← Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
10/27/25: Billionaire Says He Feels Soybean Pain, Rancher Unloads On Trump, Food Stamps To End, Candace Says Musk Is Not Human
01:15:41
Loading summary
Transcript314 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an iHeart podcast.
- [00:05]
B
I turned off news altogether.
- [00:08]
C
I hate to say it, but I.
- [00:09]
A
Don'T trust much of anything.
- [00:12]
C
It's the rage bait.
- [00:15]
B
It feels like it's trying to divide people.
- [00:19]
A
We got clear facts. Maybe we can calm down a little.
- [00:25]
C
NBC News brings you clear reporting. Let's meet at the facts. Let's move forward from there. NBC News reporting for America.
- [00:37]
B
If you're waiting for your AI to.
- [00:39]
A
Turn into ROI.
- [00:43]
C
And wondering how long.
- [00:44]
B
You have to wait, maybe you need.
- [00:47]
A
To do more than wait.
- [00:51]
B
Any business can use AI. IBM helps you use AI to change how you do business. Let's create smarter business. IBM.
- [01:05]
C
Make their holiday unforgettable with a gift that says it all from Pandora Jewelry. A gift that tells a story and.
- [01:14]
B
Shows you know, theirs that doesn't just sparkle, but speaks. From new festive charms to forever rings and personal engravings, this season give a gift that's perfectly theirs.
- [01:26]
C
Whether you're shopping for a shiny surprise for your significant other, matching bracelets to celebrate your friendship or or a heartfelt gift for a family member, say more this holiday season with Pandora. Shop now@pandora.net or visit your closest Pandora store.
- [01:40]
A
Hey, guys, Sagar and Krystal here.
- [01:42]
B
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.
- [01:49]
A
This is the only place where you.
- [01:50]
C
Can find honest perspectives from the left.
- [01:52]
A
And the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
- [01:55]
B
So if that is something that's important to you, Please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows unedited ad, free and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
- [02:06]
A
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you@breakingpoints.com.
- [02:14]
B
Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday. Welcome to Breaking Points. Emily, great to see you.
- [02:18]
A
It's great to be here. Happy Monday, everyone. We have a big show. The New York City mayoral election is coming up and we have some pictures, video from a giant rally that happened last night actually on the like year anniversary of Trump's Madison Square Garden rally.
- [02:32]
B
I didn't know that.
- [02:33]
A
I think today is the anniversary of the Madison Square Garden rally and of.
- [02:35]
B
Course what that means.
- [02:36]
A
I think Zoran did that on purpose.
- [02:38]
B
What the astrology of that means. Yeah, there's a bunch of news in the show. So we've got potential trade deal with China we're gonna get to. We've got trade tensions with Canada over some Ronald Reagan ad. I have a lot of thoughts about that one. We're tracking the government shutdown troops on the verge of not getting paid. A weird anonymous donor who we just learned who they are, came in to pay like a small portion. Anyway, weird stuff going on there. Candace Owens apparently thinks Peter Thiel is not human. And Elon Musk and Sam Altman I think were the three that she name checked in particular.
- [03:07]
A
So, so that may, that may weigh on your mind as you determine whether Brigitte Macron is or is not a woman. Because Candace batting, I don't know, maybe 500 on some of these, some of these diagnoses.
- [03:21]
B
Yeah, I guess I'm becoming more persuaded of Candace on a variety of things with this new take. So anyway, lot that's going on there, Binance CEO pardoned in a corrupt deal, the aforementioned Zoran rally, plus him being attacked aggressively by any number of corners from Democrats and Republicans for his Muslim faith. And Karine Jean Pierre is out with a new book and it is really something. And the Washington Post review of it, scathing. Did you read this whole thing?
- [03:49]
A
Oh my gosh.
- [03:50]
B
I sort of want to read all. It's a little too long to just read the whole thing out. But whoever wrote this is not a person I was like really familiar with. She did a phenomenal job just taking apart not just Karine Jean Pierre, but this particular style of like self congratulatory decorum liberalism.
- [04:08]
A
Yeah. The review is about so much more than kjp. It's about this era in our politics. And reading the review and we'll get into this, of course, is sort of like a window into the last decade and you can kind of feel like this is an era that is over, like a chapter that's over. So it's actually a good block to do after the Zoran block maybe.
- [04:25]
B
Yeah. Oh yeah, that's a good point. Good point. That works well. So we've got a lot in the show. We're going to try to get to all of it, especially, especially because Emily really wants to talk about the KJP piece. So we're going to try to keep these blocks from meandering too long. You know, us ladies like to say.
- [04:40]
A
Odds are low and we'll have only ourselves to blame.
- [04:44]
B
Yes, indeed. All right, so let's go ahead and get to this potential Chinese trade deal. Our negotiators have been talking to their negotiators. Scott Basson is saying that it's looking good. Trump is supposed to meet with Xi later this week and so he was making the rounds of the Sunday shows. He got asked specifically about soybeans because this has been a huge sore spot. That's the words I'm looking for, sore spot for American farmers. Major problem. The Argentina thing ties into that as well. And so in any case, he gets asked about this and reveals something I was not aware of, which is he too, is actually a soybean farmer. Let's take a listen.
- [05:21]
A
China has been boycotting American soybeans and American farmers have really suffered. Do you see a real light at the end of the tunnel there? They may allow soybeans again.
- [05:35]
C
Well, Martha, in case you don't know it, I'm actually a soybean farmer, so I have felt this pain, too. And there are a couple of things happening here. One, the Chinese have substantially dropped their purchases to almost zero. So they unfortunately have been using American farmers who are amongst President Trump's biggest supporters. I think he had more than 90% support. And then this was one of the biggest crops in 20 or 30 years. So it was a perfect storm. But I think we have addressed the farmers concerns, and I'm not going to get ahead of the President, but I believe when the announcement of the deal with China is made public, that our soybean farmers will feel very good about what's going on.
- [06:25]
B
So never fear, American farmers. Treasury Secretary billionaire Scott Besant is a bit of a soybean farmer himself and is feeling the pain here, too.
- [06:33]
A
Is he worth a billionaire? Is he like 500 million?
- [06:37]
B
I thought he was a billionaire, but maybe I'll double check. Exorbitantly wealthy, mere multi hundred millionaire, potentially.
- [06:44]
A
Right. And so actually, what's kind of interesting about that clip is, first of all, this is why people should divest their financial interests so that you aren't, quote, feeling the pain, because that obviously creates different interests that could be influencing the way you do policy. I'm actually not saying that's the case in Scott Besant's position here, although the Argentinian beef saga which we're going to get into seems like the Argentinian soybean situation had a little bit to do with maybe Scott Besson's interest. As Ryan and I covered, we interviewed an Argentinian journalist about all of that. But the other thing is a lot of these, like, quote, soybean farmers are just exorbitantly, also exorbitantly wealthy, big ag people. And so that's another important part of this, and I suspect we'll get to it with our guests as well.
- [07:31]
B
Yeah, that's a great point. Let's go and put a 2 up on the screen. Just we don't know a lot about this potential deal. I mean, it's not even been inked yet. But they're describing this as a positive framework which has been agreed to prior to this Trump Xi summit. Some of the pieces obviously that are being watched with close interest are the soybean piece, some sort of agreement with regard to fentanyl or the fentanyl precursors that come from China. And then in addition, the rare earth export controls which China had been threatening, which could just completely tank our entire economy, which is just one giant bet on AI. So, so the rare earth mineral situation, very critical. I think some of the leverage that was applied there from China is probably part of what is helping to potentially bring this deal together at this point.
- [08:22]
A
Yeah. And I mean the importance of China to the soybean market, you can't possibly understate it. It's so crucial and significant. And so Trump is also in Japan today. He already touched on in Japan and he'll be going to South Korea. He's already trying to meet with Kim Jong Un, which has nothing to do with soybeans, of course, but this entire swing is shore up deals that since Liberation Day on. That was April 2nd. April 1st, April 2nd. They didn't want to do it on April Fool's Day. This is how many months? Six months. And here's the, here's the tour. Try to shore up some of these deals and get specifics down and make it work for Americans.
- [09:01]
B
Yeah, indeed. And at the same time, there's a new blow up with regard to Canada. I mean, this is just like typical Trumpian, the dumbest thing possible. The whole, the whole thing is extremely annoying to me. So Ontario launched this ad buy that featured snippets from a Ronald Reagan speech where he's talking about how tariffs are bad. Right. Reagan being the neoliberal, the trickle down economics guy, whatever, not my economic cup of tea. And part of why me and Sager and I think you and Brian have been pissed off at the incredibly stupid way that Trump has gone about doing tariffs because it has created this reaction of just like the tariffs in general must be bad. And it's like, well, no, they're a tool that can be used with industrial policy that can be effective. But anyway, you get from Canada this Ronald Reagan speech ad where he's talking about tariffs and this apparently deeply upset President Trump. So let's take a listen first to.
- [10:02]
C
The ad when someone says let's impose tariffs on foreign imports it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while, it works, but only for a short time. But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens. Markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs. Throughout the world, there's a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. America's jobs and growth are at stake.
- [10:58]
B
This was very upsetting to Trump. You can put a four up on the screen. And we should say too, by the way, I mean, what Reagan is articulating there was like the standard free trade orthodoxy that reigned in this town up until quite recently and really starts to break under Trump. Biden moves in that direction as well. And then we've had Trump 2.0 where they've just done all kinds of wild things. But in any case, Trump on Truth Social says the Ronald Reagan foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is fake, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about tariffs. The ad was for $75 million. They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. supreme Court and other courts. Tariffs are very important to the national security and economy of the usa. Based on their egregious behavior, all trade negotiations with Canada are hereby terminated. Thank you for your attention to this matter, President DJT and Emily. He went on from there to announce that they were going to levy an additional, across the board, 10% tariff on all Canadian goods.
- [11:56]
A
And he said he doesn't think he's going to be meeting with Mark Carney again anytime soon. Now, Reagan is such an interesting case study because Reagan was criticized relentlessly by the hyper neoliberals at the time for putting tariffs, very protectionist tariffs on Japan. And so Reagan is the worst possible case study for the Doug Fords of the world. He's in charge of Ontario, the great Rob Ford's brother, to embrace because again, there's a lot of daylight between Trump's tariff policy and Reagan's tariff policy. But the particular example of Canada actually is instructive because the rebalancing of the trade relationship with Canada is something that almost everyone, except for the most, like, libertarian minded person would tell you was completely necessary. And so for Canada to deploy Reagan in that way is just, it's like insulting on a million different levels. But it's especially stupid when you Think about what the relationship with, what the US Trade relationship with Canada looked like. What do they want? They want just like completely. They want what they were used to. Like what you were saying.
- [13:05]
B
Well, and Rob Ford is an interesting character because he's a very kind of like Trumpian figure. Doug Ford, Doug Ford, sorry, Rob is the brother.
- [13:12]
A
They look exactly like him.
- [13:13]
B
They look a similar character. I mean Rob was Wilder for sure, but Doug Ford is a Trumpian type of character. Very bombastic, very nationalist in his way. And so it's also worth remembering like this actually wasn't Mark Carney. You know, this wasn't the whole of Canada, right. This is this one province that decided to spend this, this money. And by the way, again, the idea is this for, for this to play in American markets, which is what Trump off. But then you know, you have Trump using like the powers of a king to just like he's pissed off. So separate and apart from any economic pretext even. He's just like, I don't like your ad. So now the entire country is going to be tariff 10% which those costs, guess what, guess who pays those? Consumers and disproportionately working class consumers in the US who will now bear the cost of Trump just being like annoyed over this stupid Ronald Reagan ad. Scott Bessant was of course asked about this on the Sunday shows as well and didn't have a lot of answers about. Okay, well what are we talking about? Is a 10% truly across the board, are there going to be any exceptions, etc. Let's go ahead and take a listen to what he had to say. Why is the President setting trade policy based on a television ad he doesn't like?
- [14:29]
C
Well, Kristen, let's, let's think about this. This is a kind of propaganda against US Citizens. You know, it's, it's psyops. Why, why would the government of Ontario, I'm told that they've spent the half spent or were planning to spend up to $75 million on these ads to come across the US border. So what, what was the purpose of that other than to sway public opinion? And you know, it's some kind of propaganda that the Premier of Ontario unilaterally launched.
- [15:03]
B
Will the 10% tariffs apply to all Canadian goods?
- [15:06]
A
Mr. Secretary.
- [15:09]
C
Kristen, I've been traveling since this unfortunate event happened.
- [15:14]
A
I know that the ad has been.
- [15:15]
C
Taken down, so you know, we'll have to see.
- [15:18]
B
Does the President know if the tariffs.
- [15:20]
A
Will apply to 10% tariffs will apply to all Canadian goods?
- [15:24]
B
Has he made a Determination about that.
- [15:27]
C
Well, well, I, I'm sure he, I'm sure he knows and I'm sure the Ambassador Greer knows.
- [15:36]
B
I'm sure he knows, but I, I don't really know, so can't answer your question.
- [15:39]
A
That says it all. That says it all. I'm sure he knows and, but I'm.
- [15:44]
B
Not sure that he is sure that he knows. You know, like, he's probably, well, maybe not, but he's probably didn't really think it through. He was just like, yeah, 10%, I'm pissed off. And like, that's as much as the, that's as much of the thinking as goes into this.
- [15:56]
A
I mean, the billions of dollars that are on the line with these whims is truly, I mean, you use the word king, but like, that's why tariffs are supposed to go through Congress for the most part, or they were originally supposed to go through Congress for the most part because there's just, I mean, your entire. This is, this is planning of the economy. And obviously there's more to the economy than tariffs. But in a lot of cases, some of the downstream stuff that we talk about, taxes and the like, actually are coming. Like, the tariffs are the first part of this. It's like, how much business can you do in the United States? What kind of business can you do at what cost in the United States? So other stuff, when it comes to economic planning, in many cases a downstream of tariffs. And so you have the, you have the executive on a whim. The ad is the best example of this because we know that it's happened before. Like, even with Doug Ford, there's been back and forth with Trump and sort of these, these capricious tariffs. But that's Trump's point, is that, and I think for the first month, like post April 2nd, whatever it was, this uncertainty that Trump was using as his leverage kind of made sense because people were like, whoa, we have no idea what's coming. They were forced to the table. But the longer the uncertainty goes on, people don't have to necessarily come to the table because they say it's not a good bet. I'm betting on what I don't know. And Trump never made it clear what he's actually looking for in particular from these other countries. So, yeah, it's either one side of the spectrum or the other. Like Canada either wants their fantasy of Reagan era free trade or they want some certainty from Trump as to what he's looking for on that.
- [17:36]
B
Good luck with that.
- [17:37]
A
That's why you end up betting Treasury.
- [17:38]
B
Secretary doesn't have that. Yeah, right.
- [17:40]
A
Which is where people end up betting in the other direction because you don't have the certainty.
- [17:43]
B
Yeah. Well, Bessant and his hedge fund buddies should be happy with the results in Argentina last night. I don't know if you track big win. Malay's party secured, I think, 40% of the vote, pretty easy win. So, and I mean, basically what happened here is Malay's party suffered some losses in local elections and it looked like the public was turning against. You know, I hesitate to call it libertarian at this point when you're getting bailouts from all kinds of, including our own country around the world, but, you know, it was looking like the Argentinean Republic was turning on this project. And then the Trump administration comes in and says basically like, okay, we're gonna bail you out, but if you don't vote the way that we want you to, we're gonna screw you over. I mean, there was an overt threat that was made and it appears that the public responded to that. So Milei's party performed well. Obviously this ties into the soybean market is one piece. And the other piece of this that we've been covering as well is the cattle ranching industry, the beef industry. Beef prices in this country have been extreme, rising. You would think that cattle ranchers who have been struggling and screwed in a lot of ways that we've also been covering over the years, you would think that would be a good thing. You know, for them, maybe they're getting more on their end. But because of monopoly and consolidation, that has really not come together for cattle ranchers here in the US Then Trump came in and said that to depress the prices, to further screw the ranchers here, he's going to buy beef from Argentina. So to talk about all of these things, we actually have a rancher who also is a journalist who covers the industry extensively. Mike Calicrate is going to join us. Now. I turned off news altogether.
- [19:29]
C
I hate to say it, but I.
- [19:30]
A
Don'T trust much of anything.
- [19:33]
C
It's the rage bait.
- [19:36]
B
It feels like it's trying to divide people.
- [19:40]
A
We got clear facts. Maybe we could calm down a little.
- [19:46]
C
NBC News brings you clear reporting. Let's meet at the facts. Let's move forward from there. NBC News, reporting for America, make their.
- [19:57]
B
Holiday unforgettable with a gift that says it all from Pandora jewelry, a gift.
- [20:04]
C
That tells a story and shows, you.
- [20:06]
B
Know, theirs, that doesn't just sparkle, but.
- [20:08]
A
Speaks from new festive charms to forever.
- [20:11]
B
Rings and personal engravings.
- [20:13]
A
This season give a gift that's perfectly theirs.
- [20:17]
C
Whether you're shopping for a shiny surprise for your significant other, matching bracelets to celebrate your friendship, or a heartfelt gift for a family member. Say more this holiday season with Pandora. I always look forward to the holidays because I live to give all the women in my life jewelry with a little something special engraved on it just to show them I care with something personalized.
- [20:40]
A
You know, I love to get some.
- [20:42]
C
Gifts myself and a man wearing jewelry.
- [20:44]
B
Is quite cool if you ask me.
- [20:47]
C
Shop now@pandora.net or visit your closest Pandora store.
- [20:51]
B
Now I'd like to introduce you to Meaningful Beauty, the famed skincare brand created by iconic supermodel Cindy Crawford. It's her secret to absolutely gorgeous skin. Meaningful Beauty makes powerful and effective skin care simple and it's loved by millions of women. It's formulated for all ages and all skin tones and types. And it's designed to work as a complete skin care system, leaving your skin skin feeling soft, smooth and nourished. I recommend starting with Cindy's full regimen which contains all five of her best selling products including the Amazing Youth Activating Melon Serum. This next generation serum has the power of melon leaf stem cell technology. It's melon leaf stem cells encapsulated for freshness and released onto the skin to support a visible reduction in the appearance of wrinkles. With thousands of glowing five star reviews, why not give it a try? Subscribe today and you can get the the Amazing Meaningful Beauty system for just $49.95. That includes our introductory five piece system, free gifts, free shipping and a 60 day money back guarantee. All of that available@meaningful beauty.com joining us now to talk about the President's decision to purchase beef from Argentina is Mike Calicrate. He is himself a rancher, he's a journalist, he's a family farm advocate and he is also founder of Ranch Foods Direct. Great to have you Mike.
- [22:08]
C
Thanks for having me. Crystal.
- [22:09]
B
Yeah, of course. So let's go and put tare Sheet up on the screen. This is some of your writing about this deal. You say Colorado Springs rancher, that would be you says importing Argentinian beef could hurt us ranchers. I'd actually like you though to back up a little bit from this present moment and give us a bit of a lay of the land of the cattle ranching industry. And also, you know, beef prices have gone up a lot. Certainly American consumers are very concerned about that. Have ranchers been benefiting from that, that price increase? What is kind of the state of the industry right now.
- [22:42]
C
No, ranchers have not benefited from consumer price increases. There's a disconnect between consumer prices and what ranchers receive for cattle. And it's a middleman problem, a monopoly problem, Essentially a cartel sort of partnership between the biggest meat packers, who now control 85%, the big four control 85% of the slaughter market in partnership with big retailers who control a very similar share of the retail market. And I'm talking about Walmart, Kroger, Amazon, Whole Foods, Safeway, Albertsons, and. And so the rancher has really been shut out of his fair share of the consumer dollar, really going back clear to the late 70s when, when the book Vicious Circles the Mafia in the Marketplace detailed how the big meat packers were cooperating rather than competing and stealing really, the, the producer share of the consumer dollar. So, so we've lost half our ranchers during this period of time when, when this cartel has been really depressing the price for livestock at the same time as they're raising prices for consumers. And, and we've liquidated 10 million cows. So now we've come to a very, very critical time when we just don't have enough livestock to feed our own people. And that's been made up for. It's been a gradual progression, but it's been made up for with imports. So we're, you know, we're, we're importing up to 20% of the, of the meat that we eat today, and it's from wherever the cartel can find it, the cheapest to import into this country. And it's a, it's a sad state when producers everywhere. It doesn't matter whether you're in the United States or whether you're in Argentina, you're being paid below your cost of production because of this abusive market power that lies in the hands of these very powerful multinational corporations.
- [24:37]
A
And President Trump is obviously concerned about just bringing down the price of beef overall. Could you speak a bit to what's happened in the last, I don't know, year, couple years, just recent history that's behind this price spike that consumers are experiencing now. Is it still deeply connected to those overall trends? Concentration? Are there micro factors that have influenced it just in recent history? What's going on now?
- [25:05]
C
Well, right now, because of the real serious lack of cattle here in the United States and the fact that we've shut down the, the, the import of feeder cattle out of Mexico, along with additional tariffs on Brazilian beef, it's inflated that, that cost to the retailer, and the retailer is absolutely not willing to give up any of their unfair margins that they've, that they've been able to achieve because of their abusive market power. And so retailers are charging all they can. They're always going to test with the consumer is willing to pay. And so the problem is from that point back, the producer isn't getting his fair share, nor is the worker, the worker in the meat system, whether it's a slaughterhouse worker or a processing worker, they're not getting their fair share either. And so the, and so what we've seen is with this reduction in imports is, is retailers saying, oh, this is a great time to, to raise prices. But the thing you need to look at as far as the price of beef to the consumer, it's about the same. It takes about the same amount of minutes within an hour to eat to buy a pound of ground beef as it did, you know, 20 years ago. And so our beef price is really too high? Probably not. Probably not. But is the income to the, to the normal family that's trying to buy beef too low? Absolutely. When you're working two and three jobs to pay your mortgage, to pay for your technology, to pay for food, of course it's going to hit you hard. But right now at Ranch Foods direct, we've got $6 a pound ground beef that is 30 some cents below the national average. Plus it's local and it's really good. But the, but the industry had sold America on the fact that you've got to get big to be efficient and have economies of scale. All of that was proven false during COVID when we had empty shelves all across America while our company, the local regional company in Colorado Springs, that has a supply chain that goes to St. Francis, Kansas on the Colorado border. We never ran out, but we have a local regional model that I think has got to get replicated if we're going to actually feed ourselves going forward. We have to address the abusive market power, the monopoly power of big food. And I know this maybe doesn't matter much when you're talking about AI and you're talking about Venezuelan regime changes and you're talking about all of this crazy stuff in the news, but this is food. This is what we put on our plates every day to nourish our families. And it's not just beef, it's everything that we eat is under the power of a handful of global corporations.
- [28:00]
B
Yeah, it's such a great point. I would love for you to dig into. You mentioned that the industry has liquidated 10 million cows and that that Lack of supply is part of why we're seeing these skyrocketing prices. Now. What led to that liquidation? What was the math of the business logic that led to that outcome?
- [28:23]
C
Decades of being paid below the cost of production is what led to that liquidation. I've been at this about 50 years and I just remember my in laws at the, at the dinner table with my sons reminding them, don't do what we've done. Do not be ranchers, do not raise cattle. It is not a great lifestyle. You can't get paid enough to pay the mortgage and live a reasonable quality of life. They're, you know, farmers and ranchers. Their basic net income is coming from off farm income. And so the big food companies have reduced the prices paid to producers because they have the power to do so. And so we have then in the last few decades, ranching has not been an attractive business. And so we've not replaced the cows as they've gotten older with, with heifers. And the bankers are clamoring for, for note payments and mortgage reductions. And we just simply haven't maintained our cowherd because there has not been a fair, open and competitive marketplace.
- [29:28]
A
And so Trump is saying it's not, we don't totally understand what he's going to do with Argentina yet. But he said, you know, not a lot of beef, you know, it's, you know, it's not going to be a ton. But based on all of that, based on what we know so far, what influence would a modest amount of imports from Argentina, modest amount of beef imports from Argentina have on the industry as you see it?
- [29:54]
C
Well, right now I don't know that it would have a lot if you really had a supply and demand market, which we have not had for probably since the 80s. We haven't had that. And, and, but the, but the thing is the, the announcement of, it lets those cattle futures, you know, the Chicago Merck, just totally crater the price on the futures market, which then reduces those prices for calves and feeder cattle and live cattle to the rancher right now. And, but I don't think Trump understands just how much disconnect there is between retail prices and ranch gate prices. You know, a rancher is in the business of turning grass into cattle and they hope for a competitive market that will give them a fair share of that consumer dollar. Back in 1970, when I first started, the rancher got about 70%. The producer of livestock got about 70% of the consumer dollar. That dropped to as low as 27% during COVID to now it's around 54 to 55%. So we still are not getting our fair share of what consumer spend. And that is, again, a result of the market power of the middlemen.
- [31:06]
B
Mike, I wonder if you could talk a little bit of politics here with us. You had in the Biden administration with Lina Khan, you had a real renewed interest in antitrust. I remember there was some at least rhetorical emphasis on, hey, we got to break up some of these meat packers and the cartels that you're talking about. But none of that seems to have really been rewarded, certainly by rural America and your business competitors in the industry overwhelmingly went for Trump. So how do you think about the way that Democrats have, over years, completely lost this constituency? You used to have a Jon Tester or someone like that. It was very populist antitrust. It was able to win in these states. And I just don't think that it's possible anymore. How do you think about that?
- [31:55]
C
Well, I'm really disappointed that no one politically, Democrat or Republican, has delivered on antitrust law enforcement. And I think the last election would have had a far different outcome if they would not have kept Lina Khan with the Federal Trade Commission in the closet. I mean, she was working to improve competitive markets and fairness all the way around, around consumer welfare and corporate power and all of that. And we just didn't even know about it. Kamala Harris never even mentioned it. So we've never had support. In fact, going back to the Obama years when they had the concentration hearings across the country, we thought full well with all of that proof and all of that information about the abusive market power of big meat packers, that there would be some relief. And Lina Khan wrote the article Obama's Game of Chicken. It was in the Atlantic. It was amazing piece of writing. And then eventually she made her way into the chair of the Federal Trade Commission and was doing absolutely the best work we've seen in 100 years. Trump comes in and fires her. So that is just how unbelievably ignorant the current administration is about the real needs of consumers and producers and around our food system in particular. Although Lina Khan looked at a lot of other things, but, but she's the one that, that blocked the Kroger Safeway merger. So Safeway Albertsons merger, that was absolutely required. And prior to that, we blocked the state or the Cisco US Foods merger. But the problem we're seeing now is these companies that try to merge get to know each other, and whether it's approved or not, they still cooperate and work together to maximize their profits. I mean how is it that C Cisco earns or makes a hundred percent return on equity? Ro Roe Right now if you look it up on Google, Cisco's right at 100% return on equity. That's not a competitive market and that comes at the expense of producers and consumers and all the workers that are in between.
- [34:09]
A
And your case actually is, is that that goes straight to those beef prices that if you have. It's essentially like the greedflation argument that the Biden administration made a half hearted attempt to sell to the public that when you have consolidation you're able to just ratchet up the retailers themselves are able to just ratchet up the prices. Is that, am I getting that right based on what you were explaining?
- [34:33]
C
100%. That is exactly, exactly right. You give them the ability to extract wealth and they will do it to the maximum amount allowable that they're able to. And you know, that all goes back to the corporate responsibility of providing maximum returns to shareholders, but it's honestly maximum returns to executive level pay.
- [34:55]
B
Yeah. Mike, last question to you. What would your pitch be to Americans who are listening to this or like, well that's all well and good, but prices are too high. And if it's going to help to import beef from Argentina or wherever, why don't we just, why don't we just go for that? Because my pocketbook is hurting right now. What would you tell Americans about why they should care?
- [35:16]
C
Well, I tell Americans they should care because importing Argentine beef is not going to lower your prices. It might lower the prices to ranchers, which guarantees that the herd won't be rebuilt and won't be feeding us in the future. But it will not lower prices, not with the cartel, the monopoly power of the middlemen. And think about it in a minute from the Argentine perspective. I mean their economy is not doing great. Their consumers are not doing great. So we go down there and we're going to take meat off the plates of Argentine consumers, raise their prices, only to use it as a lever to lower prices to ranchers and not lower prices to American consumers. And the other point that no one is making is when Argentina gets favorable trade conditions with the United States, the highest and best consuming market in the world, how many animals trans ship cross those borders into Argentina that then are able to go into the United States at the best prices on the globe?
- [36:20]
B
Mike Calcray.
- [36:20]
C
And only the middleman making the money.
- [36:22]
B
Yeah.
- [36:23]
C
So the Argentine producers under the same pressure, same big companies. JBS Marfrig you know, the biggest companies in the world are transacting the deal.
- [36:33]
B
Then they'll be subject to the same nightmare you've been living here. Mike, thank you so much for, for helping us understand. Tell people you know, where they can find you, where they can buy your products, all of that good stuff.
- [36:44]
C
Well, if you go to mike, calcrate.com, you'll see what we're up to. And I've got a blog there. But as far as the Ranch Foods Direct model, which I would hope others might replicate around the country to connect producers more closely to consumers, go to ranchfoodsdirect.com and you'll be able to see what we do there.
- [37:00]
B
Just put in my order yesterday, so. Oh, thank you so much, Mike. Thank you.
- [37:05]
C
I appreciate it.
- [37:05]
B
Great to have you.
- [37:06]
C
Okay. All right. Bye.
- [37:09]
B
I turned off news altogether.
- [37:11]
C
I hate to say it, but I.
- [37:13]
A
Don'T trust much of anything.
- [37:16]
C
It's the rage bait.
- [37:18]
B
It feels like it's trying to divide people.
- [37:23]
A
We got clear facts. Maybe we can calm down on little.
- [37:28]
C
NBC News brings you clear reporting. Let's meet at the facts. Let's move forward from there. NBC News reporting for America.
- [37:39]
B
Make their holiday unforgettable with a gift.
- [37:43]
C
That says it all from Pandora Jewelry. A gift that tells a story and.
- [37:48]
B
Shows you know, theirs that doesn't just sparkle but speaks. From new festive charms to forever rings and personal engravings.
- [37:56]
A
This season, give a gift that's perfectly theirs.
- [37:59]
C
Whether you're shopping for a shiny surprise for your significant other, matching bracelets to celebrate your friendship or a heartfelt gift for a family member, Say more this holiday season with Pandora, I always look forward to the holidays because I live to give all the women in my life jewelry with a little something special engraved on it just to show them I care with something personalized. You know, I love to get some gifts myself. And a man wearing jewelry is quite.
- [38:27]
B
Cool if you ask me.
- [38:29]
C
Shop now@pandora.net or visit your closest Pandora store.
- [38:34]
B
Now I'd like to introduce you to Meaningful Beauty, the famed skin care brand created by iconic supermodel Cindy Crawford. It's her secret to absolutely gorgeous skin. Meaningful Beauty makes powerful and effective skin care simple and it's loved by millions of women. It's formulated for all ages and all skin tones and types. And it's designed to work as a complete skin care system, leaving your skin feeling soft, smooth and nourished. I recommend starting with Cindy's full regimen, which contains all five of her best selling products, including the amazing Youth Activating melon serum. This next generation serum has the power of melon leaf stem cell technology. It's melon leaf stem cells encapsulated for freshness and released onto the skin to support a visible reduction in the appearance of wrinkles. With thousands of glowing five star reviews, why not give it a try? Subscribe today and you can get the amazing Meaningful Beauty system for just $49.95. That includes our introductory five piece system, free gifts, free shipping and a 60 day money back guarantee. All of that available@meaningfulbeauty.com.
- [39:36]
A
We learned not long ago that a mysterious private donor was jumping in to bail out the government during the shutdown so that some US Troops could continue to get paid as Congress continues to take no action, tries to take, but hasn't taken any action to at least make sure that the troops are paid during the shutdown. Here is a little bit of a back and forth between Donald Trump and a reporter about who might have stepped in with this $130 million donation straight to the government. We can roll the clip to find somebody to pay for our troops during the shutdown.
- [40:14]
B
He's a great gentleman, He's a great patriot.
- [40:17]
A
He's obviously, obviously a very substantial man.
- [40:20]
B
And he contributed $130 million toward the.
- [40:24]
A
Military in order to make up any difference. So he wanted to see the military get paid. So did I.
- [40:30]
C
And he's a wonderful man.
- [40:32]
A
And he doesn't want publicity.
- [40:33]
C
He doesn't, you know, he'd prefer, I.
- [40:36]
A
Think, that his name not be mentioned, which is pretty unusual in the world I come from. And he's a big supporter of mine. He's an American citizen. It is. Great American citizen. We now know who that donor is. We can put B2 up on the screen. Timothy Mellon of the Mellon family. You actually may remember his name from the 2024 election cycle when he just was giving all kinds pumping money into the Trump campaign.
- [41:00]
B
Essentially, he made a $50 million donation to Trump super PAC.
- [41:06]
A
$50 million?
- [41:07]
B
Yeah. So he's one of Trump's largest donors.
- [41:10]
A
Incredible. He's somewhat of a recluse. He lives in Wyoming. He's a big supporter of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And his group, the Children's Health Defense Fund, I think is the name of it. And so according to two people familiar with the matter, according to the New York Times. These are the New York Times sources. Two people familiar with the matter. It was Timothy Mellon who came in and ended up giving $130 million. Let's roll this clip of Treasury Secretary Scott Besant on whether or not the troops were getting paid.
- [41:37]
C
We were able to pay the military employees from excess funds at the Pentagon middle of this month. I think we'll be able to pay them beginning in November. But by November 15, our troops and service members who are willing to risk their lives aren't going to be able to get paid. What an embarrassment.
- [41:56]
A
Yes, what an embarrassment.
- [41:57]
B
Embarrassment.
- [41:58]
A
That's right. It is. And so now you have Timothy Mellon jumping in, which crystal is actually kind of interesting because Republicans have used, I mean, it's interesting in a lot of ways, but Republicans have used particularly the troops, just as Democrats did during previous government shutdowns, to say, quote, what an embarrassment. Like, get to the table, give us the votes. Republicans are typically the ones in the position of withholding votes on a CR to fund the government. Now it's Democrats, and Republicans thought this was their leverage. So it's actually kind of interesting that you have someone in a way taking away the leverage that Republican donors is undercutting their argument that Democrats need to get to the table to negotiate so that troops can get paid. Obviously, there's questions over whether the 130 million is enough to really make a difference.
- [42:44]
B
Apparently that would be like $100 to each service member. That's what the time calculated. It's one of the weird. It's weird and troubling. And it's worth thinking about the principle of it, even though it's not nearly sufficient to even come close to actually paying the entire military. What now we've got, like, random private oligarchs funding the military? Is this really the direction we want to go in at a time Trump is increasingly using the military as like his own personal force against whatever people and cities and causes that he doesn't particularly like. So the principle of it is disturbing. Potentially illegal, by the way. You know, unclear. Completely legally, but potentially illegal. So it's like, what is this guy doing when you're not even coming close to solving the problem? I don't know. It's. To me, the whole thing is very strange and troubling in a way that often Trump, Trump regime actions are.
- [43:42]
A
Well, let's put this before on the screen, you can see already for federal workers, there are some lines outside of food pantries. So this is furloughed federal workers.
- [43:52]
B
This is Landover, Maryland, which is, you know, just outside the Beltway here, in the Beltway area here. And so I saw some restaurants around town. I was walking around D.C. last night who had, you know, 50% off for federal workers. You Know, this thing is really starting to bite. People are really starting to feel the pain. You know, paychecks are starting to be missed. Obviously, workers are furloughed. You're going to have even more workers furloughed after the end of the month. As Besant said there come November 15, troops are no longer going to be paid. Doesn't look like they've been sort of like moving different pots of money around again in a way that it's not really entirely clear as legal, but they're moving different pots of money around to try to make sure the troops are paid. A lot of times what happens in these shutdowns is that Congress will pass a separate bill saying just like, okay, well, we are going to pay the troops no matter how long this thing goes. But they have not done that. So they're really in the same camp as basically everyone else. As this thing stretches out, median average.
- [44:54]
A
Saving for an American is $600. And so it's true that a lot of these workers end up getting back pay. But that's not helpful if you're paycheck to paycheck or even a bit more comfortable than paycheck to paycheck, because we are now going into what could end up being one of the longest government. Actually, it might end up being the longest government shutdown in history because there is no end in sight whatsoever. And Jake Sherman, loathe as I am to bring, invoke any of his wisdom here of Punchbowl, he says the flaw in this is Democrats have sold their base of membership that they aren't trying to make a point, they're trying to enact change. That's actually kind of an interesting way to put it, because the leverage that Democrats have, not the leverage, but the sort of the reason that Democrats did the shutdown was to show the base that they're fighting. And so what have they gotten at this point? What can they get at this point out of it? They may get Republicans to negotiate on premiums. It's possible on something for that, but nobody's even talking right now.
- [45:56]
B
Yeah, no, I mean, there's really, at this point, is no end in sight. We did get that report last week that we talked about that maybe Republicans were open to something on the ACA subsidies. You know, I do think Democrats would take. If they could get any kind of a win, I think they would probably take it. You know, Schumer and co were really forced into this by the base. It was not the politics they wanted to pursue. And their persistence in it too, is really forced on them by the base, which is really interesting. I think there's kind of a tie in here with some of the Zoran clip that we'll show of Kathy Hochul and the crowd chanting at her, like, tax the rich. You have now leadership and establishment Democrats really feeling the pressure from just a normie liberal base that is increasingly disgusted with them and wants a more hardline and more radical direction for the party. And so the fact that Democrats, you know, I mean, Sager and I both early on were like, yeah, they're probably gonna fold, cuz that's just what they do. The reason we were wrong is because they are feeling much more pressure from their own voters than we expected. And you know, I think the Trump administration has taken a lot of the sting out of the, you know, the mass destruction of the federal government workforce. They've been doing that all along. So when you're like, oh, we're gonna hurt them more, it's like, well, you were already doing that anyway. And when you. I think they've also been buoyed by a lot of polls that show the public are predominantly blaming Republicans. And it makes sense because they are in control of everything. So people just look at this and they're like, you guys run the show, so get it together. You gotta negotiate with them, figure something out. And so they feel like Republicans are taking on water with this thing as well, which I think has strengthened some backbones. Another test, though, is going to come. I mean, this is really, honestly really terrible and really dire. We could put B5 up on the screen. Food stamp benefits, SNAP benefits are going to run out at the end of this month. You've got tens of millions of Americans who rely on SNAP benefits. Originally it had looked like the administration was going to use some emergency funds to keep those benefits. It's flowing now the USDA is saying, nope, we're not going to do that. So, you know, heading into November, heading into the month of Thanksgiving, with the potential loss of those benefits, you've got Americans who are going to go hungry if something is not done to extend this funding or to get the government fully back open.
- [48:13]
A
I'm just thinking about this now. One of the sort of designs behind DOGE is that you kind of can do things, right? Like Republicans are like, hey, you can do things. And so. So I'm wondering if the USDA SNAP funds run out, if that becomes a sort of predicate for some type of permanent reduction. I don't know, but there may be legal avenues that a Russ vote or someone else the administration tries to pursue to make permanent cuts like they are what they're trying to do with federal workers. So I'm not sure about that, but I do wonder if that's part of this. We can put the next element on the screen. House Democrats are calling back their members to DC According to Punchbowl Laura Weiss. They're holding in person caucus meetings tomorrow, so Tuesday and events on Wednesday. It's possible we see an end to this by the, I mean, it's possible by the weekend. I don't know that anybody's particularly optimistic though, if we put the next element up on the screen. Over the weekend, there was a ground stop at lax. It disrupted flights from LAX to nation's busiest airport. Yeah. And so, yeah, the longer this goes on with people blaming Republicans, that's I think that's probably stable. Those numbers of Americans blaming Republicans, I would probably put some of the blame on the media for that. I think it's a contrast in how the media has covered it when Republicans literally were the ones withholding their votes. That doesn't mean there's no blame to go around. There's definitely blame to go around in this government shutdown. But maybe that's weighing on Democrats minds that they're sort of technically, if the public is blaming Republicans, they have an upper hand of some sort when they go to negotiation, presumably this week. But the positions are hardened when you look at Republican leadership. They really are not projecting that they're willing to come to the table on premiums and the ACA subsidies. So we'll see.
- [50:10]
B
Yeah, we will. And you know, I think there's also concern, you were saying that vote might use the, you know, the funding shortage on food stamps to make some sort of permanent cuts, even though, again, it should be illegal. That should be something that has to go through Congress. But, you know, whatever laws don't exist anymore, apparently. There's also concern that those federal workers actually who, you know, some of them are working for free right now, by the way, don't get back pay a lot. Yeah, because he put on a memo saying we're probably not gonna pay, actually. And again, again, there is a law that was passed that mandates during a shutdown federal government workers will get their back pay. But this administration just does whatever the hell they want. So I don't think that federal government workers feel particularly secure that they're ever gonna see the paychecks that they're missing right now. This is the guy who said that he wants to cause them. What do you say he wants to cause them trauma or something like that. Yeah. So, I mean, that is part of his goal. That's his M.O. he's a true ideologue in this regard. And so I don't think anyone should be surprised that he in particular would. Who is one of the more powerful members of the administration, certainly one of the more ideological architects of the direction of this administration, that he would use this as an excuse to create more pain and suffering among the federal government workforce and to shrink the federal government more than they've been able to successfully do with Dosh. And already they ran into, you know, with Doge, they ran into things where they'd fire a bunch of people from the CDC or whatever and be like, oh, you know what? Actually we do want to track Ebola, it turns out. Or they fire a bunch of people from that vein. Be, oh, you know what, this whole error, planes crashing to each other situation is not really great. Let's bring some of those people back. They've already had to do some of that. We had the situation in Texas with the floods and a lot of questions over whether or not some of the cuts that had been made to relevant agencies there impacted the ability to respond to those absolutely devastating floods. So they've already run into hitting the bone in some of the cuts that they've made, but there's no sign that individuals like him in particular are interested in slowing down.
- [52:15]
A
Well, and also, listen, I'm someone who thinks SNAP needs significant reforms. I'm somebody who thinks Obamacare needs significant reforms. And Stoller has a good post on that over at Big this morning.
- [52:24]
B
That, too.
- [52:25]
A
Yeah, it's super good. But there's a lot of Trump voters who are on snap. So that's another. As Democrats turn to Washington this week, that's another thing. That's another big piece of leverage. It's another arrow in their quiver as they try to bring Republicans to the table on something in addition to the subsidies, which Marjorie Taylor Greene has been outspoken about, the Obamacare subsidies, SNAP is that, I mean, if you have most of the country blaming Republicans for the shutdown, and then you have troops going unpaid, lines at food pantries, SNAP benefits lapsing and potential increases in premiums, that's starting to look pretty dire for Republicans if they don't come to the table. It's, again, I think it's a different situation than other shutdowns. Democrats are the ones technically withholding the votes, but Republicans, if they're taking the blame with the public, it's a, that's a recipe for a political disaster heading into a midterm year. I don't think people vote on shutdowns. You know, a year from now, I'm not sure that'll be on the front of anybody's mind. But obviously it's one of those moments that can make you feel whether this party cares about you or not, the MAGA movement, whether it really truly has your best interests at hand. That's something that can kind of sink into people's psyche.
- [53:38]
B
They may not vote on the shutdown, but they may well vote on, hey, my premiums just went up 100%. And that's to your point about this really disproportionately hitting the MAGA base. 73% of those subsidies go to red states because it's overwhelmingly the state that didn't expand Medicaid. That's where these subsidies are really filling the gap. And those are all red states. The poorest states in the country are all red states. So you'll have a disproportionate number of the SNAP benefits going to those states as well. So, yeah, you're talking about a lot of pain, specifically for oftentimes Republican voters and oftentimes some of the most die hard supporters of Trump himself.
- [54:18]
A
I mean, yeah, it's one of those, it could potentially be one of those moments, actually. Sort of like the Epstein, particularly when Pam Bondi said, we're closing the case, basically, let's wipe our hands, we're done. It's one of those moments that can make people who thought as Donald Trump was campaigning saying everybody's going to have health care. I think at the Madison Square Garden rally, he said he was going to cut energy prices in half and inflation was going to significantly decrease. And that's why he's so concerned about the beef, as we talked about earlier in the show, because beef prices are the things that are going high. And he knows, he's shrewd enough politically to know that that really matter to voters because he talked about it on the campaign trail. So it could potentially be one of those moments where the working class section of the MAGA base starts to question whether or not MAGA really does care about them. You could see that happening and Epstein was a big moment where they said, is this really about what we thought it was about? Does he really care like he said he did? And you know, not everybody who voted for Trump loves Trump, but there's a level of he told you everybody else he was right to tell you everybody else was wrong. Does that mean that he's right.
- [55:28]
B
That he's right and actually making things better.
- [55:30]
A
Exactly.
- [55:31]
B
Well, I will say I think Epstein landed much more clearly squarely at his feet. Cuz it's like Cash was. It's his people. Right, right. With this, I could see a lot of people blaming Congress. I mean, the thing in the Trump era that we've seen is similar to how Obama had this particular hold on a certain population. Trump has this certain hold and it doesn't translate to the rest of the Republican Party, the midterms. He hasn't done well in midterms in particular. And so the other thing is maybe people still are. Oh, it's not Trump's fault Congress can't get their act together or whatever. But that doesn't exactly make them excited to come out and vote for Republicans in midterm elections upcoming.
- [56:12]
A
Well, it doesn't also necessarily give you the faith in a MAGA candidate that you might have otherwise if they're saying, you know, because there was the working class had this idea that the Republicans worked for them for a long time. And you know, we've all talked about why that might be, but that's a, that's always been a problem for Republicans. And it's especially a problem if you've already traded a lot of suburban voters for more working class voters, especially in the Rust Belt places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio. So does the MAGA candidate lose some credibility if they're still, you know, your typical Republican in they're like Brooks Brothers suit, but they claim to be maga. The trust gap is significant. When voters who vote for Donald Trump a have to go vote for you, do they even vote? Let alone if they do vote, do they vote for you when they see their SNAP benefits lapsing and their premium's about to explode?
- [57:03]
B
Yeah. Feels like a lot of like 2010 level kind of like disillusionment is what I've potentially. We'll see.
- [57:11]
A
Interesting. Yeah, you should interview somebody who maybe ran for Congress in 2010.
- [57:15]
B
I think I have an in, see what we can do.
- [57:19]
A
I actually always love when you talk about it because it was such an important year and there's so many different trends and that, that came to like blossom six years later.
- [57:26]
B
Yeah, I had a front row seat because I went to every, I went to so many Tea Party meetings because my policy was like, anyone in the district invites me to come talk, I will come talk to you. So I got berated by a lot of angry people who thought that I was ushering in Sodom and gomorrah to be fair.
- [57:42]
A
To be fair. You were. Here we are. Here we are. Have you heard wap? I blame you for that. I blame you for Cardi B.
- [57:52]
B
You should do your Ben Shapiro esque rendition, your own rendition of WAP4 assembly. I turned off news altogether.
- [58:02]
C
I hate to say it, but I.
- [58:03]
A
Don'T trust much of anything.
- [58:06]
C
It's the rage bait.
- [58:09]
B
It feels like it's trying to divide people.
- [58:13]
A
We got clear facts. Maybe we could calm down a little.
- [58:18]
C
NBC News brings you clear reporting. Let's meet at the Facts. Let's move forward from there. NBC News reporting for America.
- [58:29]
B
Make their holiday unforgettable with a gift.
- [58:33]
C
That that says it all from Pandora Jewelry. A gift that tells a story and.
- [58:38]
B
Shows you know theirs that doesn't just sparkle, but speaks.
- [58:42]
A
From new festive charms to forever rings.
- [58:44]
B
And personal engravings, this season give a.
- [58:47]
A
Gift that's perfectly theirs.
- [58:49]
C
Whether you're shopping for a shiny surprise for your significant other, matching bracelets to celebrate your friendship, or a heartfelt gift for a family member, say more this holiday season with Pandora. I always look forward to the holidays because I live to give all the women in my life jewelry with a little something special engraved on it just to show them I care with something personalized.
- [59:13]
A
You know, I love to get some.
- [59:15]
C
Gifts myself and a man wearing jewelry.
- [59:17]
B
Is quite cool if you ask me.
- [59:19]
C
Shop now@pandora.net or visit your closest Pandora store.
- [59:24]
B
Now I'd like to introduce you to Meaningful Beauty, the famed skincare brand created by iconic supermodel Cindy King Crawford. It's her secret to absolutely gorgeous skin. Meaningful Beauty makes powerful and effective skin care simple and it's loved by millions of women. It's formulated for all ages and all skin tones and types and it's designed to work as a complete skin care system, leaving your skin feeling soft, smooth and nourished. I recommend starting with Cindy's full regimen which contains all five of her best selling products including the Amazing Youth Activating Melon Serum. This next generation hydration serum has the power of melon leaf stem cell technology. It's melon leaf stem cells encapsulated for freshness and released onto the skin to support a visible reduction in the appearance of wrinkles. With thousands of glowing five star reviews, why not give it a try? Subscribe today and you can get the Amazing Meaningful Beauty system for just $49.95. That includes our introductory five piece system, free gifts, free shipping and a 60 day money back guarantee. All that available@meaningful beauty.com all right moving along.
- [60:28]
A
Speaking of Ben Shapiro, let's move on to Candace Owens.
- [60:30]
B
There we go. Candice has some very interesting thoughts about some of the tech oligarchs who are, like, you know, completely taking all of our fates into their hands with no input from us whatsoever. So glad to see that she's focusing her mental energy on them. Her take is very interesting, though. Let's take a listen.
- [60:50]
A
I don't even think people are human. Like, I look at Elon Musk and Sam Altman and Peter Thiel, and I'm.
- [60:55]
B
Pretty sure they're hybrid.
- [60:57]
A
You know what I mean? Like, they just look like an Apple software that I should be able to download at night, you know, like my phone's getting an update or something.
- [61:05]
B
It's something in the eyes.
- [61:06]
A
Like, I don't know. I'm like, I know I'm human, but I don't.
- [61:08]
B
I don't know if I stabbed you.
- [61:10]
A
If you bleed, you know, I'm not going to stab them, but I don't.
- [61:12]
B
Know if they bleed all the way. I think a battery would fall out.
- [61:16]
A
You know what I mean? And I just get that sense. I've always known it was demonic and.
- [61:20]
B
And people just get on board because.
- [61:23]
A
As we talk about in this book, they are using science and this idea of technology and this idea of transforming society for the better to indoctrinate us into accepting this. And it's wrong and it's backwards. And they weigh their. The main component of all of this is psychology, right?
- [61:41]
B
They're able to do it because of psychology making you think that society has gotten better.
- [61:44]
A
Our kids have objectively gotten dumber. We've become fatter, we've become less healthy, we've become less emotionally sound. And yet they are convincing us that this is, like humans, humanity's great leap forward. We put a man in the mood, and he just, like, called them up.
- [62:01]
B
And was like, hey, Pres, what's up?
- [62:03]
A
I'm up here. Yeah, it's so cool. It's really great. It's nice. Starry night up here. Okay, I'm gonna text you a guy. Go by in 69. And they get these people, they tell you, like, he's a genius.
- [62:13]
B
Real.
- [62:13]
A
Oh, they're all right. He's a genius. We should just accept that Elon Musk is a genius because, like, all the writers who are obviously indoctrinated into the occult are telling us that this is the next person that we should worship. The establishment of Hollywood, it was all cults. They were all Aleister Crowley proteges.
- [62:29]
B
Who were just raping kids and summoning demons. And demons are real.
- [62:33]
A
So at the same time, if they're summoning demons, they are making us all believe that faith is not real. And that has been, I think.
- [62:43]
B
The.
- [62:43]
A
Greatest trick that the devil ever played.
- [62:46]
B
Right.
- [62:46]
A
Is making people think that he didn't exist.
- [62:48]
B
Emily, agree or disagree?
- [62:51]
A
I mean, she's certainly cooking. Crystal. She's certainly cooking. She also.
- [62:57]
B
She is cooking. Everyone can agree on that.
- [62:58]
A
She was also potentially blaming Trump for her friend Charlie Kirk's assassination.
- [63:03]
B
Yeah, it's pretty wild.
- [63:04]
A
There's a lot of speculation, which we do not mean to get into because we are not professional medical professionals, that she may be having some type of episode because she is sort of starting to sound like the person who has literal tinfoil on their head on the street corner.
- [63:23]
B
Okay. But I mean, she has been doing the whole Brigitte Macron thing for a while now.
- [63:27]
A
Yeah, that's not like she's starting.
- [63:29]
B
The logic has been entirely linear here.
- [63:31]
A
Although I will say I think that particular. I imagine people will sense it in that particular clip. There's a certain. Usually you can follow her logic when it's crazy. You know what I mean? You're like, this is wild and wacky. But I can sort of follow along. There's a sense of, like, just listening to her there. I don't know. It seems different to me. It seems like a little bit more. A little bit less rational. Like we're just.
- [63:56]
B
I don't know. I follow her logic on this perfectly. Crystal is bullish myself. I follow this logic personally, perfectly. But I mean, like, let's say it lets humanity off the hook too much to say that these characters are not actually human.
- [64:11]
A
Agreed.
- [64:12]
B
That would be a very good point.
- [64:12]
A
Brian always makes that point.
- [64:13]
B
Yeah. I would love to think that these are not fully humans, that these are some sort of weird hybrid alien beings who are, you know, and that's why they are doing all of these terrible things. But in reality, they are human, and humans are capable of, you know, terrible destruction. And, you know, and the weird thing is that all three of them, I think, see themselves as, like, heroes, actually. And this is. It's also sort of has a somewhat directional truth to it, though, because they also are transhumanists. They want to transform. They literally are transhumanists into the hybrids that she's talking about. They actually do want to go in that direction, the merging of the human and the machine, and are deeply interested, of course, in consolidating all of his power wealth in their own hands at the expense of actual humanity. Which is why when Peter Thiel gets asked by Ross, doubt that, do you think the human race should survive? He has to sputter and stumble and mumble and think before he can answer what should be the easiest question of all time.
- [65:17]
A
You know, what actually they're doing is turning all of us into Candace Owens. Like, that's actually what's happening, is they're turning all of us into people who are driven by the algorithm into madness. And I think she's a glimpse. And producers Mac and Griffin are just saying only crime is being right too early about Candace. And Mac is like, Candace is onto something. Yeah. Cause like, that's what happens is there's truth to the fact that they want to make us less human. And there's something very human about wanting to make us less human because it's driven by greed and lust for power and utopianism, which has been with us since the human race has existed. And so this drive for transhumanism is deeply human. And actually Candace was getting to that when she was talking about the devil's best trick is making people think that the devil doesn't exist. Like, that's what she was getting at with that point. There's something deeply, deeply human about the pursuit of power and money that tricks people into buying utopian fantasies. And even the rich and powerful people themselves will be seduced by this idea that it's not actually about the money, it's not actually about the power. It's about the idea that we're creating a better life, a better world, which I think everybody can see over the last, like, what 20 year experiment since Peter Thiel's technologies, and just in the last couple of years of Sam Altman's technologies and what Elon Musk has done to X, which, I mean, just look at it. What that does is it makes us. It turns us all into crazy people. Because the algorithm has bad incentives. And we communicate, we export all of our communication. This is just a preview of what's to come. We've exported so much of our communication onto platforms that can be the flip of a switch by one person like Elon Musk can change the direction of the entire political discourse. We've seen it. We know that that's what can be done. And that controls not just what we say, but it controls the incentive system of what we decide.
- [67:27]
B
We are going to say they're colonizing our minds 100%. I mean, that's what they're doing 100% and successfully by the way. And so, I mean, that's why, listen, as wild as what she said there is, I am glad to see her taking an interest in this subject. Because as we've discussed before, like, this is a dire situation we're facing.
- [67:52]
A
Yes.
- [67:52]
B
It's dire from a job loss perspective. It's dire from a resources and energy perspective. It's dire from a cost perspective in terms of our electricity bills. It's dire from a controlling our thoughts and minds and being able to tell truth from fiction.
- [68:07]
A
Exactly.
- [68:08]
B
Live in reality together perspective. It's potentially dire from like an actual true existential threat, which I think is a real and genuine risk that I do not put off the table. It's dire from a mass consolidation of wealth and power perspective. Like, you want to talk about a democracy crisis. There's no way a democracy survives if you have someone, one of these characters able to achieve AGI and all of the incredible economic power. Power and benefits that come along with that. Which is why someone like Elon Musk, who was very concerned about the things we're talking about.
- [68:43]
A
Oh yeah.
- [68:44]
B
And that's why he started OpenAI with Sam Altman. Okay, we can develop this, but we'll do it in this nonprofit way. Now, I'm not saying that the conception was great from the start, but he had some mind of we have to do this in a safe way. It can't be for profit. It needs to be in the public interest. And then once he sees everyone else, by the way.
- [69:03]
A
Yep.
- [69:04]
B
And once he sees everyone else is off to the races, then he's off to the races too. So it is an actually existential conversation, in my opinion. And if you listen to them, it's an existential conversation. Cuz they'll tell you we're trying to eliminate human labor, we're trying to rewrite the social contract. We want to completely upend society as it exists today. So I am glad to see figures on the right Lake candidates occasionally. Steve Bannon, you know, certainly like figures like you, Sager, who are looking at this with clear eyes and going, this is horrific. And we have to come together and take control in some way because otherwise, you know, we are barreling towards an incredibly risky and dire future.
- [69:44]
A
Well, and it again, like it gives rocket fuel to those conspiracy theories that people aren't like actually human. And it makes those things much more believable as you break down the wall between fact and fiction with your technologies and your algorithms. And so again, they're turning us all into Candace Owens. And for a bit more Cogent, I would say argument along the lines of what she is making about, like, if you want a faith based argument, I recommend Living in Wonder by Rod Drear, which came out recently. It does a really good job with this, but it's all happening so quickly. In fact, we should get to this clip of Theo Vaughn who asked Sam Altman if he feels fully human along the lines of the Ross Douthat interview of Peter Thiel that Crystal referenced. These guys are having conversations in public because they think they're untouchable. And to some extent they are.
- [70:35]
B
I mean, they are.
- [70:35]
A
Think about the Amazon web service outage last week, the consolidation of power combined with AI. So when you have consolidated. Consolidated power that's running on AI, they have lost control of their AI. Are AI are ready?
- [70:48]
B
Yeah, they.
- [70:49]
A
And they admit it. So think of how consequential the AWS outage was last week. And then think of what happens when you have massive consolidation in AI together all at the same time. And people like Sam Altman running the show here. C2.
- [71:04]
C
Yeah, I'm just always.
- [71:05]
B
I'm like, God, yeah. These people are able to see things.
- [71:07]
C
Differently and quantify things differently. Do you always feel. Because some tech guys, they just have a different understanding of possibility. Right. A different understanding of feeling and thing.
- [71:19]
B
Do you feel human all the time?
- [71:21]
A
I do feel human all the time, but I feel like I. I have noticed that I think extremely differently about the future, about exponential change, about compounding technology than. Than almost anybody else that I kind of come across in regular life. So that's cool. I feel extremely human.
- [71:38]
C
I feel like, you know, driven by.
- [71:40]
A
Crazy emotions as much as anybody, but.
- [71:42]
C
I am like, very aware that I.
- [71:43]
A
Have a different lens than a lot of people.
- [71:46]
B
Have you met some people in tech space?
- [71:48]
C
You're like, whoa, that guy is only like 6 or 7%.
- [71:50]
B
He's low.
- [71:51]
C
Not a lot of human in him.
- [71:53]
A
Yes. Yeah.
- [71:55]
C
Okay.
- [71:56]
B
I love how Sam's like, yes, I've met people who are not human, but I'm me, myself. I'm totally human.
- [72:03]
A
His interview with Tucker Carlson came out like, I think it was a couple of days before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. So it kind of got buried.
- [72:09]
B
Yeah, I never got actually got around to watching that.
- [72:11]
A
You have to watch it. So Tucker asked him how he sleeps at night and Altman's just like, not well. It's so wild that he goes out and says these things in public. Not doing a great job installing confidence in the population. Meanwhile, Crystal, who is working on behalf of these oligarchs But Krysten Sinema, of course, I had to let the pause hang because I know it's surprising to people.
- [72:41]
B
Yeah. That she's doing the most evil thing imaginable in the wake of her senatorial career. I might be open to the hybrid hypothesis when it comes to Kyrsten Sinema. So here she is testifying at a local town hall, basically saying to them, listen, I'm working to push these data centers into communities. And you can either cooperate with us or the federal government is just gonna come in and force you to accept this. And then you're not gonna have any say over how it goes for you or, you know, or like it's coming. So you can either work with us, we can do this the easy way, or the hard way is the subtext of what she says here. Let's go ahead and take a listen. I'm here tonight on behalf of active infrastructure. I also am the founder and co chair of a national coalition called the AI Infrastructure Coalition. We are a national coalition formed earlier this year and work hand in glove with the Trump administration as we prepare for AI American dominance, to prepare against a competing threat from China, but also to ensure that domestically that we are prepared for the AI revolution that is coming.
- [73:51]
A
The AI action plan set out by.
- [73:53]
B
The Trump administration says very clearly that we must continue to proliferate AI and AI data centers throughout the country. So there she goes, hand in glove with the Trump administration to make sure I that AI data centers proliferate throughout the country. And I'll tell you, you know, I live in a town where one of these data centers may be coming. There are, it's, and it's a very conservative rural area. It's very conservative, you know, voted like 65% for Trump or something. And you see tons of signs like stop the data center. I mean, this is, it really is something that there are a wide variety of cross partisan concerns here, including about local autonomy. You know, as cinema is basically threatening them like it's coming whether you want it or not. Local autonomy is one of them. There's the water usage. You've had wells that have gone dry near these places, especially in rural areas. I'm personally on well water. A lot of people in my county and in the area are, you have the noise concern, the light pollution concern, you have the skyrocketing electricity, energy costs. So you have a lot of just immediate concerns about these massive construction projects that are just proliferating across the country and that people like her are pushing onto communities that really don't want that them.
- [75:09]
A
Well, and there was that great semaphore report. I think it was a Dave Weigel report from a couple of weeks ago about how this is like the sneaky issue in the midterm cycle that because so many communities are experiencing problems related to the data centers that anybody who's actually able to do the anti cinema here is probably whichever party is able to do in some of these like congressional races, the anti cinema approach that'll, that'll behoove them because in many, many communities this is becoming a significant problem. And on that note, guess who is on this? Bernie Sanders. Let's roll C4. Do you think OpenAI and ChatGPT should be broken up?
- [75:48]
C
I do, but it's a deeper issue than that.
- [75:50]
A
We need to take a deep breath.
- [75:52]
C
And understand that it's like meteor coming. We gotta be prepared to deal with.
- [75:58]
A
It in all of its complexity.
- [76:01]
C
Economically. I worry about massive loss of jobs.
- [76:04]
B
In terms of what it does to.
- [76:06]
A
Us as human beings. There are products not being sold as.
- [76:09]
C
You don't need to relate to a human being anymore.
- [76:12]
A
You will have somebody hanging around your.
- [76:14]
B
Neck as your AI buddy.
- [76:16]
A
And in a country where there's a lot of emotional distress, I really worry.
- [76:22]
C
About that, how we continue community, how.
- [76:25]
A
We relate to each other as human beings.
- [76:28]
C
And then of course in terms of AI, we worry about this super intelligent AI which supersedes human intelligence. And one day the AI says to.
- [76:40]
A
The human being, sorry, but actually no, you worry about a Terminator like scenario, something like that. So that was Senator Sanders in an interview with Alex Thompson of Axios Crystal, showing a path forward not just for Democrats but for Republicans, if anyone is smart enough to take it. That's where the question is right now.
- [77:00]
B
Yeah, well, at the federal level certainly the Trump administration has decided that they're all in, you know, and obviously J.D. vance is very much backed by Peter Thiel, has been throughout his career. They're thinking he's their guy. They've decided we're going to take any brakes that were on the car, we're going to take them off. Right. We are going to make sure, in terms of regulatory breaks or make sure the funding is there, we're going to make sure there's no sort of like, you know, any sort of SEC enforcement action elections coming your way. We're going to go all in in the most reckless manner possible because we've got to win this war against China. We've got to win the race to AGI before China gets there. And so that is the full thrust from the national level of the Trump administration certainly right now. And if J.D. vance is the predecessor to Trump, then I fully expect him to continue in that direction. And of course, Trump is out there where Steve Bannon is saying, o Trump is going to be the guy again in 2028. I don't think we can put that off the table either. And he's clearly decided that being fully in bed with these tech oligarchs was the best thing for him politically in the direction that he wanted to go in. So it does leave a massive opening for someone to articulate all of these fears. And as I said, the fears are both immediate and medium term in terms of job loss and long term, as Bernie articulates there as well, in terms of, of these more existential concerns about what it would mean to have a superior intelligence on the planet. Like, has anyone thought about that? There are people who have thought about it. Most of them have concluded that it's going to be really bad for human beings. Yet we continue apace anyway. So if 80 something year old Bernie Sanders can figure all of that out, I think a lot of Americans are thinking the same direction. And it, it seems to me like we're at an inflection point as these data centers increasingly crop up, especially in rural areas where there's more and more awareness of what is happening and the speed and pace of which, you know at which it is occurring and the massive impact that it could have on all of our lives in the future.
- [79:10]
A
And most conservative Catholic intellectuals are deeply suspicious of AI, which puts JD Vance and a fascinating position. And we did a long segment on why Peter Thiel is talking so much about AI, the apocalypse, the catacomb recently. And I think the conclusion that we landed on is he's trying to seduce especially religious conservatives in the midst of this like nationwide religious revival that everyone saw on display at the Kirk Memorial. He's trying to convince those people which are such an important part of the Republican coalition, to put their faith in AI and to put their faith in Big Tech. And if he's able to do that, he bring the JD Vance's on board and start making this argument, a faith based argument, literally a faith based argument for accelerationism. That's a huge win because you can see the argument that Bernie just made there being appealing to people around the country who are honestly like conservative Trump types or just normal suburban parents who are freaked out about what's happening to their children. So that's a huge reason why we're starting to see Thiel. I think Thiel is smarter, honestly, and he's more politically savvy, much more politically experienced than Elon or Sam Altman. I mean, his political involvement goes back a long time. And so I think that's where you're trying to see, where you're seeing him try to get out ahead of some of these arguments to bring. So like Candace Owens, conservative Catholic, actually. Interesting point. Big audience among conservative Catholics trying to make the point that, hey, we don't know where any of this is going, but we have to put our faith in this accelerationist because otherwise the degrowthers sure look a lot like some biblical prophecies about dark forces. So that's, I think all of this, I think lends credence to the conversation that we had the other day. And on top of that, where does, I mean, the Trump administration, we heard.
- [81:15]
B
A lot in the lead up.
- [81:16]
A
You probably remember this last year, this time last year about little tech, right? Like accelerationism, little tech. We have to open up everything, make a much more liberal lowercase l regulatory environment for all of these little tech companies to thrive and to innovate. Crystal. I feel like the regulatory environment right now since Donald Trump retook office is pretty much designed to favor big tech. Right? Like, are we seeing this flourishing.
- [81:44]
B
The tech itself is designed to favor big tech.
- [81:46]
A
Exactly.
- [81:47]
B
Because at least the theory of all the American companies, you know, Deep Seq proved potentially a different direction as possible. But the theory of all the American companies is basically you just throw as much money at this thing as possible, you build out as many data centers, as much compute as possible to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And that's the way to win the race. And so of course you're not going to have some plucky startup that's able to pull that off, especially not with.
- [82:18]
A
All the lobbying here that's going on.
- [82:19]
B
Yeah, I mean, it's going to be the giant players, which is why I always thought the little tech thing was complete and utter bullshit. And I think it was complete and utter bullshit. I don't think that Mark Andrew and these other people that are pushing it are so like out of touch with the nature of the tech to not understand that it was going to be the big players that dominate the space. Now, are there going to be startups that are using the tech and ancillary. Sure. But in terms of who is developing the core technology, it's going to be one of the giants. And that's why all of these guys have thrown it so hard for it, because they want to be the guy. They want to be the master of the universe. That's the way that they see it. And, Emily, your points on the. On what Thiel is doing and your insights into that, I think are really important for people to understand. Whether or not he believes what he's saying or not, who the hell knows? It doesn't really matter. But he's trying to square the circle of convincing religious people that this technology, which on his face looks anti creation and anti human, is actually. Actually, it's fine. And actually we have to do this. Like the proper religious course to take, you know, if you're in the Christian faith, is to pursue this at all costs and take all the brakes off the car and just trust that it's gonna work out, that that is the, like, the proper thing to do and just turn your mind off all your concern. Don't worry about it. Right? We've just gotta. We just gotta go drive this car at 100 miles an hour.
- [83:52]
A
Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, it's interesting because I think a lot of people are engaging with the Thiel argument as it's entirely sincere, and I think it's probably both sincere. He does seem entirely sincere about it, but it's not just sincere. It's sincere in a very particular direction. And there's an audience that he would have a motivation to try and persuade right now. And so I think that's an important lens to look at what he's doing through man. What a time to be alive, Crystal.
- [84:23]
B
What a time to be alive, indeed.
- [84:42]
C
Get ready to power up your play.
- [84:44]
A
With Nintendo Switch 2.
- [84:46]
C
Power up the visuals with 4K support and a big, bigger, more vivid screen. Power of the fun with exclusive new games like Mario Kart World.
- [84:57]
A
And Donkey Kong. Bonanza. Oh, bonanza.
- [85:01]
B
Nintendo Switch 2.
- [85:03]
C
All together, anytime, anywhere.
- [85:05]
A
Games rated E to E10. Games and systems sold separately. Compatible TV required for 4K display.
- [85:10]
C
At Hill's Pet Nutrition, we know that.
- [85:13]
B
Pet parent guilt is real. Leaving too long, playing too little.
- [85:17]
C
New homes, new baby.
- [85:19]
B
Waking them up when they look so comfy. Running out of patience. Running out of treats.
- [85:24]
A
Running the vacuum. You can only do so much.
- [85:28]
B
That's why there's hills. Science led nutrition to help you give more love than humanly possible. Because you're only human. There's hills. Find the right food@hillspet.com ScienceDoesMore.
- [85:41]
C
It's cybersecurity awareness Month. Lifelock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong passwords. Set up multi factor authentication, report scams.
- [85:50]
A
And update your software.
- [85:52]
C
And for comprehensive identity protection, Lifelock is your best choice.
- [85:56]
A
Lifelock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and fixes identity theft.
- [86:01]
C
Guaranteed or your money back.
- [86:03]
A
Start your protection today with a 30.
- [86:05]
C
Day free trial at lifelock.com use promo code news terms apply.
- [86:10]
A
This is an iHeart podcast.