Is the Economy About to Return to 1970s-Era Stagflation?
RADIO

Is the Economy About to Return to 1970s-Era Stagflation?

After April’s dismal jobs report released, some experts started wondering whether America has entered a period of stagflation. But what does that mean? And should we trust the data? Financial expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to break it all down. Plus, she reviews “one of the most painful” videos she has ever watched, featuring Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein trying his hardest to explain why the Federal Reserve’s never-ending money printing is fine.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol Roth, the author of the book, you will own nothing. The former investment banker. Carol, yes -- or last Friday, I think it was. The jobs report came out. It was much lower than expected.

And I started seeing things like Bank of America saying, we're in stagflation now.

Are we? And if so, what is it?

And what does it mean?

CAROL: Well, let's talk about some of these data points, Glenn. And then we can go into stagflation. First, we've seen a couple of bad data points. And as we've talked about before. The data is garbage. So we're doing the best we can, what it is they're telling us, without any sense of the actual reality behind us.

We saw before the jobs report, that the first quarter GDP was down, about a percent lower than expectations. Down to 1.6 percent on an annualized basis.

Then we get the April jobs report. And that is also down. It's the slowest job gain. That we've seen in -- I think about six months.

Again, if you believe the data. And what that first is telling me, is that all of this money, that the government has spent to basically window dress the economy. To avoid the double-digit recession.

Remember, we did have a recession. Two quarters of negative growth back in '22. Then we popped out of it. Then we expected that it would employ it down. The government ran these massive deficits, about two times the historical average, on a debt to GDP basis.

That we would normally see. And they tried to prop up the economy. So it wouldn't show we were in a recession. At a very expensive cost, by the way. Normally, when you have an expanding economy, you would see a shrinking deficit. They have did you not opposite.

They ran a big deficit, to try to create this appearance. And with an interest rate. Financing that deficit. You know, at the largest point in 15 years.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: So we know we are not getting a good return now, on this window dressing. And it is not creating these amazing outcomes for the economy.

You know, on the GDP front. On the jobs front.

Which again, could turn around. It's one set of at that time points. Would shift.

Stagflation is something that I talk to you about. I have been talking about for years. As a very possible outcome here.

And it's very much what it sounds like. It's when the economy stagnates. When you have a low growth number. But at the same time, you have inflation.

So you have sort of the worst of all worlds. You're not making gains of productivity.

You're not making, you know, gains in wages and things like that.

The economy is just hanging out. But you get this long-term sticking inflation.

Which again, we said was very likely, because the government continued to spend at these massive levels.

And they were working against what the fed was trying to do, to break down inflation.

So they are actually at this point, a likely cause of long-term inflation.

Because we have to continue to finance these massive deficits.

And so that's the reality of this sticky situation.

When you hear somebody, like JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon saying, I'm worried that the economy is going to look more like the 1970s, than anything else, this is something that they experience. Experience at that period of time. And he is seeing those parallels. Although, we're in a much worse fiscal situation from a fiscal foundation standpoint, than we were strangely enough in the 1970s.

GLENN: Because of our deficit and debt.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: Yes.

So this means that jobs, everything just is the same. It doesn't get better. It could get worse. But it doesn't generally get better for the individual. And prices continue to go up. Right?

That's what --

CAROL: Correct. You're not seeing your growth in wages. You're not seeing massive growth in companies.

The economy just sort of putters along.

You know, you're not seeing the massive layoffs. Or things you might see. With a recession.

Things are just kind of going along.

But not really growing at all.

You're not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. But at the same time, we're encountering that bond, going sticking inflation, that we know destroys purchasing power and is really born, particularly by the middle and working class.

GLENN: All right.

So Carol, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this. Because I have a couple of other things.

But you said, at the beginning of your conversation. You said, if you believe the numbers.

I don't believe the numbers.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: But the only reason you change and fudge numbers is not to stop them from looking so good. But stop them from looking so bad.

And the reason why I don't believe them. Is it's just too many times, where they've been adjusted. And there's always adjustments, but not like it's been in the last year or so.

And there's just contradictory information. If you're somebody who is listening now, and, you know, you don't -- you don't necessarily have that. You don't think that, you know, the administration would go that far, and fake numbers.

What leads you to say, if you believe these numbers?

CAROL: Well, like you said, there have been a lot of anomalies in the numbers. And, you know, if you -- you can kind of go back even further. You know, we've changed the method of calculation, of these numbers. At the governmental level, many times since the 1980s. One of the things you have to remember, for something like let's say inflation.

Inflation feeds into things like cost of living adjustments. The amount they have to increase Social Security payments by. So there is an actual reason why it is, that they would want to suppress those numbers.

Another piece of data which I think is very important. Is that entities and individuals no longer want to participate in government surveys.

So we have seen an absolute massive decline in the participation of the data that is being collected by the government.

Which means, when they don't have people in businesses, responding, there are more biases in the data, because it's a smaller subset of people who want to do it.

And it means they have to want to run it through their own adjustments. And seasonal adjustments. In the model.

And it's garbage in. Garbage out. You put bad data in, you'll get bad data out.

There are a lot of things. This isn't just the, hey. The numbers are adjusted massively. And we're seeing the numbers over and over again. Speaking to the bad data. There are some real structural issues as to why many of us think the data sort of isn't worth anything.

GLENN: By the way, we're talking to J.D. Vance in 15 minutes. Right now, we're with Carol Rother. I want to bring up something that is one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen. It's an interview where they're trying to make the case for modern monetary theory. Which is not modern. It's a very old theory. You can just print money, and no big deal. Nothing bad will happen.

And they talked to Joe Biden's economic adviser.

Now, I -- if you would, explain who Jared Bernstein is.

He is -- he is the chair of the council of economic advisers for Joe Biden.

But he's not just some schlub, right?

CAROL: Well, I mean, I will not opine on that. But what I will tell you, is that he's very powerful economically. This is Joe Biden's right-hand adviser who has been, by the way, since the Obama administration, he was Biden's adviser.

And this is the guy who analyzes and interprets economic developments.

He comes up with economic policies. He puts that forth to the president. He's been entrenched in think tanks. He's been a contributor to CBS. He writes op-eds. He was a chief economist, in economic adviser. You know, previously.

This guy is like from the left and far left standpoint. One of the people, who they hang their hat on, to be the economic adviser. And I don't know.

Are you going to play the clip.

It's one of the most painful things I've watched in my life.

GLENN: I want to get your comment on it. And I want to set up. This is a real player in the economy.

This is someone our government depends on.

Listen to him try to explain our deficit, and what's happening with our money. Listen.

VOICE: The US government can't go bankrupt, because we can print our own money.

VOICE: It obviously begs the question: Why exactly are we borrowing a currency that we print ourselves? I'm waiting for someone to stand up, and say, why do we borrow our own currency in the first place?

VOICE: Like you said, they print the dollar. So why does the government even borrow?

VOICE: Well, the -- so the -- I mean, again, some of this stuff gets -- some of the language that the -- some of the language and concepts are just confusing. I mean, the government definitely prints money.

And it definitely lends that money, which is why the government definitely prints money. And then it lends that money, by -- by selling bonds. Is that what they do?

GLENN: No. No.

VOICE: They -- they -- yeah. They -- they sell bonds. Yeah. They sell bonds. Right. Since they sell bonds.

People buy the bonds. And lend them the money.

GLENN: No.

VOICE: So a lot of times. A lot of times. The language and the concepts can be kind of unnecessarily confusing. But there is no question, that the government prints money. And then it uses that money to -- so, yeah.

I guess I'm just -- I can't really talk.

I don't get it. I don't know what they're talking about.

Because it's like, the government clearly prints money. It does it all the time.

And it clearly borrows. Otherwise, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

So I don't think there's anything confusing there.

GLENN: Oh, my God. This is -- would you feel --

STU: Wow.

GLENN: If that was your captain, and you got on to a plane, and he said, hey. We're going to be traveling at 40,000 -- 4,000 -- I can't -- how does this work again? Would you get on that plane?

CAROL: Okay. So I'm going to be generous here first, Glenn.

And then I'm going to be not so generous. The first generous thing I will say is that we've all been in the media for a very long time, you longer than me. And we've all had days, that are somewhat like this. Where we know something really well. And we just can't get it.

So I will -- it could be today for me.

There have been a few times. When I made absolutely no sense, on something I know very well.

So it does happen. That can said. Now that I've been generous.

This is sort of the chief architect of the US economy at this point. Going through a discussion about MMT. I call it magic money tree. I've heard that somewhere along the line. I thought that was great.

And their main thesis. Oh, you got the checkbook. You can just write checks. The question he asked. Which anyone who lives in Zimbabwe would probably know the answer to. Why can't the government just print as much money as it wants.

We all know it's highly inflationary. And we've been living through that for the past few years. That's the very short answer. Of course, there's nuance to this. Of course, there's wonkiness that we can go in and explain the Treasury and the Fed. Just very simple.

So it begs the question to me. Does he not know the answer? Or does he very much know the answer, but he doesn't feel like he could admit it.

And hasn't done the prep. Which, again, these are politicians. Politician mouthpieces. They could just talk around us. Which they do all the time.

I think the answer is that they are just entirely decoupled from reality. So they don't care.

They don't care what it is, Glenn. Money is something very discreet. Money has three definitions. It's a unit of account. It's a median of exchange. It's the value.

At the end of the day, putting it together, what is it? It's a proxy for productivity.

It's an estimation of the labor that you have. Because it used to be. If you were a farmer. You had apples. Somebody who was a doctor at doctor services. You would have to figure out that exchange. Now this creates something that is seamless. So it stands for something.

GLENN: Stands -- time is money.

CAROL: It is. It is your output. So if you don't have an increase in economic activity. An increase in productivity. And you put more dollars in the system. What are you doing?

You're putting in more sort of proxies for productivity. They're chasing the same amount of goods and services. It means that those goods and services have been inflated and valued. Because each one of those proxies are worthless. If you go to Congress. And you ask them, to give you that definition of money. That I just gave you.

Anyone who knows anything about economics. I guarantee you 99 percent of the people couldn't tell you that. And the people on the left do not care. Because it doesn't serve their purpose.

They don't care that this is a proxy of what you have worked hard for.

They want to inflate that away for their own power purpose.

So it is very inconvenient for them to understand reality.

And that's why he can't explain this.

GLENN: I think he knows what it is. But can't explain.

Because he doesn't. He doesn't want to take a position on it.

Because I think they're all in bed with MMT. So he can't -- he doesn't want to say, I am in bed with MMT. Because it's insanity. But I think he also extent can know how to bridge that gap. There's a huge gap between reality and insanity.

CAROL: There is.

GLENN: And I think that's what it is. He just doesn't want to be seen crossing that bridge. Because there's no sane reason to do it.

CAROL: No. And the fact of the matter is, you had all these MMT people, selling this fantasy. And up until a few years ago, there were a lot of people who bought into the fantasy. Although, many of us said no. This is something that stands for reality.

You can't just make it up. Just because you have a checkbook. You can't write unlimited amounts of checks. It doesn't work that way. We have now lived through the worst inflationary period in 40-plus years. And these MMT people have not gotten enough shame. They should be walked through the street and we should go, shame, shame, shame.

Because it's their BS they've been selling into the government, into schools, that has allowed this to occur. And has allowed this decoupling from reality. Because they want to believe in unicorns that, you know, fart rainbows.

Dershowitz: The ONLY REASON Trump Could Be Found GUILTY in New York
RADIO

Dershowitz: The ONLY REASON Trump Could Be Found GUILTY in New York

The New York hush money case against former president Donald Trump is "the weakest case" attorney Alan Dershowitz has seen in his 60 years of practicing law. But yet, the jury may still convict him, the media is freaking out over it, and now, the Biden campaign is even holding events with Robert De Niro outside the courthouse. Dershowitz joins Glenn to explain the "only explanation for this case going forward" and how a guilty verdict "could hurt America more than it could hurt Donald Trump." Plus, he reveals something that the judge hid from the jury and what he would do if he was Trump's attorney.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, with me to the program. How are you, sir?

ALAN: I'm doing great. I'm very concerned about what's going on in the Manhattan courthouse today. Because they hurt America, more than they could can hurt Donald Trump.

This is the weakest, worst case, I have seen in my 60 years of practicing law.

GLENN: Jeez.

ALAN: And because it's New York, because this is a jury of New Yorkers, and a judge.
There might be a conviction here.

It would be a horrible, horrible blemish. Stain on the American justice system, if that were to happen.

GLENN: You know, Jonathan Turley wrote a great article. I don't know if you saw this. About this trial.

And the last -- the last line is something along the lines of, you know, a three-legged stool in every court case. And this is the most wobbly, without a leg to stand on. And he said, it's not Donald Trump standing on that tool. That is -- that's something that is going to affect all of us, deeply.

And I don't even what an it means, if a -- a court like this, can -- can find any man guilty, like this, because he's unpopular, where is justice, Alan?

ALAN: Or because he's too popular. In this case.

GLENN: Yeah.

ALAN: It means, we're becoming more like, we're not there.

But more like Stalin. Soviet Union. Where Beria said, Stalin, show me the man, and I will find you the crime. Look, I wrote book called Get Trump. That's the only explanation for this case, going forward. A desire to get Trump.

The people, the prosecutors campaigned on the pledge to get Trump. They said, they would find a crime. They couldn't find a crime. Because there is no crime.

So they made one up. They put an expired misdemeanor, together with some select crimes. And they came up with an absurd felony, in this case.

And then they had to use, as their main witness, a guy who has a long, long history of lying, stealing, and they have to depend on his credibility. To prove that Trump actually knew that these payments would be made, and were being listed as legal payments, rather than as reimbursement for a non-disclosure agreement. It's the most absurd.

GLENN: I wonder if -- if Cohen will even be charged with a crime. He admitted under oath, that he stole. No?

ALAN: Yeah. I was hoping for a Perry Mason moment. When he said that on the witness stand, the police would come and put the handcuffs on him and take him away, but that didn't happen. It should have happened.

GLENN: Yeah. Tell me, I was on the jury once.

And the judge, we kept asking him. And he would come in. And he would say, I can't tell you anything.

I can't tell you that.

We would ask the bailiff, can we get this from the judge? Et cetera.

And the judge, he was in a position of power. And he really seemed like our friend.

And really seemed like we could trust him, to make the right decision. You know what I mean?

ALAN: And that's the real problem with our system of justice.

This judge, for example, is a benevolent despot when the jury is there.

He's so nice.

To the jury.

And as soon as the jury goes out. I was one of the only spectators to stay out of the courtroom.

When he emptied it -- then his true sense came out.

Remember the psycho in Taxi Driver?

You talking to me? You looking at me? You talking to me?

That's what he was basically saying to the witness. He hated the fact that the witness.

GLENN: Raised his eyes.

ALAN: Raised his eyes. Or, you know -- to stand and threatened to strike the witness testimony. The jury should have seen that.

And, by the way, the American public should have seen that.

Been on television. The fact that it's on television, is terrible.

GLENN: So, Alan, the thing with the judge. He gives the instructions.

How -- how horribly could that go wrong with him?

Or can -- are there some limits to what he gives as instructions?

ALAN: The limits come in the Court of Appeals, and that can come only after the election. For example, the crucial instruction is going to be ladies gentleman of the jury. The prosecution could have called Alan Weisselberg. He was the other person at that alleged meeting, where the crime occurred.

And the only other witness at that meeting was Cohen, who you shouldn't believe.

But Weisselberg could have been called. The prosecution didn't call him. They could have given an (inaudible), if he had pleaded the Fifth Amendment, but they didn't do it.

And you should, therefore, infer, that had they called him, he would have given them testimony adverse to the prosecution.

GLENN: But he can't say that in closing arguments. Right?

ALAN: He can. If the judge allows that instruction to be given.

If I was a defense attorney, let me tell you what I would do.

I would get a life size picture of Alan Weisselberg. I would put it in the witness stand. And I would say, ladies and gentlemen, you see this picture? That's all you need to see. This picture.

Because the prosecution made a decision not to call this witness. And when you go in that jury room, I want you to be thinking of that picture.

I want you to be thinking of why, only a picture. And not the real witness appeared in this courtroom.

And, you know, would the judge allow that? I don't know. I would try it certainly.

GLENN: And he can't say -- he cannot bring up the FEC was not allowed to --

ALAN: No. He's not going to be able to bring that up.

There's a lot of stuff he wasn't able to bring up. He wasn't allowed to introduce an expert witness, who was the country's leading expert on the FEC. The jury is going to be allowed to conclude, that maybe this was an election fraud.

Even though, the experts say, it wasn't.

So there's a lot of problems with this case.

GLENN: Alan, what does your gut tell you, that will happen after the closing arguments on both sides?

ALAN: My gut says, possibly hung jury.

Let me tell you why: I was in the court lounge watching the jurors very carefully, and I couldn't tell whether they were inclined toward conviction or acquittal. What I could tell, is they didn't seem to like each other that much. They didn't seem to have a close relationship, which jurors sometimes have.

And that is more -- that inclines one to think, that maybe they won't agree. Maybe they will be a hung jury. But we won't know.

The TERRIFYING New ESG Rule that Glenn WARNED About is NOW HERE
RADIO

The TERRIFYING New ESG Rule that Glenn WARNED About is NOW HERE

The European Union just gave its final approval for a new ESG requirements that will affect companies around the world. Glenn has been warning about this law for years and now, he says there’s only one way to stop it. But why should Americans be worried about EU regulations? Well, Glenn explains how ALL companies will either have to comply or abandon doing business with not just the EU, but any big company that does business in the EU. Plus, he breaks down how it could “destroy the petroleum industry” and even lead to YOU getting a social credit score.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have -- I have some good news and I have some bad news. Which do you want first?

STU: I'm a glutton for punishment. We'll take the bad news first.

GLENN: Okay. Hmm. You sure?

Okay. Here we go.

This is -- this is extraordinarily bad news from the European Union.

This is something that I have been warning listeners and readers with for over three years now.

It was included in both The Great Reset, and the Dark Future books.

We really went into it, at Dark Future, talking about, this -- this can't happen.

If this happens. Don't, no. Really.

Well, it's just happened. We've talked about it on the air several times. But I don't -- now it's official. And it's in writing. And so I'm going to explain it. And tell you what it is, and what it's going to do.

It looked like this bill was going to tie several times over the past few months. In fact, Justin Haskins and I had a big argument. Should have made a 3,000-dollar bet with him.

And then I could have paid you off for the Michelle Obama thing. But he said it would fail. And it did not. Now it's one of the biggest threats to freedom in America, both in the short and in the long-term, because this law, because of this law in Europe, our society, through corporate decision making and business partnerships, are going to be forced to conform with the European rules, values, and environmental standards. European social justice metrics are now officially, they have to be imposed on America, through this law.

The only thing that will change this, is if Congress acts, and the president acts.

This president and this at least Senate, will never stop this.

Here's what's going to happen: The EU has established an extraordinarily complex, very large ESG system, that covers all companies, and when I say all companies. All companies, will need to comply with.

This includes both covered companies. Based in the US. As well as non-EU companies, such as those in America and in Canada, that operate in the EU.

So, in other words, you sell, I think it's half a billion dollars' worth of stuff. And you have to comply. You sell a half a billion dollars in Europe. Just under that. Then you have to comply.

But so do all of the companies that you do business with.

So if you're a small company and you're making winkling it's, and you sell them to a company that is making big money. And I wonder if this applies to Amazon.

You sell something on Amazon, that's a company that's making at least half a billion dollars in Europe. You're going to have to comply.

The -- the covered companies, will be required to submit reports to the European government authorities, if they are EU-based customers. Or companies with more than a thousand employees. And a world wild turnover of more than $489 million.

Turnover is another word for revenue. Or income.

But why wouldn't you say that? This word bothers me. I just think it's one of those words like stakeholders. And nobody knows what it means. And then you hear stakeholders, and you know what it means. You're like, oh, crap, that's everybody.

Non-EU-based companies, such as U.S. companies now, fall under the requirements if they have a net turnover of more than $489 million with the European Union.

Franchise and licensing agreements as well as subsidiaries of larger companies.

Will also fall under the EU's ESG regime.

I don't know exactly the lawyers have not even really explained this yet.

But we have been covering this for so long.

We think we know what this means. But licensing agreements. I write books. Some of them sell in Europe.

Simon & Schuster sells books like crazy over in Europe.

They're making over 489 million I'm sure, in Europe.

Am I now forced to comply?

Thank God I have Mercury, Inc. now, and I don't have to do Simon & Schuster. But am I required?

Most importantly, all covered companies will need to ensure that the businesses in their supply and value chains. I don't know what that means. Do you know what supply and value chain is?

Stu, you're the head of Ford. Have you checked your value change?

What is exactly the numbers on your value change? What the hell does that mean?

STU: Value chain or value chains?

GLENN: Value chains.

STU: I mean, I'm very in touch with my value chains on a daily basis.

GLENN: Yeah, okay. Also, those companies, anybody who makes a widget for these companies has to adhere to the relevant ESG you rules. Remember, ESG is environmental, social, and governance.

So could you have enough, you know, gay -- gay, black, hermaphrodites, that only have one leg.

Do you have them on your board?

Well, why not?

That's your governance part. Social is all of the social justice crap, that we have been fighting. And E, of course, is environment.

This bill, by the way, will destroy the petroleum industry. And don't worry, petroleum, it's not used at anything. Nothing can make petroleum.

This will indirectly impose Europe's ESG standards on countless American companies, including many small businesses.

All covered companies will need to create climate change transition plans. Prevention action plans. Establish contractural assurances, from a direct business partner. That it will ensure compliance with the business' prevention action plan.

So you make a widget, but you don't sell it to Ford. You sell it to somebody that is making radios for Ford.

You don't have anything to do with Ford. But if you want to sell a widget to another company, that does business with Ford, or sell it to another company that that company sells to another company, to sell to Ford.

You see how this is working?

And if you don't comply in America, you cannot sell anything, in Europe.

You also, established contractural assurances. Business prevention.

Can and make necessary financial or nonfinancial investments or upgrades.

What the hell does that mean? Individual countries will write their own laws in accordance with this new EU. ESG law.

Each country in the EU will be responsible for enforcing its rules and issuing punishments. Civilian and activist groups also are covered in this bill. Activist groups can bring private cause of action against companies for failing to meet guidelines.

Well, open up the floodgates for attorneys, right there. The EU requirements are going to be faced in, beginning in 2027.

Now, let me get into the actual requirements, that we can -- this is a very complex, and very big bill.

Over the weekend. Thank God for Justin Haskins and his team. He went through all of it. So let me tell you what these rules are.
Again, we're talking about something that just passed on Friday in the EU that affects us. And it's -- it's the economy. It's the environment. It's free speech. It's all of it. So there's not a single long list of rules that companies need to comply with. There are some specific rules that are included.

However, this new law includes hundreds of vague statements and references to existing international agreements and EU regulations.

Many of those are also long agreements, featuring many more are rules, such as, the Paris climate agreement.

And the international covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights. You know that. You're complying I'm sure.

Oh, you're not?

I guess we should read up on it. As a result of the complexity and the expansiveness of the rule. The total number of social credit scoring metrics. Let me say that again. The total number of social credit scoring metrics, included in this law, is currently unknown.

But it is likely in the hundreds, if not more than a thousand.

It's hard to tell, currently. You get social credit scores. Now, let me ask you something: Is the EU going to actually stop buying everything that comes from China.

Because there's no way that China will comply with this.

Do you know what that will do for the prices in the European Union.

If they stop buying stuff from China?

If we don't stop this. If we stop buying things from China.

Prices -- you will go broke, quickly, businesses will go out of business, quickly.

Now, here's just one example of the law, where it's not economic.

It's actually on climate change. And free speech.

The directive is an important legislative tool to ensure corporate transition to a sustainable economy. What they're saying there is: No longer a capitalist system. Including to reduce the existential harms and costs of climate change. To ensure alignment with the global net zero by 2050. And to avoid any misleading claims, regarding such alignment, and stop green washing disinformation, and fossil fuel expansion, worldwide, in order to achieve international and European climate objectives

So notice they throw in misinformation. One law -- one law firm notes, companies are required to effectively engage with stakeholders. Let me say that again.

Companies are required to effectively engage with stakeholders.

Do you remember who the stakeholders are? Because they're not you!

The take holder are the governments. The social activists. And I think that's it. And the companies, themselves.

Those three get together. Because, you know, the Sierra Club, is a stakeholder in making sure that our trees are okay. And our environment is clean.

The government is just a representative of you. Yeah. Yeah. I stopped believing that a long time ago.

So you don't have a voice. Your voice is the Senate, the House, and the president.

That's the stakeholder that they have to deal with. Companies have to sit down, when they're making these rules, with those guys.

This includes carrying out consultations at various stages, of the due diligence process. That's going to be cheap. During which, companies must provide comprehensive information.

Now, according to the European parliament. Member states will be required to provide companies with detailed online information. On their -- of their due diligence obligations. Via practical portals, containing the commission's guidance.

They will also create or design, and designate a supervisor authority, to investigate, and impose penalties, on any noncompliant firms.

These will include naming and shame.

That's a quote.

This will include, in quotes, naming and shaming. And fines of up to 5 percent of the company's net worldwide turnover.

Again, worldwide turnover.

Why not use revenue?

Additionally, a breach of certain CSDDDD obligations. That's the catchy acronym for it.

May result in civil liability for damages. However, a company cannot be held liable for any damage caused by its business partners. In its chain of activities.

That's the bad news. I can guarantee you, we are at least a year, maybe two years ahead of everyone else. They are not paying attention to this.

Do not dismiss this, when you go into vote.

Which candidate is -- and I mean every candidate, is most likely to stand up and say, no! Review if the United States, a huge market, decides to say, we're not playing your game. Europe will not be able to stand on its own.

China, they'll just give a pass to. Because everybody, for some reason, thinks that that authoritarian state that puts their own people with social credit scores, and puts them in camps, is okay.

Let me ask you this: Do you think Europe is actually going to have Apple pay a fine or stop making its products in China because they're made by slaves?

No.

This is a way to -- look, there is a book over in our museum.

Very rare. Because the king had them all burned.

It was during the witch trials over in Europe.

And it was one book, that says, this is hogwash!

This is just the king wanting these rules, so he can get rid of his enemies.

King had them all burned. We can find all kinds of stuff, that say, witches are real.

That book, is extraordinarily rare. Why?

The king needed them to go away, because he could have -- anybody who displeased him, he's a witch.

She's a witch.

Burn them at the stake. That's exactly what's going to happen here. Companies like Apple will be fine. Facebook, fine.

Doing business. Over in Europe. Even though, they're working with the Chinese!

You, but any company that decides to stand and say, no. We don't believe in this.

We're not doing this. You're doomed. You're doomed.

If you play ball with the government, one way or another, you're all right.

Klaus Schwab's WEF "Heir" Wants to ENSLAVE YOU
RADIO

Klaus Schwab's WEF "Heir" Wants to ENSLAVE YOU

World Economic Forum founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab is stepping back from his role running the WEF. But his “heir” might be even more terrifying. Glenn speaks with Klaus Schwab, Jr. (totally not comedian Eric Hollerbach) about his plans for the WEF in the future, including why he wants to enslave humanity and how you will benefit from it. Plus, he reveals why Klaus Schwab is really stepping back (brains can’t digitize themselves), how the WEF gets its power, and why he’s “beefing” with Glenn.

NOTE: Okay, okay that wasn't actually Klaus's son. He is, in fact, comedian Eric Hollerbach. You can catch his standup at Vulcan Gas Company in Austin, Texas on July 11th & September 11th, 2024 at 8:00pm CT!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The world economic founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab will be stepping back from his role, running the global gathering, since he founded it in 1971. You know, I don't know. He's only had since 1971. Has he really had enough time to accomplish all of his goals?

He will be stepping down, and transitioning to a role as a nonexecutive, chairperson. The change in role is still pending approval. By the Swiss government, who I just love so very, very much.

We are shockingly lucky enough to be able to speak to his son now. And just so you know, he was raised in a -- in a middle -- he was raised really as a middle class oligarch in a modest castle in Bulgaria. Klaus Schwab Jr is with us now, to tell us, you know, for instance, what it was like growing up with Klaus Schwab as a dad.

Klaus Jr. welcome.

ERIC: Hello, Glenn Beck. How are you today.

GLENN: I am good. I am good. It's interesting that you would agree to only this particular program. I'm not sure how your father feels about people like me or -- or -- or Russell Brand.

ERIC: Well, it's okay to talk to our position, and maybe I can make some conversions on to your side, to my side.

GLENN: Sure. Sure. And your side is?

ERIC: Techno fascist dictatorship.

GLENN: Okay.

ERIC: We're making efficiency.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: And you're asking of my father. Santa Klaus Schwab, transitioning. Just like how the paper -- let's be honest. Paper money. Even Monopoly Times, has the digitalization of the card now.

So when you play Monopoly, so that your dumb kid can't make the math to count the paper. Now this is on card for you.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: Just -- now you are making digital currency for efficiency making. For equitable access of you will have your taxes. So you don't have to get a cumbersome tax audit. Or anything like that.

Klaus Schwab's brain is analogue at this moment, and it will go to digitalization.

So he's just getting the upgrade. It's not really -- it's more of a Laffer movement.

GLENN: Really? Okay.

So he's really kind of going to continue just in a digital kind of way.

ERIC: Yes. I think that, you know -- and also, he said something about karma. And he does not want to (inaudible) so he will just loophole digitalization.

GLENN: Right. Right.

Wasn't -- was it your father, or was it your grandfather that was a Nancy?

ERIC: Labels. Labels. Okay? Labels. The national Socialist Party, oh, you will factor COVID time. Oh, you're Democrats. You're evil. You know what I mean?

It's like, first of all, my great uncle, great uncle actually died from Auschwitz. People don't actually know this.

GLENN: Really? Died in Auschwitz?

ERIC: Yes. He was scared. And so he was making an installation of electric fence. And his foot was in a muddy puddle, and he was electrocuted.

GLENN: And that's a pretty tragic family story really?

ERIC: Oh, he was a great man.

GLENN: Yeah. Who knew? Who knew? You had so much in common with the Jews.

So how was your childhood with Klaus Schwab being your dad?

ERIC: Well, not always great. You know, he always gave me the carrot on the stick. The silver or the led option. For example, for Christmastime, he would take all the neighborhood kids who would go into the castle. And, you know, some of them were from the lower classes. And then for Christmas Eve, he would like always wear this like scary mask. And he would like not wear the pants. And then he would always insist on bare bottom spanking from my friends.

And my friends are like, oh, spankings on my buttocks. You know, a big cry.

But since the next day, he would be playing near the Tenenbaums, near the Christmas tree for you.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: And he's like 10,000 years old.

You know, the PlayStation. Oh, you get the motorcycle.

GLENN: Really?

ERIC: Well, I don't like this man. But he's not so bad.

GLENN: Right. Yes. Yes.

ERIC: You don't know if he's coming or going.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

So what is the role of the world economic -- you know, people say, they just don't have any power at all. Because it's just a collection of people that get together.

ERIC: That's really funny. Good one.

GLENN: Oh, I thought that -- that was actually a question.

I mean, you know, how do you respond to that?

ERIC: No. Well, we do certain rituals. To ensure that we go up the food chain.

Closer and closer and closer to the great architects of the universe. And we are the embodiment to inherit Earth Incorporated.

GLENN: Right. And then people like the average people, how are they going to benefit?

ERIC: Well, their slavery will be more like digital token. They will have equitable access to make labor or jail.

GLENN: Okay.

Okay. Klaus Schwab Jr.

Thank you very much. I guess for joining us. And telling us --

ERIC: Well, I -- I am beefing with you, Glenn Beckingham.

GLENN: You have a beef with me?

ERIC: Yes. I went down to Mercury Studios to make prime time happen. And I said at the front desk, first of all, nobody -- there was no tropics when I arrived.

Okay?

Nobody made the feet kissing.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ERIC: And then insult to injury, they pointed to the public toilet for me.

And I said, no! My pronouns are God and deity. I will use Glenn Beckingham's toilet. And they said, no. That's forbidden.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

ERIC: And so the next time I see you at the Glenn Beckingham. If you are sitting on the throne, I will sit on your lap.

GLENN: Well, I think your father has already kind of done that in his own sort of way, with everybody on earth. By the way, I want to introduce you to -- who we're really talking to. Eric Hollerbach.

ERIC: Who? No. He's a loser. No. He's my intern.

GLENN: Really? Really?

ERIC: You know the friend who is like the beta? Who like, no matter how much fun you make of him, he keeps coming? You know. He is like this man.

GLENN: Yeah. Really. Really. And what does he do for you, exactly? Because I understood that, you know, Eric has been doing stand-up comedy in New York and everybody where else.

And screen writing. And things like that. But that's your intern that does that.

ERIC: Yeah. You think this pays? No, no, no. I pay him under the table. But, you know, he stored the -- he stores -- but I keep tabs on him. You know, we have a certain Stasi sale in Fredericksberg.

So I make a following of him, to make sure my supply is okay, and all this.

And you should see -- you should see the heifers he brings home. Oh, my God.

I mean, he does not respect himself.

For example, he went to the Austin, Texas, rodeo. And we make photograph of this. To keep track on him.

And it was very difficult to tell the difference between the plump, fat, Goth ugly girls he likes, and the cows in the rodeo. The only way we could tell the difference, because the fishnet owns the eye liner. They took it back to the -- the Germans, the CIA. The BNB. And we need forensic photographic analysis to tell the the difference between the cows and the girls he's talking to.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

Well, Klaus Schwab Jr. Thank you so much.
Future executive and chairman of the world.

THIS is Where Inflation is Coming From
RADIO

THIS is Where Inflation is Coming From

The Federal Reserve may claim to be fighting inflation, but Rep. Thomas Massie joins Glenn to make the case that the Fed is also CAUSING the inflation. Between all the money printing, interest rate changes, and bank bailouts, the Fed is toppling the U.S. dollar, Massie argues. And while you’re suffering, the big banks are getting richer. So, because of this, the Fed has got to go! But what would replace the Fed? Massie gives his top choice …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There is somebody that I really respect, that is doing something that absolutely has to happen. You want to fix the country, we must abolish the Federal Reserve right now.

And representative Thomas Massie is on the phone with me now.

Hi, Thomas, how are you?

THOMAS: Hey, Glenn. Thanks for covering this topic. It really needs to happen.

We're done nibbling around the edges. I've introduced the bill to audit the fed for a decade.

We're past that, and we have to end it.

GLENN: Yeah. So explain to people, what the fed is, is what it has been doing lately. It's our central bank. And it has nothing to do with the federal government.

It is a private corporation. Correct?

THOMAS: Yeah. Let me just explain what's happened under Jerome Powell. And I hate to pick on him, but he's the fed chairman right now. And under him, we've seen 25 percent of the value of the dollar, disappear.

Meanwhile, during COVID, the investment bankers, and the Wall Street bankers. Had their best year ever in 2020.

And we hit 7 percent inflation. During COVID.

Thanks to the fed.

They are -- and then let me just tell you about Jerome Powell's background. Because it's indicative of the kind of people that worked there.

He started out as an attorney, and he went into investment banking. Then he went to Treasury. Then he left Treasury. And went into banking.

And investment banking. And it was Barack Obama who put him on the federal Board of Governors.

And then it was Trump who elevated him to chairman, and then it was Biden who renominated him.

This guy is the Uniparty person, who makes the investment bankers rich and everybody else poor in this country.

GLENN: But it's also -- people need to understand, the president can't just nominate anybody, or appoint anybody.

The -- the Federal Reserve -- so all of the -- what is it, seven or eight banks?

The biggest banks. We are not even allowed to know who they are, which is incredibly un-American and leads to all kinds of corruption. They get together, and they say to the president. Here are a few names, that we'll accept. You pick from one of them. Right?
THOMAS: Right. And then when that guy takes the job, who do you think he goes out to have dinner with every night?

I mean, there's this argument that we want our monetary policy to be independent of Congress or the executive branch. But it's a falsehood, that it's independent right now. It's not independent at all.

I mean, Jerome Powell lobbies Congress and the White House to engage in more fiscal stimulus. And then they're working.

I mean, when the Treasury gets their debt monetized by the fed. You think that's an independent thing?

No. That's a carefully orchestrated dance. That's what they've done recently. There's three ways you can get money for the government to spend.

You can either tax the people and get money back. Or you can borrow the money. Or you can just create it out of thin air.

And what they did during COVID, is they created trillions of dollars out of thin air.

And this is -- Congress is to blame as well. Congress spent those trillions of dollars. It's the fed that enabled it. And it's the fed that pulls it off.

GLENN: And it's also the fed.

This is what kills me. You know, they said that, you know, in 2008, these banks were too big to fail. And we have to stop that.

And everything Congress did made these banks stronger and bigger, and hurt the small banks that are not part of the Federal Reserve system, so to speak.

They're not on -- you know, they're not one of the owners of the fed. And it seems to me, Thomas, that every time something is done, the American people are the ones that lose, and the banks get the money. They get richer. And in the end, it's going to be those, however.

What is it? Five or six or eight banks, that make up the fed. Do you know?

THOMAS: I don't know the number.

GLENN: We don't even know the number.

So whatever the number is, those guys are going to be the ones that are currently holding our debt.

Now, as I understand it, whoever holds debt, you have to pay that debt. And I have had bankers tell me. Glenn, we don't have to worry about the debt.

Do you know what just our national parks are worth?

And so we will pay whatever it is they want, we'll have to give that to the banks.

Which will mean, it's a transfer of wealth from the people, to these big banks. It's just obscene.

THOMAS: Yeah. And they have no intention of selling the national parks, by the way. They are just going to take it out of our (inaudible), that's what they're going to do.

And, listen, to your first point there. The fed acts like they're the firefighters, but they are the arsonists.

GLENN: Yes, they are.

THOMAS: They kept rates low. They had easy money for banks to get.

For so long. That the banks, you know, they just assumed it was always going to be that way. You had a few that failed. They came in.

And, well, they failed because the fed then came in. Which whiplashed and raised rates, quicker than they ever raised them before.

And the banks were kind of in this one model. Then the fed comes and does triage on them.

The fed starts out as the arsonist. Then they come in and too the fire fighting by raising rates. Then they come in and bail out the couple of banks last year.

So they are causing the problems that they come in and allegedly solve. But I think we're almost to a point now, where they're running out of levers, where the rubber bands that attach their levers to our macro economy are stretched as far as they are stretched.

Because right now, they're not really in control of interest rates. They might like to think they can lower the interest rate to stimulate the economy again. But the problem is. When they recently put treasuries out for auction. The sovereign funds. In the other countries that oftentimes buy our debt. Said, you know what, that four and a half percent. I don't think that's a good bargain.

I'm not going to buy those. I need a higher interest rate.

GLENN: Would you honestly.

If you had -- you were in charge of a bank. Or you were making loans as a private individual. And you had somebody who came in and ran their life, the way our Congress runs our country, what kind of interest rate would you demand from them, that you would think it's worth taking the risk for that?

THOMAS: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it would be easy. Easy in the double digits. And most likely in the mid-double digits for me.

THOMAS: Yeah. And the other thing is then, we try to inflate our debt down.

In other words, we devalue our currency.

So it changes the impact, of let's say the nominal price of our debt in gold, if you can find some outside reforms.

So the Treasury kind of likes inflation. It kills the little guy. It's -- the big guys don't care. Because like we saw during COVID. They just reprice everything on Wall Street. Then the other assets, the fed will prop up by buying them. So they make sure the rich people can survive during inflation.

The poor people can't. Or even the middle class can't. Because you don't have these sort of financial instruments that everybody else has. That the fed takes care of.

And so it -- then the fed is -- when they cause inflation. They solve a little bit of the debt problem.

But the problem is: We're getting to a point, where it's not going to work anymore.

For a while, we had inflation, that was greater than the interest rate, that we were paying on the debt.

So you can see actually -- people will take your debt at those low interest rates, and inflation is that high. You should probably take on more debt. I hate to say it.

They're wising up in the world.

Now, here is something else that happens.

The US dollar is the world currency.

We've mucked with it. But not so much that people don't want it yet.

GLENN: Yet. Yet.

THOMAS: And when you want to. Everybody likes to do their transactions in dollars. But to do a transaction in dollars, you have to hold dollars. So the whole world is holding dollars.

So when we devalue the dollar. We're not just taxing our own people.

We're taxing the entire world. We're kind of like the credit card gets 3 percent of all the transaction at the gas station. We get that 3 percent if we create 3 percent more money every year. Which we typically do. But the rest of the world is getting tired of being used that way. They're tired of our transaction fees. I.e. inflation.

And when they start using alternate forms of money to do their transactions. Or holding different assets in their own sovereign wealth funds. Then we're not going to be able to do that trick, on anybody, except for US citizens.

GLENN: You know --

THOMAS: Again, this is all coming to a head.

GLENN: Thomas, I said this a while back.

Probably 15 years ago.

When this actually happens. We are going to be labeled. Because no politician, in any other country, is going to take responsibility for their own fiscal madness.

Everybody is going to blame it on the United States.

Because we were greedy. Grotesque. And took on so much debt.

That we devalued the dollar. And it's going to affect the entire world.

And, you know, I relayed it. And I know it's for different reasons in some way.

But I look at the way Germany looked at France. At the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II. Is I think the way the rest of the world is going to look at us. We forced. We didn't. France forced Germany into just devastation.

Where they had to inflate their dollar. I mean, it was horrible. We -- the damage that we are going to do, by destroying our dollar.

I don't think we're going to be very popular in the world.

THOMAS: No. And somebody says, okay. If you get -- they've been asking me, what if you get rid of the fed? What do you replace it with?

That's like saying, if you take out a tumor, what do you replace the tumor with?

Then the serious answer is we go back to stable currency.

The government can't manipulate.

You would -- I would prefer to have a gold standard ready.

GLENN: Me too. So I have been told. This is what a serious, serious banker at the fed level has said to me.

Glenn, the reason why we had to get rid of the gold standard. Is at first, we wanted the great society and the Vietnam War. Couldn't afford it.

But there's not enough gold to build and live at the level the world lives, right now.

It -- we had to play funny money. And everybody is in on it. We can't go to a gold standard. Because there's just not enough gold.

Do you buy that?

THOMAS: Well, there's enough gold to do honest transactions.

But you're right. There's not enough gold to do the funny money and to fund all of these wars, for instance. That we've engaged in.

You know, typically, when the government tries to leave some kind of standard that they've been on.

It's because they have to finance a war. And nobody wants to consume enough of their debt to finance the war. So they go off the standard.

Yeah. You can't monetize your own debt. Once you get into that model.

You can't create the funny money. It's real money.

It's hard money. And that's what we should go back to.

And we shouldn't replace the fed with anything. It's Keynesian economics. The whole premise, I know a lot of Republicans may disagree with me. And they may think we need a federal reserve bank.

And that we need to control inflation. But that's the whole notion of Keynesian economics.

That you could create prosperity by tweaking the -- the interest rates and the money supply. And that the free market doesn't have enough signals and feedback. Doesn't react quickly enough. That you can have some experts in an ivory tower.

That need to be turning off to make our lives better. The reality is, the people in the ivory tower, they're investment bankers. They came from investment banking. They're going back to investment banking. They still got ties to it.

And they're tweaking it enough to help their buddies and to keep this going, until the music stops. Which is --

GLENN: So you have introduced HR24 as well, which is the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, to audit the federal reserve. And the act to abolish it. You have a lot of cosponsors. Any chance that this even gets passed, our own House Speaker?

THOMAS: Well, probably not this speaker. But we've got -- not under this Speaker, but under previous Speakers, we have passed Audit the Fed in the House. They've never brought it up in the Senate, or not passed it in the Senate. But yet, people like Bernie Sanders, who sponsored Audit the Fed when he was in the House, then he gets to the Senate and he won't even sponsor it.

But we've got to end it. So we have enough cosponsors. And enough votes to pass audit the fed. It hasn't happened in this Congress. It should happen in this Congress. But, by the way, if it were really part of the government. You could do a FOIA on it. But try FOIA-ing the federal reserve.

GLENN: You can't. You can't.

Thomas, quickly, how can people help?

THOMAS: Yeah.

So the HR number is 8421 for ending the Federal Reserve. We have 22 cosponsors right now. We need more cosponsors. Ask your congressmen to cosponsor end the fed. HR8421.

GLENN: Thomas, thank you very much.