to to support their habit. And, you know, and when you when you when you have heroin, when you know, when it's illegal and there's all these profits, you know, the drug guy, the pusher has an incentive to get you hooked on it.
You know, I think it should you know, maybe you should have to go get a prescription for it where the doctor can try to talk you out of it. Hey, are you sure you want to use this stuff? You know, this is going to really hurt you and me. You really want to become an addict. Here's some movies. Watch what happens to you. You know, I mean, most people probably wouldn't necessarily make that decision if they were confronted with a lot of evidence.
That shows why it's a very disruptive way to live your life. But so we've got to get rid of the war on drugs, get rid of the crime in that community, you know? That's number one. But then as far as if you've got a lot of poor people, why are people poor? Right. They're poor because they don't have the skills or they can't earn enough money. They're not productive enough to generate income, you know, above the poverty line.
So if you have people who are poor, the way to make them less poor is to increase their productivity. Right. One way, obviously, is through education when they're young. But I don't think government education is the solution because I don't think government education is educating anybody. I think government schools are run for the benefit of the bureaucracy of the school districts, of the teachers' unions. I want free enterprise. I want vouchers or private schools to compete for educational dollars.
Just the way, you know, the cell phone companies are competing. You know, they want me to buy their cell phone instead of somebody else's. They have to make it better and they have to make it less expensive. So let's have schools that are competing to be the best off for the best education at the best value. And we've got in these cities, we've got these poor kids trapped in his failed government schools. They waste their time.
They learn nothing. Well, these kids graduate. They're not even literate. I mean, they can't even do basic basic arithmetic. Right.
But, I mean, the state of the we need real education. But in the current state of the world and most people don't have any other options.
Those people, they don't have any other options because the government has taken away that option. But what is government is really time.
But what do you do for them in real time? If you have a guy who's in a lower income family and he has a seven year old son and that kid is going to school right now, how do you fix that right now?
Bye. Yeah, make me open. If we had more private schools, that kid could go there.
They couldn't afford. Right. What if they couldn't afford private time in schools for people who are really poor? Private schools would give out scholarships to kids that have a lot of potential and their parents don't have the money. But with a private sector.
It's cheaper. Lot of potential. A lot of potential. That bothers me because I would if a kid doesn't have a lot of potential than he does, he doesn't get an education because he can't afford. But you know what?
Well, not every. But let's say it. Let's say a kid doesn't have a lot of potential. A certain type of education might be a waste. When did I start learning a trade off? He might be better off knowing how to do something that, you know, you know, I learn a trade. Would you just know what the kid is?
Seven. If the kid's in first grade seven. How do you know whether or not that kid has a lot of potential?
That's great. Seven is out of the seven. Might be a little young. How would I think? Fortunately, the tuition kid tuition in first or second grade is probably going to be less than in high school because in order to teach a second grader, the teacher doesn't have to know as much as a teacher needs to know to teach a tenth grader. So you wouldn't have to pay a second grade teacher as much as a 10th grade teacher. See, the problem the problem in the government is everybody get paid the same, whether they're a lousy teacher or a good teacher, whether they're teaching a first grader or a high school.
They did this all based on seniority. It's a crazy crap. System that only the government could devise. And it's only because they have a captive audience. The people, the customers don't have a choice. And the parents aren't even involved. If the parents were actually writing a check and paying for the education, they would make sure that kids did the homework. They would make sure they were getting their money's worth. When you get it for free, I mean, you just don't take it for granted.
So we need real education for the kids that can benefit from it. We need to get rid of the minimum wage law and all sorts of occupational licensing laws and other things that the government does that prevent people from getting jobs or starting businesses. The government is creating all sorts of barriers, artificial barriers that would not exist absent government. Right. Like like you have you have a government, let's say, you know, if you want to be a florist by all these states, they have licenses.
You have to get a license to sell flowers. Why? Why can't I just buy flowers from whoever I want? I mean, what's the worst thing that can happen to me? I buy flowers from a guy that doesn't know what he's doing. I get a lousy arrangement. And so I don't go back. He does the government have to protect me from getting a bad floral arrangement? Well, look, the free market sort it out. If a guy's no good, he won't have any customers.
But we make it a lot harder. There's all kinds of regulations and rules and permits. Just let people go into business. You know, I mean, poor people can start businesses if we didn't make it so expensive and so hard. And if they can flourish, flourish in the marketplace, if they can find customers, then great. If they're no good at what they do, they're not going to have any customers. Do you feel like this applies to everything?
This applies to all businesses all the time. I mean, pretty much. I mean, we don't need government, you know, having these certifications. I mean, the private sector is certainly capable at this.
I mean, look, is is it consideration social media and holding people accountable, like holding businesses accountable for their actions and like it's a different world in terms of like the ability to, like, alert consumers as to what's good and what's bad. It's a different world when it comes to that kind of thing.
But people especially now with the Internet. Yeah. I mean, if a business isn't any good. I mean, it's going to get a bad reputation. I like. I mean, you're going to have Consumer Reports that go out and rate. Look, look at what happens. Look at the banks. Right. The banks are completely regulated by the government. Right. Everybody who opens up a bank account knows that the government is guaranteeing their deposit. That wasn't always the case, that the deposit insurance didn't start until the 1930s because of the bank failures in the Great Depression, which were minimal.
I mean, fewer than two percent of the banks actually failed. There wasn't that much in the way. And we had a lot of banks way more banks. And we have now now we just have these massive banks. Before the government got involved, we had a very, very competitive market. We had lots of little banks out there taking deposits, making loans to entrepreneurs to start businesses and employ people not, you know, funding Wall Street. Right.
But you were once you were not a member of the savings and loans collapse. For sure you do. Right. Yeah, but that was. But those banks had government guarantees. But that was the problem. So it was the role of the government right before the government guaranteed banks. Before you would put your money in a bank, you would do a little research, just like you do research now before you buy a car. You try to figure out which is the best bang for my money.
Which bank is the safest? Which bank is. You know, having provolone. And you would you consult, you know, periodicals or reviews online? Not online. But you would find out where the banks were good and you would put your money in that bank. And now the banks would have to compete on reputation and honesty. I'm not being aggressive. And they knew that if they if they made bad loans and they went bank and something happened, nobody would bail them out.
The government, when bailed them out, their depositors would lose money. So we had a very sound banking system back then. Today, it's very unsound. The banks are doing all sorts of reckless things with their deposits because no one gives it down. Nobody cares what the bank does with their money. Once they deposited. Because the government guarantees the deposit. One bank is just as good as another. I'm just going to put it whatever bank is closest to me, you know?
And so the government has polluted the entire system. They've taken away all the checks and balances of a free market. And now we have a banking system that is completely, you know, reckless. It's all these banks that we bailed out in 08 are going to fail again and they're going to need even bigger bailouts. We have we have a very fragile system. And now they say, well, we can't let one of these banks fail because it's so big.
Why is it so big? Because the government insured their deposits and allow them to get this big and allow them to have access to all this cheap money from the Federal Reserve. I mean, we had we would have a vibrant, competitive banking system if the government got out of the way. We don't need the government to do that. The banks are much more reckless and much more corrupt now because of government than when we had free market forces reining them in.
Why aren't there more people saying what you're saying? Why is this? Why is this ha. I mean, I'm I'm only free market guy out there. As I said, if you have a Jorgenson, the libertarian candidate. She'll say some of this stuff. No. And, you know, I'm sure she's a great kind. We could actually have a woman president if we vote for her.
I'm sure I could find it if I went looking for Peter. What I'm saying is why? Why is this not? Well, you know, there's there's various discussions about how we should do things economically moving forward. Right. You hear it from a bunch of different experts. I don't hear your perspective here. Perspective is very ruthless and honest.
And some people would say maybe you're not considering the people that really don't even have an opportunity to get into this system and compete. They'll be held down. They'll be put into the squad. I must be ruthless.
I am being honest. But I think I'm being fair and compassionate because I understand the damage that is being done. I understand in the name of these programs. But the reason that you don't see more people like me in positions of power in government is it's because it's hard for people like me to get a power position in government. Because we're not beholden to a special interest. You have so many special interests, better feeding off the public trough. Right.
There is so much corporate welfare in this country right now, which is not capitalism. And so they're not going to fund candidates that want to take away their corporate welfare. They want to fund candidates that are going to protect the status quo. And the same thing with people. Look, the government has crippled so many people that they think they need a government crutch. You know, that's an old Harry Brown quote that he ran for a libertarian president.
You said the government is great at crippling you and then handing you a crutch and saying, you see, without me, you could walk. So, so many people have been crippled and they think they need that government crutch. I don't want them to be crippled. I want them to walk on their own right. To be free. You know, I wish we had the Fourth of July just recently. And, you know, we celebrate America.
And, you know, I talked on my old podcast, you know, about what it means to be an American. And people just don't appreciate what truly America was all about. It's about freedom. It's about liberty and individual opportunity. It's about being left alone from government and being able to achieve all that you can achieve without anybody standing in your way, without anybody erecting a roadblock. And we created government in America. Government didn't create us. We we didn't have a king that gave us some privileges.
We started off as free people and we ceded some of our sovereignty to a government to secure and protect our rights. And that's it. And that's what made Americans rugged individuals. Right, with who? We're not beholden or begging from government. Right. That they took care of themselves and they took care of their neighbors if their neighbor neighbor really needed help. It wasn't about thief. It wasn't about trying to get free stuff from the government. I mean, look at all these kids now.
What do they want? Free this free health care, free education, you know, all kinds of free stuff. Right. For, you know, free housing. Britain guaranteed jobs. That's not what America was about, Mike. All of my grandparents, right? All for my grandparents came to this country, grow, barely spoke any English. Some of them were teenagers. They came with nothing from poor countries. And they came to America. They had no welfare, no food stamps, no minimum wage.
They didn't. They didn't want anything from the government. They came to America because they could be free of government. They left the big governments that existed in Europe to have American freedom. Because that's what it meant to be an American. And it was unique. And we created the wealthiest society in the history of the world because of the freedom that was uniquely American. So that's what we need to restore. That's our birthright. It is is to be free, not to try to get the government to steal stuff from our neighbors because we think we're entitled to.
It doesn't help Verant right there. Peter Schiff, tell me what was very good. I said that with that. But that's why I see your perspective. But what does it say? Wouldn't that make him be proud to know that we're a nation of free people? Yeah.
I guess I can I can say that your your assessment. This what I'm seeing from you. You think that the the competition and the nature of the free market would have been better off without the intervention of the government. But you understand the government was kind of put in there to regulate things because they thought that people were going to get out of hand and they wanted to make sure that things were fair. But then the government grew too big and became a problem with human beings in general.
And this is my perspective. Human beings in Canada always get hold on a second. The problem is beings in general have a problem when they have power over other human beings. And if that powers absolute like the power of the government, if that powers hears, here's like the power we hear some people use, that power is absolute. That's where people have a problem because human beings just in general have a problem with having absolute power over other people.
And if you add to government, business corrupts absolutely.
I think that is the problem. And if it fucks up when we. How do politicians. Right. Yes. And maybe term limits would help this if we get out some term limits or something like that. You know, maybe, you know, you can't you can't be in government for more than, I don't know, five or 10 years. And put these people on Musri. It's not a career, really, but.
These these these bureaucrats get in office and they want to stay there. They like it. They enjoy it because the perks, the privileges. So what they do is they go out and they try to raise money to get re-elected. So they go to somebody and say, give me money to help me. And it's like, what? What are you gonna do for me? What's in it for me? All right. Well, I'll I'll give you this special tax break, girl.
I'll do something to protect you are all heart. And so this is what happens. So people are bribing politicians to use their power to benefit them or to hurt their competitors. We need to disarm the bureaucrats. We have to take the power away from Washington. Washington needs to live by the Constitution, which limited federal power. Almost everything the government does today is unconstitutional. Yet they do it anyway. I guess that it's the fact that they can wield this unconstitutional power.
I'll give you a minute. Have on these problems, Peter Schiff. If I give you a magic wand, what do you do with it? How do you fix things? I say, Peter Schiff, I love what you're saying. If Trump pulls you into his office. Peter, love what you said. Phenomenal. Tremendous. He pulls you into the Oval Office and he says, what do I do? How do I fix this mess? Yeah, well, I get you know, he's not going to like the truth because the public, if there's an old expression that you shoot the messenger.
Right. Nobody wants to be the bearer of bad news.
Maybe he's open minded, but it. Yeah. It would have been better if he did it on day one. It would've been a lot more effective if they had told the truth rather than lied for three years. And now. Come on. OK, Ibin line the anoma. I'm going to finally level and tell it like it is.
Do you think that he's been lying? Solve a problem. Do you think he's been lying or do you think it's been a disagreement and went the way you look at it versus the way they look at it. Now, I think he's been lying because, look, there's no way that Trump, as a candidate said the real unemployment rate was 30 or 40 percent and the government numbers were a lie, a fraud. Right. So if he actually said that and now all of a sudden he's president and the same exact Labor Department that was coming up with the same five percent unemployment numbers that he said was really 30 or 40.
And now he says, oh, the unemployment rate is four percent and that's magically what it is. He knows that he's blind. He's either he was lying as a candidate or he's lying as president. But these statistics don't mean anything. You know, we don't measure unemployment the way we measured it in the past. Right. Because in the past, if you were unemployed and you were no longer looking for work because you were discouraged, you were still counted as being unemployed.
Now, if you've given up looking for unemployment because you don't think you can get a job, you're not in the statistics. So, you know, you're not looking for a job when you're unemployed, but you're not counted or this happens a lot. Let's say somebody had a good job and they lose that good job. And so while they're looking for another good job, they accept a shitty part time job. Right. They're still looking for a good job, but they're making ends meet with this crappy part time job.
In the past, that guy would still be considered unemployed because he was still looking for a job, even though he took a part time job to help make ends meet. Today, if you take a Part-Time job and even if it's one hour a week and you spend the rest of the week looking for a job, you're not counted as unemployed. So when you take the statistics from today and compare it to statistics from the 60s or 70s or 50s, you're comparing apples to oranges because back then all those people were considered unemployed.
So if this is what Trump meant when he was a candidate, if you actually measured unemployment today, the way it was measured back then, we'd have an unemployment rate well above 10 percent. I don't know where it would be. It probably wouldn't be as high as 30 or 40 percent, like Trump was saying as a candidate. He was probably exaggerating that, but his basic premise was right. The numbers were a lie. The same thing about the stock market.
How is it that the stock market was a bubble? Well, he was a candidate and then all of a sudden it wasn't a bubble. Now that he's president, it's the same bubble. You know, he was criticizing Janet Yellen for keeping interest rates too low. Then he criticized Powell for raising them and demanded that they go to zero. In fact, he actually wants negative interest rates. He is actually saying that rates should be negative when he was criticizing Yellen for having them at zero.
Now we think zero is too high.
So, Nina, I mean, you getting paid if you bought a loan, if you got a loan, you'd you'd get paid. That's what he wants. But, you know, where's that money coming from? Exactly.
You know, Donald Trump I think, you know, one of the speeches that he gave, he he's like, you know, I don't know how this is, you know, how this is happening. You know, who's you know, who's making these loans. But we want some of that money's like we should be able to borrow at negative rates. Well, that means somebody has to be losing money. Well, the only one dumb enough to lose the money is the Federal Reserve.
Well, that's the American public, you know. Well, why shouldn't the American public go deeper into debt? You know, so so that we can basically steal money, which is what Trump is advocate. Look, we need higher interest rates. As I said earlier, the reason that we were so ill prepared for Cauvin 19, the reason that families couldn't get by without a paycheck for a few months, the reason that businesses couldn't get by without revenues is because nobody has savings.
We had savings once upon a time before the government screwed up the economy. Americans saved their money. Right. They were self-sufficient because they are looking for the government to take care of them. But they saved money. This is saved money from the wrong age. They saved money for a rainy day.
But this is four months. That's a long time.
You know, it's not deep, but it is to live a normal life with a car payment and a mortgage and a variety and bill. Yes, a lot of money.
But but you know what? People shouldn't have car payments on cars that they can afford by using cash. But what if I make had a 20 easily events right now?
The reason that's what if I can get a 20, 20 Corvette right now? Look, if I'm working at fucking U.P.S. and I'm making 60 grand a year and they go, you're qualified. I'm like, holy shit, I'm getting a Corvette. I'm not. Wait, I guarantee you. Eighty five thousand dollars.
If we had a free market in lending, if we didn't have government guarantees and we didn't have artificially low interest rates, no bank would lend you that money and interest rates would be much higher.
Because if they lend it to me, I mean, revet. Yeah, they are subsidizing these auto loans. The government is the government is buying these loans. The government is making it possible for those people who can't afford expensive cars to buy them. OK. Capitalism. Explain that, how is the government subsidizing auto loans? Like, if I want to buy this 20 20 Corvette and I make sixty thousand dollars a year and they hook me up for some eighty five thousand, no loan, how is the government subsidy subsidizing that?
Because the government is buying these loans. What happens is your car company doesn't actually keep the loan, so it doesn't give a damn whether or not you actually can repay it. Really? It loaned you the money. Right. And now it has this loan and it sells it. The government buys it or some government guaranteed entity buys it or the Fed now buys it.
This is assuming that you don't pay it. But the bank doesn't lose any money. Assuming you don't panic, I'm assuming you don't PayPal, what if you do pay it? Like if you have a loan, you pay all your payments on time. The government doesn't assume that loan. Does it?
No, no. They don't know which loans are going to default and which are going to pay. They just buy all the loans. Right. Like, there's a lot of this stuff. Like you ever go to government buys that loans that are a mattress store.
The mattress store is going to say you can buy this mattress. No payments, no interest for, you know, till twenty twenty two. Twenty twenty three. Right. Yeah. You're seniors, you know, no payments and walk. You can get nothing down. Walk out the store with a thousand Ahmat. Yeah.
Not specifically, but I know what you're talking about. Yeah. Well, the reason that this is possible is because the company takes that loan and sells it on the secondary market to get the money. And so it doesn't care if the person who bought the mattress can repay that loan because it's going to sell the loan as soon as it's originated and get the money. And so the loan gets bought and package and structured and it's all on what, you know, securitized.
But all this is being propped up by artificially low interest rates and government guarantees. If we had higher interest rates. And a free market, consumer loans would be much more expensive than they are now, much more expensive. And so most people would not borrow money to buy stuff. They would save up their money and then they would buy stuff. They would buy less expensive stuff. And that's what we want, because we want savings going to businesses who will invest in plant and equipment to make the country more competitive, more productive, to provide services, to create goods that provide jobs.
We don't want to squander savings on consumption. But, you know, because when you borrow money to buy capital equipment, capital equipment makes you more productive, generates more income, and that income helps you liquidate your debt. But when a consumer goes out and borrows money to buy something, they don't they don't get an income producing asset. Nothing services that debt. They have to service the debt at a future consumption. So now you know, they're out of work.
They can't make their car payment. They can't make there. The other loan payments, this type of bubble society never should have existed in the first place. And it only exists because some government because before government got involved, people had savings. And it's not that the American people changed. It's the American government changed. And when the government changed and created all these perverse incentives, then behavior changed, government policy, manipulated behavior, and it made us behave badly and recklessly and set us up for the fall that we're about to have.
I completely see your perspective. However, I look at your perspective as a guy who actually understands economics and you're a mature man who's had a successful life. I'm looking at it like if I was a 19 year old kid working at U.P.S., they told me I'd get a Corvette, OK. I know that's the problem. It is the problem. It's not the problem we've done.
But it's not the problem. It's that kid gets a Corvette and his his summer will be immeasurably better with that Corvette than without that Corvette. And maybe I know propel his emotions and his future and his ambition further than he ever anticipated because he had that great summer with that Corvette that he got that he shouldn't got the loan for. I see what you're saying. If I mean my dad.
I believe my dad that I know that because he thought he'd get laid more if he had a Corvette.
I mean, no, because he's an Asian man and he's American and he enjoys a Corvette.
It doesn't have to be negative playing on the kid.
I blame the system for making it possible for him to borrow the money and his parents for not teaching them better. But look, the problem is I wasn't an example. I was isn't going to like folks to get their car. Yeah, I'm I'm willing to take the example. Let's let's talk about student loan. Right. Because right now, what are the big political issues, especially among the left? Right. They want to forgive the student loans and they want to make college free.
Right. That's like a big thing. Like we have all these students with all this debt and it's bad. Which I agree. It's a terrible situation. But what the left doesn't want to accept is responsibility for creating this situation in the first place. It is government's fault that all these student loans exist. Without government, there would be no student loans. You know, once upon a time, people didn't borrow money to go to college. Nobody borrowed money to go to college.
Right. My father went to college and his parents were poor. I mean, now, look, my dad said they weren't sure they were upper lower class or lower middle class. But, you know, his dad was a carpenter. And and so he went to college and his parents didn't have any money to send him to college. And there were no loans. So I had my dad go. He got. A summer job, and he worked his way through school, which is what most people did.
You work your way through school. So here's what happened. You know, around the 1960s, once the 18 year olds could vote, this was a big thing. They lowered the voting age from 21 down to 28. Right now, you have all these 18 year olds that are about to go to college. And so here's what the politicians said to all the 18 year olds with Democratic politicians. They said, you know, you shouldn't have to work your summers.
You shouldn't have to have jobs while you're in school. You should just be able to go to school and enjoy yourself. And we're going to make it possible for you to borrow money to go to school by guaranteeing the loans, because normally the bank would lend you any money because you have no credit history, you have no assets. So you're not going to get a loan when you're going to guarantee the loan. And that way you'll be able to get the loan.
Now, somebody else won't get it. Some businessmen will get the loan because we're going to make them loan it to you. And now you won't have to have that summer job. And then when you graduate and have a good job, you'll just pay back the money. And it sounded like a great deal. Hey, I want to party now. I don't want to work. I don't have a good time. And when I get my college degree and I'm making a lot more money, I'll be no problem to pay back the loan.
So that's how it all started when it came in, when they said they and they basically created an incentive for banks to make loans to kids with no assets and no credit history.
What year was this? What year was this? 60S. I don't know the exact year. OK, but anyway, so then once the colleges saw that all these kids could borrow money to go to go to college. Well, they were like, this is great. I'm just going to raise prices. So all of a sudden, tuitions start to go up. I mean, for a long time, you can look back in the food in history.
College tuition used to be pretty stable. It didn't go up very much until the 60s until the government really got involved. And so as soon as these colleges saw that the kids had access to all this money, they started jacking up prices. And then, of course, the universities started competing. Who's got the best gymnasium? Who's got the best house? All kinds of other incentives. And then everything became bloated and they kept raising their prices. And then in order to get the votes of the students, the government kept raising the loan limits on how much loans they would guarantee.
So it became this self-perpetuating cycle where the more money the government guaranteed that the students can borrow, the more the colleges could charge intuition. And so tuition kept skyrocketing. And then as tuition goes up, it's like, oh, nobody can afford to go to college. We need more loans. So the loans themselves became the reason that people needed the loans because the loans were why college is so expensive. And so now you needed a loan to go to college, but without the loan, tuition would have come down.
You see, if there were no student loans at all. And right now, the government has actually taken over. They don't just guarantee student loans. They loan directly to the students. If there were no student loans at all, if the government just said no more student loans, all of a sudden the colleges would be, oh, my God, we need to cut costs. Otherwise, we'll have no customers. Nobody could afford to go without these loans.
And they would cut costs. They would start looking. They would they would streamline their business like everybody else. I mean, any business that could charge whatever the hell they wanted because the government could borrow the money. Right. If you had a restaurant where the government was going to guarantee to to pay the bill and everybody who dined there. I mean, shit, the restaurant could charge whatever it wanted. Oh. A hamburger is a thousand dollars.
The government's going to pay. Yeah. What do you care? You know, it's because people are paying with their own money that they've got to keep the cost down.
And this situation has been going on for so long that it's just now how they do business. Right. But now, see, college is now so expensive. Kids think they need government to afford it and they don't realize that the only reason it's so expensive is because of government that's there. Harry. Harry Brown cripple you and then give you a crutch. You're freaking me out. Peter College.
So expensive. You're freaking me out, man. Jesus Christ. He was an easy solution. OK. You know the loans. Get rid of the loans. You know, let let colleges lower their tuition. Well, then then might you go back to what my dad did? Look, work your way through college. No big deal.
We're in this crazy situation where a lot of kids are going to have to go back to school through Zoom, even Harvard. They're talking about having these Harvard kids do school online for forty thousand dollars a year. Wasn't that will you. Well, I know. Look, you know, at 40, it's more than 50. Jamie says, is one thousand dollars easier to do school on mine? That's hilarious.
Education at this point is a racket. I mean, most people will never recoup the costs of a college degree. I mean, the colleges are out there perpetuating this myth. Right. That, you know, going to college is your ticket to success. Then you have to go. And if you if you don't go, I think I mentioned in the video on your show, the podcast last time I was down on Bourbon Street in New Orleans and I was interviewing all the people there that were working that had college degrees.
But we're doing menial jobs, you know, like bartending bouncers in strip clubs, pedicab drivers. They all had college degrees. Some of them had two or three degrees. And they were doing stuff that, you know, you didn't need to go to college to do. And so the colleges perpetuate this myth. Look, with the Internet today and the access to online classes and self-help, you can educate yourself. You don't need to buy this over priced certificate that says that you graduated from some college to prove that you're competent.
I mean, it doesn't even prove anything now. In fact, the government did two things. They made a college degree, very expensive, and then they made it practically worthless because before the government started subsidizing college, fewer people are actually went because only the people that could really benefit from the degree went. And so then if you had a college degree, it actually meant something in the marketplace. Now, since everybody goes to school because of, you know, you get the money from the government, everybody's got a college degree, they mean nothing.
So now you've got to get a masters degree. You've got to get a P.H.. You're in school to you're in your 30s. This is ridiculous that we spend so much time. It benefits the bureaucracy. It doesn't benefit the kids, you know. So this bubble, this is a gigantic bubble in a higher education. It's a bubble in lower education, too. You know, I mean, some of America's wealthiest men, they did go to college, you know.
In fact, way back when they didn't even go to high school, they thought of these billionaires, you know, dropped out of grammar school. But today, with the Internet, it should be even easier for people than it ever was, because one of the things that the colleges had is they had the they had the libraries, but they had all the books. So if you wanted to get access to these books, you need to get into these libraries.
Well, it's all on the Internet now. They don't have a monopoly on anything, you know? And believe me, you see how much they charge for these books. It's crazy. It's such a good. Professors write these books and they and they force the kids to buy these books, paying one hundred dollars for a textbook. I mean, it's ridiculous. It is a racket. And it's all supported by government. And the problem is, if you come out against this educational racket, oh, you're a bad person, you're anti education.
I'm not a bad person. I care about the kids who are getting ripped off. We're getting indoctrinated, not educated. And we're being saddled with a mountain of debt. The government says the solution is free education. Right. Can I think if you think education is expensive now. Where do you see how much more it costs when it's free?
Do you think that the current state of colleges, when we think about colleges today, we think about social justice warriors, we think about these kids growing up in this weird future where they're going to graduate online.
D Do you think that? Like the extreme liberal socialists. Bend that you see in colleges, we'd be different if there was a free market. Do you think people would be more realistic in terms of all universities with free market based? Do you think people would be more realistic in terms of their expectations for other people in the future and not look towards the government is being this piggy bank that they could dig into and pull things out?
I think so. And I think one of the driving courses is a lot of these universities. They always want to hire professors, especially when it comes to economics or some of the political science. They want to hire people who have worked for government and they want to see some of their professors go to government and then come back. And the only economists that will get a government job are the Keynesian economists who want to pretend that government can actually help the economy.
I mean, there is no role in government for free market economists who says leave it alone, let the market function right. That guy is not going to get a government job. Right. The government wants to hire people that are going to justify more government spending because that's how they buy their votes. So you get these big government Keynesian economists who go between government and academia and they go back and forth. And so it perpetuates this cycle. But there are look, you can find some examples of universities that teach, you know, real economics, free market, Austrian economics.
But but but they're they're in the minority. Yeah, not that many. Is that a problem? I mean, when we think about educating kids, I mean is part yeah, it's really is a weird look.
It's a weird way of looking at it. Right. The idea that the government paying for everything, making everything more expensive is going to make more people that are dependent upon not competing and being a part of this weird system where you think you're owed things, right? Yeah.
I mean, well, look at AOC, right? I mean, she was an economics major, but looks like she's completely ignorant about basic economics. I mean, the thing is, she thinks she knows a lot. She doesn't know anything. She you know, like a lot of times when people learn economics in a university, they end up knowing less about economics after they graduate than before they enroll. They end up, you know, they lose their common sense.
And they and they and they get spoon fed a bunch of nonsense which they end up, you know, regurgitating throughout their careers.
You know, I think he will say, but a whole lot of damage. I think when you deal. I mean, she's 28, right? I think what she is is an idealist. I think she's a kind person who has this visionary perspective of how she wants the world to play out. And when when she says those things, I think she's saying those things from because she feels like she's a force of good.
I you know, I don't I doubt that. But I mean, she could do a lot of itr. She's just a great politician. Yes.
But I think that economics are complicated and I think most 28 year olds don't really understand it. I think it's really complicated. And I think we get idealistic in or are ideologically based in like your left wing. You think you think this way you're right wing. You think that way. And we get very rigid in how we look at things. But if you want to look at what you're saying in terms of competition, creates the best solution for everybody because the most effective and viable method is the one that rises to the top, and that's the one that people support with their money.
If they have total freedom. But if you have the government that steps in and dictates that you have to go this way or that way, or has got this cost this much or that much, then the government itself becomes a business. And the problem is it needs to verify or justify its own existence by creating more and more regulations, more and more problems, more and more impediments to freedom. Freedom of competition. Yeah, every time the government writes a regulation or passes a law, we're less free because those regulations and those laws are limiting our freedom because they're restricting our choices.
Right. To bring the two of us together, to bring everybody together. Don't you think that, like, maybe there's an opportunity where people can recognize like this doesn't mean you're a bad person. You just looking at the actual game and there's a lot of bullshit going on where people are pretending what's happening is different than what it is because they want to feel better about the results.
But I think most of the people on the left are not bad people. They are great. They're motivated by good intention, kindness. They just don't understand hash and a bad outcome. Yes. But, you know, and this is the interesting thing, because a lot of people of my persuasion. Right. We look at the left and we don't think they're bad people. We just think they're missing Porto Rican juice. The people the people on the left actually think people like me are bad and evil because we don't agree with their programs.
We must be mean people. We must be heartless people because we're against all the good that they want to do. Okay. But stop it. You know, they see if she has already.
The rational board because they don't have those thoughts. Right.
But, you know, that's a reductionists argument that doesn't really make any sense. But you'll entertain it even though, you know, it doesn't make any sense. Like the people that are really paying attention. No, that doesn't make any sense. It's not the authors. That you're a heartless person. You're not heartless at all. You're explaining what is actually going on in terms of like government subsidizing education. You're talking about competition in terms of the free market.
You're what? None of what you're saying, just from me to you, is in any way conveying a sense that you're a heartless person. But that is the narrative when people don't agree with what you're saying because they have in their head an ideologically based alternative to what you're saying.
Yeah. Look, I watched your interview that you did with Jon Stewart. Right. And, you know, and Jon said a lot of things that I agree with. I like a lot of the problems on Wall Street and the bailouts. All that's true. But again, what he didn't understand was that's not capitalism. That's wrong. That was an example of socialism that never should have happened. But then when you guys are talking about and you said yes, I mean, you'd be willing to pay more taxes if it would make the problems better.
Yes. The problem is paying more taxes is going to make the problems worse. We're paying a lot of taxes and the government is spending even more money. And that spending is the taxation government has never spent this much money and the problems have never been bigger. But hold on. It's anything but a Sozzi person got to solve them a long time ago. Yes, I agree with you, but couldn't.
Can I stop you for a second when I'm saying that I would pay more money if I thought it would fix it in taxes? I don't I'm not thinking of the government as its current entity that ruins everything I'm thinking of. If I could give more of my income to taxes and it would actually make a solution, I would be willing to do it. I'm not saying that it would work that way. I don't know if it would work that way.
I don't understand economics at all. And I understand the.
My God, Joe, when I say I've cut out. But why not cut out the middleman. Right. Because you think, hey, if I can give my money to government and maybe they do good with it. There is no example of government doing good with money because it's not their money. They don't give a damn. I don't disagree with you.
I don't disagree with you. What? What's stopping you? Joe Rogan. You from giving more money directly to causes that you think are worthwhile. You don't need them. Man. You don't have to cut into government on your charitable giving. You can do it yourself. That's one of the best things that you can do for people, is employ them, provide them with a job. Grow your business or government. Taxes your money. Hold them can invest in growing your business.
I have a fucking manageable business with a skeleton crew. And you're not going to fuck this up for me. All right. I'm not making more business. Settle down, buddy. But you could also, Joe, you can invest, let's say a friend of yours came to you, right? A good friend of yours and said, Hey, Joe, I got a great idea to start this business. He had a business plan. And here's what I'm going to do.
I say, good letter, like, hey, I'll invest in your business. And then all of a sudden the government takes that money in taxes. Oh, I can't afford to make that investment in your business because the government just took the money in taxes. Now, you can't start home as cleanly.
Understand what you're saying. When I was saying it and I don't disagree with you when I was saying it, I was saying if I could give more money and that money, if I didn't have to think about where to put it, if I knew that that money was going to be managed by ethical, knowledgeable wizards who know how to take care of the world's problems, that they just get five percent more taxes from people that are doing well. I'd be willing to do it.
It wasn't saying that I be. I think it's a good idea to give more money to these people that we elect that we don't even know. I mean, I don't know Gavin Newsom. I make fun of him all the time. I bet he's a nice guy. I don't know Mayor Carcetti. I bet he's a nice guy, too. It's a fucking impossible job. Look, I don't want his job. That that benevolent government doesn't exist on this planet.
Right. So, you know, there's no point. It's like saying you're willing to give money to government if they would use it wisely. Right. It's like no, it's like like socialism, my 10 year old, you know, more more money. I thought he would spend it wisely. I mean, they're not going to do that. And, you know, to the extent that you want government to have money, it should be local government closer to the actual source.
So Ussher's if you're going if you want government to have more money, it should be your local government, your your city, your county. Don't send it to Washington, D.C. You're in California. That's 3000 miles away. What the hell are they going to do about your community? They don't know what's going on. They're so far removed from the money they're spending, they can't think. It makes no sense to do this. This is a drilling wailin of money and such a waste of resources.
That's a good point. That's something that Hunter S. Thompson said in the 70s. When he's running for sheriff in Aspen, he said you can affect local community. But the people in Washington, they really don't affect your day to day existence.
It's a myth.
The more money that you send to Washington, the less money you can send to your local government. I mean, initially, the federal government didn't have any taxes. I mean. I mean. And so the taxes were local. OK, again, partnership. But now the government is the government takes everything. And now all the towns have to beg to get the money back. And now the government has all kinds of strings. The federal government says if you don't do this and you don't do that, we're not going to give you highway funds.
We're not going to give you student funds. So now the government is taking control. The federal government is taking control of all the states. Let's take the power away from the federal government and put it back in the states where it belongs. Buy don't buy you don't let the federal government take all that money out of the out of the local economy. And now you free up more resources for local governments that would do a much better job with the money than Washington, D.C..
So essentially, it's like we all we need some sort of rules to get along. But you're saying that we should agree upon those rules in the free market and not have some government entity, some group of people that's no different than our own selves, controlling us and telling us what we can and can't do is written on paper somewhere, because somewhere in the halls of justice, people agree that you should be able to control people in a certain fashion and acquire some percentage of their income.
And you'd use that money at your own discretion with no receipts whatsoever. So you're saying, yeah.
And here's you know, here's an important point, though, that I really want to get across in, you know, in this podcast, because, you know, we are headed, as I said, for massive economic crisis. I mean, what we've seen so far is nothing, right? What happened in 08? What's happened since Cauvin? This is a dress rehearsal for a much bigger show that's come in. That's gonna be much worse. It's going to inflict a lot more pain.
And I'm not happy that this is going to happen. If I could stop it, I would. I'm just like watching this train wreck in slow motion and I can't do anything about it. But I know what's going to happen. It's going to be blamed on capitalism right there. The politicians are going to say, you see what happens when you don't have enough government, when you don't have enough regulation, when you have too much greed. Right.
And the public is going to buy this nonsense just the way they bought it about the financial crisis. The reason that I was warning people for years about the housing bubble and the financial crisis. The reason I was able to write a book and lay it out exactly the way it happened. The reason I was doing all these lectures around the country warning people about the disaster that the Federal Reserve was creating was because I understood economics. I understood the mistakes that Greenspan was making.
And I knew the consequences that were in store for us. Well, the mistakes that have been made by by by Bernanke, by Yellen, by Powell dwarf the ones that were made up by by Greenspan. It's the same mistakes just on a much bigger scale. The country is in far worse shape now than it ever was at any point in the past. You know, structurally and with all the debt and this crisis is going to be a currency crisis where the dollar crashes.
We're gonna have massive inflation in a weak economy. They call that stagflation. What had happened the 1970s. The Keynesians didn't know what to do with it because it did. It violated all their rules of economics because they don't understand economics. Well, this is gonna be much worse. And I want to make sure that people understand where to put the blame. It's not capitalism. It's not freedom. It's government. And government is going to try to sell us on another bull of goods that the solution is to give government even more power, to give the Federal Reserve even more power when the only solution is to take away the power that they have.
But I also want to make sure and this is what I'm doing personally. I do two things right. I try to educate people so they understand the economy and so they know where who to blame for the problems. But I'm also trying to make sure to spare as many people as I can from suffering the financial consequences. Right. I said earlier in the podcast that. The government is financing these expenditures through inflation. Inflation is a tax. Right.
The government is making your purchasing power. We don't feel it that much now because foreigners are subsidizing us with holding our dollars in treasuries and other instruments. But when the dollar crashes and prices go through the roof, people are going to get wiped out by this inflation tax. A lot of people who are retired are going to see their life savings just evaporate. I mean, they'll still have their money. They just won't be able to buy anything with it.
And what I'm afraid, too, is that we're gonna get price controls because when the government starts to see prices really going up and the public complains just like Richard Nixon did. And although inflation was only four percent when Tricky Dick put on wage price controls. But I mean, it should be way higher than at this time. But they're going to create shortages. They're going to create black markets. There's gonna be blackouts, food shortages, order. There'll be riots.
You think the riots are bad now waiting to see how much worse they're going to get. You know, right now, people are getting, you know, hated by all these checks that the government is sending out. But when the checks balance because they don't buy anything, that's when you're really going to see this civil unrest. But I want to make sure that people do something right. That's what I do with my clients, that they get they get out of their dollars to escape this inflation tax.
I want as many Americans as possible not to go broke like you. I want to make sure that you just signed a big check with Spotify. I know you should have had a gold clause in that contract because, you know, it's over 10 years, five years from now, you're not going to get anywhere near the money you think you're going to get because that inflation is going to destroy its value. All right. So you got to do something.
A lot of people. Let me hold on a second. Hold on a second. Stop what you have done differently. And what can we do now? Like, what would you have done differently if you and Trump were homies? And he said, hey, Peter Schiff, I'm thinking about shutting this thing down. What do you think I should do? What would you have done differently that would have somehow or another preserved at least a modicum of our economy and what we don't do?
What would you advise they do going forward? But on done.
I don't want to preserve. I don't want to preserve the economy we had because it was a bullet would have in trying to preserve. That is a mistake.
Right. But what would you have done? First thing you know, this is seven. We need higher interest rates from the Federal Reserve, not lower interest rates. We don't need any more money printing and we need the government to cut spending. OK.
But it is. Come on. A disease is coming. Peter Schiff, we've got to shut down the world or we're gonna kill people. What do we do differently than what we did?
Well, first of all, I think we would have handled this. They are response to disease better if we actually realized the cost of what we were doing. I think that we've acted so cavalierly because we believe we're getting all this government for free. We believe it's OK for people to stay at home and watch Netflix and receive government checks. We don't understand the greater damage. See what we're doing now. This monetary policy, this fiscal policy is going to impose far more harm on average Americans than the corona virus ever could have.
So we have to get that that our cure is so much worse than the disease ever could have been. We got to. We got it. We've got to understand that concept. And we've got to understand the concept that we had a bubble. We need to let it deflate. That is the best thing you can do with a bubble. Don't try to blow more air into it, ok? OK, hold on it. Hold on. Hold on.
Let me take this from this alternative perspective. The problem with what you're saying is that people if the government didn't step in and ensure that some money went out so people could provide basic needs and necessities, people were going to die because they were going to have to go to what they were going to die. Well, that's what we were thinking. But, Peter, that's what we thought in March. We did think that. And now we're thinking, look.
Well, you know, they let. Hold on.
They saw. Take care of it. You don't need the federal. Well, did you think I mean, we you know, the march. Did you not think we're going to die? Do you think a certain percentage of people you knew were going to die? Well, I think there is always a certain percentage of people who get the flu die. Yeah. Obviously, the beginning was a little bit concerning. Guy, where were people who are 80 years old or higher who were dying from all sorts of things?
Now, that's about it. When we started dying, I mean, not that any of us live much further than 80. That's about life expectancy.
That's not necessarily true, though. I know I have a good friend that almost died. My friend Michael Yo, who's a comedian, has been on this podcast who's very healthy. He almost died from it.
But how does the Federal Reserve printing money save somebody's life? I'm not saying it does. What I'm saying is got it didn't happen. It just creates a new problem. Saying is when the pandemic occurred, we were all scared. So we have to if you're sitting here saying they should have done this in a way, at least it's an unfair version of Monday night quarterbacking because Monday morning quarterbacking, because we didn't really know what this disease was. In March, I was fucking scared of it.
I was really nervous. I've had nothing.
But I'm trying to do my point, Joe, is that our economy was such a disaster before. I understand that we were vulnerable to any anything that came out of left field. Any problem. So this was another financial crisis. It's like the 08 financial crisis. Why is this a financial crisis in 2008? The reason it was a financial crisis was because real estate prices went down because they were they were a bubble created by the Federal Reserve. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, moral hazard.
I wrote a book I lecture for years and years about the housing bubble and how the government nurtured it right on and and so on, because we had this housing bubble. Once real estate prices went down, people who borrowed money didn't pay back their loans. They no longer had any incentive to make the payments because their house was worth less than their mortgage. They just mailed in the keys. They called it jingle mail. Right. So now the banks were in trouble because the loans went bad.
And now Wall Street had packaged up these loans into pools of subprime securities. I made some money shorting those back in the day and some other people did, too, because we recognized what was going to happen. But the crisis started when people defaulted on their loans. Well, what's happening now? Way more people can't pay their loans than in 2008. It's not just people with mortgages they can't pay. Businesses can't pay their rent. Right. Companies can't repay their debt.
We have a corporate debt bubble in addition to a consumer debt bubble. We have record credit card debt, record auto loan debt, record student loan debt, record corporate debt, record government debt. Everybody is loaded up with debt and now nobody can pay. It's all a financial crisis. But again, the only reason that this economy is so screwed up is because government policy screwed it up. And the solution isn't to increase that policy. It's like I said earlier, if you have a drug addict, the solution is more drugs, bigger doses of drugs to try to keep the guy high, because eventually you can kill.
You could overdose. And that's where we are now. The amount of monetary stimulus that the Fed is now crammed into this economy is a monetary overdose. Can I die? Are going to kill the economy.
Peter, I know. I see where you're coming from when it comes to a 2008 loan crisis. That makes a lot of sense. But the difference between this and that is these people did make any poor decisions. They're just thrust into this crazy world where there's a disease that forces businesses just shut down. But this is my perception as a community of people. Shouldn't there be a way, at least the government does its best at organizing people to donate money that could go and help people that are in this situation?
Did you don't you think people know there's a there's a people would organize themselves? You'd think they would. It would be private charities. Nobody would starve. And nobody was starving in America before all these government anti-poverty programs when poverty was on the decline. Nobody was starving. Right.
But hold on, segment starving people in right now are in there in real peril there. They could lose their house. They could lose their car. They could lose their education. There's a lot of weird shit going on right now. That's through no fault of their own because businesses are shut down. This is why I disagree that it's the same sort of situation that happened in 2008 for sure. What you're saying makes sense in terms of economics, about the foundation of our economic country, that the way the economy was was fucked up already.
That makes sense.
But but the same thing happened in the Great Depression. It had people, through no fault of their own people were unemployed. This system is bailing out.
I mean, we had we during the Depression, Roosevelt initially got some relief. That was the first time we had welfare. They call that relief, right. It wasn't a lot of money. Right. There were no bailouts for businesses, really, you know, cash bailouts like we have now. Look, if the government stayed out of this, let the free market, let landlords and tenants work it out among themselves. I mean that the landlords know they can't evict because there's no other tenants.
You know, let let employers and employees let everything will work out and. Free market. Right. If you let people voluntarily interact, people aren't going to be kicked out on the street. People aren't going to be left hungry. The market is gonna be able to solve the problems. The government comes in and creates a whole new set of problems that are that are far worse. Right. Because the government doesn't have anything. All it does is print money.
Now, it doesn't create anything. It just prints. It just creates money out of thin air that doesn't have any real value. I understand why you're in the process of doing that. They destroy the value of the money that exists and they screw up the economy immeasurably. They make the economy less productive and less efficient. And so that means people are going to be poorer. Government makes me people poor. It's free market capitalism that makes them wealthier.
I understand what you're saying. But in this situation, isn't this really unique where no one can work, where we're in a situation where for months and months we have to stay locked down? A lot of businesses are not essential or labeled essential. Whoever gets to decide that. I mean, shouldn't that be something we vote on? What's essential and nonessential? I mean, that seems a little crazy.
Yeah, I do think that all that government telling people what businesses can and cannot open. Look, I disagree with a lot of these policies. And again, I believe that governments would have acted more responsibly if they didn't think they could put the cost on the Federal Reserve, which is what everybody is doing. Well, I think if each state had to shoulder the burden of its own policies, they would they would have a more rational approach to takeover 19 this size because everybody thought it was free and we had this huge moral hazard.
Yeah, this is what I asked. Now, again, we created this situation. Look, you've got all these school teachers. They don't want to go back to work. They want to get paid not to work. We've now created a situation where so many people all are going to go to work. Oh, I don't want to risk getting covered. Just send my paycheck to my house. I just feel lousy. Let me. This is ridiculous.
But I just single out school teachers wages, high school.
I guess I was just, you know, there that the unions are you know, they're out there saying. But it's not just school teachers. Right. There's a lot of people who want to say, I don't want to work because I don't want to get covered. And so, you know, but meanwhile, people take a lot of risk. I mean, maybe someone who doesn't want to go Cauvin, they go out. Mountain biking, you know, where they'd go skydiving or who knows what they smoke cigarettes.
You know, they do all sorts of things that that risk their health. But now all of a sudden, I'm going to I'm not going to I'm I really want to go if I have to wear a mask, I just want to stay home because we're we're we're giving people an easy way out of going to a job that they'd rather not go to. I mean, I don't blame people for not liking their jobs. You know, I don't blame people for enjoying leisure.
But, you know, we can't set this situation up. But what makes everybody think it's possible is because we don't think there's a cost to all this printing money. It's all this like modern monetary theory nonsense that we can just print money. We can have whatever we want as long as the Federal Reserve prints the money to pay for it. I see. This is a disaster. His way of thinking.
I see I see exactly what you're saying. And I think it's interesting because I don't think it's either or. I think there's definitely a lot of people that are going to just never go back to work again if they get that money, if they get free money.
That's why they're there. In fact, there was some Peter.
I also think it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if you could figure out a way to get food to people and make sure they don't starve to death. I see.
Like and food marketing knew that the free market has now thanks to the free market. The government has screwed up agriculture. But here's you know, the department never really actually went a farmers go.
We pay farmers not to farm. You don't pay farmers not to grow food to diminish the supply of food. You do realize that we do that.
I have heard, you know, that Corn says it goes in the goal of the Department of Agriculture is to keep food prices high. That is the stated goal. Right. What they want to do is restrict farming so that less stuff is farmed so that food prices are higher. That is what the government is actively doing. They are pursuing a policy to make food more expensive than it otherwise would be, but would make a bundle almost like what kind of asinine policy is that?
What's there when when they describe it? How do they describe when the state, their business model? How do they say it? That's all they say or their version of it. That's right.
They're saying that they want to protect the farmer. They want to keep farmers efficient or because they could have bad weather or bad crops or they just want to make they want to keep getting GMO income.
Do you know where the subsidy. That's nonsense. Do you know where these subsidies came from? Again, they start. Let's start with the New Deal. Right. But it came from World War Two when they needed food, when they need to supply the troops. They needed money for food. There's a lot of a lot of what happened with farm subsidies. They won. They've recognized that we could get into a situation where we don't have enough food, especially if farmers go under.
So they decided to subsidize farms. That's sort of what I mean. I'm not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, but I've read a piece on it once. And the way they were describing it was like people like to look at subsidizing farms as being this like, frivolous thing or thing that doesn't really benefit the people. But the idea came about because they were worried about one day having a food shortage. And this can happen post-World War to you where that's nonsense.
Right. That the government wants you to believe. Look, you could go back. You know, we subsidize tobacco, right? The government gives subsidies to tobacco farmers. And and actually, if you go back when they you know, they talked about it initially, they say, hey, why are we subsidizing tobacco farmers? Because, you know, don't we? Why do we want to make it easier for people to smoke? And they actually agreed that the subsidies are restricting the production of tobacco and making tobacco more expensive.
And so by subsidizing tobacco farmers, we'll actually have fewer smokers because we're making the cost of tobacco higher. That's got that done. Tough guy comes in but makes the price of food higher. That's their goal. That's to make food more expensive. I mean, that's just how the kilsby heartless is that. That's tobacco. You're talking about industry that knows from the jobs with subsidy.
But but tobacco is different, man. They know they're killing.
Know this the same. I'm sitting here saying we shouldn't subsidize tobacco farmers, but they said we're doing it because it makes tobacco more expensive. Well, it's the same subsidy for wheat farmers, but it wasn't originated. The goal is to make a price higher.
Yes. But that's not that wasn't the initial goal. The initial goal they had towards it, Blake, was say that they're never honest.
The government is never honest about what it's doing. But don't you think it's aligning with the voices of farmers? The farmers want higher prices.
I understand. But don't you think that post-World War Two, they were seriously concerned about having food supplies so they could feed soldiers and feed people in that country if the shit hit the fan?
You think it was really we had food? You know, Joe, what of the things they did during the Great Depression was they destroyed food. So that one of the big programs of what I'm saying is, is a strong end because we had too much of it. So it's just propaganda. What I'm saying is just guess I got a hold. They hit me. They hit me with their propaganda. I'm reciting it.
It's all there. People always want something from government. Look. People who are selling a product want high prices. Right. Consumers, we want low prices. But if you're selling something, you want high prices. But competition brings prices down. So what you do is you enlist government to help you. And government helps you get higher prices than you can get in a free market. Right. So government private companies have an incentive to get the support of politicians so they can make more money than they could in a free market.
The problem is we need to take away the power of the government to grant those special privileges to any business. There should be no subsidies for businesses. You know, corporate welfare does as much damage, maybe more than welfare for individuals. Right. All of this has to go and we need a vibrant free market economy. And hopefully, when this whole thing collapses and it's going to collapse and we have hyper inflation or very high inflation and we wipe out the savings of the vast majority of Americans and we go through a really, really hard, deep economic time period.
If we could do a reboot, if we can resist the temptation to fully embrace socialism and go all in on the Ilic ideology that destroyed us, if we can go back to free market capitalism, we have a bright future. I mean, you know, with the tools that we have today, if we can have 19th century capitalism with 21st century technology, I mean, it's amazing what we can achieve. You know, I watched your interview with Andrew Yang, you know, who's afraid of technology destroying jobs.
Look, the technology is going to liberate labor. It's going to make much richer. They've people have been advancing. And the Yangs analogy, probably ever since the wheel was discovered, there's always some politician that says, oh, this new technology of advancement is going to put somebody out of work. Yes, we want to save labor. We want to free up labor to do something else because labor is scarce. And if we can free it up from a mundane activity, that labor can do something else.
And now we can have more. We get more staff. We can have a higher standard of living. So all that is possible. But I want to make sure that there are people who don't go broke. That's why I'm telling people, you know, get out of your dollars buying gold. I've been telling people on your podcast, you know, gold is now over 18 hundred dollars an ounce. I think when I started coming on, you know, it was closer to a thousand.
But I think it's gone to five thousand. Ten thousand. Twenty thousand. I mean, and it's not really gold going up limits these dollar going down. This dollar is going to lose its value.
This is how this is where people are at today. One of the. Concerns with the way our country is going is there's a lot of people that are just they're leaning towards what they feel is the right way to go. We're all their peers agree is the right way to go. And it's going to lead to a better future. But a lot of the people making these decisions don't have a lot of life experience. You've got a tremendous amount of momentum for 18, 19, 20 year old people.
And when they are something like free market, free market capitalism is going to fix the world. One of the things that bothers them the most is that they associate free market capitalism with greed, with greed and money over people. And this is what the problem is, the way they promoted themselves. That doesn't like you.
I agree. Someone say I'm a libertarian. A lot. I thought, absolutely. I'm doing a better job of selling their ideology. Yes. Than the capitalists. And capitalism is getting blamed for a lot of the problems that socialism is is creating. But, you know, when when people are saying, again, it's somebody is greedy, we're all greedy in the sense that we all want the best for ourselves and our families. We all want to go out and make money so that we can have a better life and buy more things that we feel will make us happy.
Right. Yes. And so but what again, what people have to understand is capitalism, chattels, that greed in a very positive way, because in order for somebody to enrich themselves in a free market, they need the voluntary cooperation of other people. They need to be able to to provide goods and services that are better, lower cost, higher quality than somebody else. And they have to provide employment opportunities. They have to provide people with better jobs than somebody else because they usually you can't have a company unless you can get people to work for you.
Peter, some rather you have to have good jobs and good product. Peter, I agree with everything. You're smart and the worker.
I agree with everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is that in the general public's view, when you say free market capitalism, they equate mean when you see socialism. Yes. Equate kind. This is the problem. There's a problem. It's not even nearly as much as philosophy or fact or history of like when you're talking about the free market, but rather the way the public perceives it when they think of socialism, they think is good and healthy and warm and loving and inclusive.
And they think that's the future.
Like, I don't know what socialism is, understand that socialism is just legalized theft or whatever. Socialism is good on tomorrow. And if it says nothing benevolent or caring about theft.
Yes. I don't care if the thief is well-intentioned. Right. It's immoral. Capitalism is moral. It's honest. And it's what lifts people out of poverty. You know, the world is history is littered with examples of socialists that have impoverished people. And, you know, there's various forms of socialism. There's communism. There's fascism. Right. Millions and millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of this failed ideology. And every country that has embraced it, it is impoverished.
Everybody, right. They don't share the wealth. They destroy the wealth. They make everybody equal by impoverishing everybody. But, Peter, what is this racket? Rich people under socialism are the people with political connection. Why do you suppose practive?
Why is it so attractive? Why do so many kids. Why are so many young, progressive, ideologically left wing kids attracted to the idea of socialism? Why is it so attractive? So I do. Why is capitalism.
So why did it so many? And why does so many five year olds believe in Santa Claus? No, I mean, because you think it's a nice idea. Some guy comes in down the chimney and gives you a bunch and presence. Right.
But you're agreeing you lie to them when you tell them about Santa Claus. That's a willful lie. Well, you don't have to tell them.
They figure it out. I mean, if they stole, the kid is old enough. So this is this is what happens with socialism row.
You when you lie about, say, when you're a young guy, you are a young woman and you don't have any real life experience. You haven't worked. You haven't had a business. Young out in the real world, you live with your parents, you go to school. And socialism sounds good. I mean, in theory, it sounds great, but you don't have any real life experience. By the time you're older and you've been in the real world and you've paid taxes and you've seen the consequences, you start to understand more.
And then you you give up your childish beliefs. The problem with a lot of these older socialists like Sanders, it's like a kid that never grows up. It's like somebody who's 70 and still believes in Santa Claus. Like they never figured it out. Right. So that's. Sanders never figured out that there's no Santa Claus. He thinks so. Santa Claus. And it's the US government. And we can get all this stuff for free if if we're just nice.
I would love to do it together. I would love to lock you two together in a room and film it for like six hours. Just.
I would debate I would debate any socialist. And you can get. On your show, I'm sure you love to do it. Listen, Peter. We just bang through three hours, if you can believe it or not. No, I. You know, we can keep going for another three because there's so much stuff that we could actually talk about. No, I think. But I just want to say this before we wrap up. I think you provide some very honest and brave insight.
You you buck the trend of sugar coating things. And the way you describe your version of free market capitalism is very honest, and it doesn't seem mean. I think this is what's important about it. Like there's a lot of people that think that they have this thought in their head. This was trying to get across that. If you say capitalism of you say someone who's ambitious, you equate that and success to mean and this is a part of the problem with the marketing strategy that's been employed by capitalism.
It's not a real strategy, but version of socialism. Socialism is really a trend, even though has what you were saying before, it has all these deaths connected to it and no success. It's got this really a like maybe if we just try one more time. This is really attractive. It's something that's inside of people that are compassionate to like. Maybe we can try one more time and get it right. Yeah.
And it's not my version of capitalism. That's capitalism. What we have now is not capitalism.
But I'm saying your generation, I mean, the way you describe it in people who are mean. Right. Actual mean people don't succeed in business. They piss off their customers. They piss off their workers, they lose their customers. Our employees quit and they get better jobs from people who treat them fairly. Customers go where they get a good deal. Right. And so I want to put my faith in individuals and the free market, not a bunch of bureaucrats.
Right. These guys are out for themselves. Don't don't think they're there to be public servants. They're there to enrich themselves. That's who you have to be suspicious of. That's where greed is damaging. When you have when you when you when you take greed and combine it with political power, that's what it's a problem in a free market. It just helps me. It's government that hurts me. But look, I want to point out, I talk about this.
I got my own podcast. Not nearly as popular as yours are. But, you know, I would certainly welcome the people that listen to Rogen. They go to listen to the Peter Schiff show. I do a couple of podcasts. You can listen to him on shift radio. You can listen to him on YouTube type people. Do you have an Instagram?
Instagram. What's your Instagram? Yeah, you know, I just started Instagram crazy enough. My wife was like, you got to go on Instagram. How many people? I'm on it right now. Well, I only have, you know, a few thousand followers. I just started it can do. I've got I've got about two hundred and fifty thousand Twitter followers. You know, they still haven't verified my account. You know, whatever it is, I can't get verified.
I got the exact million followers. I'll tell you exactly. Yes. The Occupy Wall Street videos. That's what it was. They fucked you over. Those occupy.
You sat on my YouTube channel. I've got about three hundred fifty thousand subscribers on my YouTube channel. So I've been talking mostly economics. I do a little politics. I touch on some of the social issues. I talk a lot about the markets. And again, I think it's important. I mean, I have an asset management business. I'm trying to get people to get out of U.S. stocks I think are overpriced out of U.S. bonds. I think we're headed for a major crash.
And unlike the crash we had in 2008 and 2000, the Fed is not the bill to bail you out with a printing press. It's not going to be the third time. The charm is going to be three strikes. You're out. So you got to get your money out of U.S. markets. I'm in. I'm investing money around the world in countries that I think are relatively free. They have less regulation, lower taxes, more economic freedom. Their markets are not overpriced.
Their currencies are going to retain their value. We're buying gold. We're buying gold stocks. I'm doing everything I can to preserve as much wealth as I can for Americans. Yes. So no injuries should offer. Can we bring that money back and help to rebuild this country? You're an animal. Listen.
How many people do you have an Instagram? I want to see how many we can bump you up to what you have right now.
As I said, I just started it this week. But what is it? What's the number? I'm going to start putting. It's my Peter Schiff is my hand now.
I don't know how many you have because I want to say how many thousand you look at it. I just 3000. Jamie, what does he have? Yeah. Thirty five. Yeah. Jamie, let's go. He's going to find out. I'm going to wait to see. We can. Yeah.
You can get my Twitter up to a million or my YouTube channel. I mean, you know, listen, we the people will go everywhere. Peter Schiff, listen, I appreciate you. I appreciate your honesty and your perspective. And it's always a good time. Talk to me. And I appreciate you sharing your information with us, because from a real experience perspective of someone who really understands what you're talking about. I really appreciate it.
One thing I want to mention about that, Occupy Wall Street, I did that Occupy Wall Street and I got two and a half million views on it now on my channel. And it had millions and millions of views before I posted it. I posted it a couple of years ago, right before I went on your show, just so I can point people to it. But even though I did that, like in 2009, every single day, I don't think I'd miss a day.
I get an email from somebody, some young person from somewhere in the world. It's all over the world to say that that video, that two hour video of me addressing the occupiers, that that is what changed them and put them on the direction of going from socialist to free market, that after they heard me talk, they did some more research, they educated, they did a complete 180, and they went from being total government socialist to being complete free market capitalist because they saw that video.
And that's why I went down is a CODI Park. I didn't think that I would necessarily change the minds of the occupiers, but I knew that the video that reason was doing would would would change more people might. So the more people who see that, you know, who look at that interaction and share it with your friends and people who, you know, who look at me, listen to my podcast or look at my tweets and share them, and we got to spread the truth because there's so many people spreading lies.
There's only me and a few other people spreading the truth. So we need help. We need the public to help disseminate the information that I'm putting out there. And I don't charge anybody for this information. And everything is I don't you know, I don't make any money off the podcast. I'm trying to get it out. But, yes, sometimes I get clients, people become clients of mine that I make some money. But the vast majority of people who are listening to my content there, they don't have enough money to fund an account with me.
But what? But I'm influencing them in the way they think and I'm helping them influence others. Right. Do you think that they tune out all the knots?
Peter Schiff, thank you. Peter Schiff.
Thanks, Joe. All right. Hard. Thanks for having me on. Thanks, buddy. Thank you, friends, for tuning into the show. And thank you to Stamps.com, you can send anywhere, anytime, 24/7. All around the globe, you can get the amazing services of the U.S. Postal Service right on your computer in the safety and comfort of your own home. And you can get a hook up right now.
Stamps dot com is going to give you a four week trial. Plus, free postage and a digital scale without any long term commitments. Just go to Stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the home page and type in JRD that stamps.com and enter j. R. E. And stay safe.
Friends were also brought to you by the motherfucking cash app. Download the cash app from the App Store or the Google Play store today. And when you do download it, please use the referral code. Joe Rogan. All one word you will receive ten dollars and the cash apple send ten dollars to our good friend Justin Ren's fight for the forgotten charity building wells for the Pygmies in the Congo. We're also brought to you by Trager Grilles, my favorite way to cook super simple, super easy available online or in 10000 plus stores nationwide.
It's the best way to cook. Go to Trager grills dot com slash Joe. That's t or a e g e r g. R i. L l.
S Trager grills dot com slash Joe and get my absolute favorite way to cook. And we're also brought to you by on a total human optimization company and the on its six body weight at Home program. Available now on your PlayStation four. Download the little star app on your PlayStation four today and work it out for home.
Listen, this is a great program. John Wolff is a beast. There's no need for any fitness contraptions to use this program. You don't have to purchase any more equipment. You just use your body and stream the program from your PlayStation four through the little star app to the Today on it six bodyweight at home program. Get on it. PlayStation four start today and you could be looking and feeling your best. In just six short weeks. Oh, all right.
Thank you for tuning into the show. Thank you to Peter Schiff.
Thank you. To the universe. Goodbye.