RADIOMay 13, 2022

How ESG & BlackRock are ROBBING YOU of financial control

Vivek Ramaswamy — author of ‘Woke, INC.’ and founder of Roviant Sciences — currently is working hard to TAKE BACK control from the three largest asset managers in the world…including BlackRock, which manages over 10 TRILLION dollars of everyday Americans' finances (that's more than half the U.S. GDP!). ‘They’re using the money from everyday, American citizens…to advance these social and environmental policies that we should instead be debating as citizens,’ Ramaswamy tells Glenn. But rather than face antitrust violations, firms like BlackRock instead are CELEBRATED thanks to ESG. Ramaswamy tells Glenn how his new company will help Americans regain financial control and reestablish our TRUE free market...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: A guy I have to tell you -- if I could make a list of the five people that I'm watching that can really change the world, Elon Musk is probably number one. Number two is probably Vivek Ramaswamy, who is now -- if I can get his name right. He's the author of Woke, Inc. But he just did something that -- Vivek, thank you. You are -- you are in the position to do something, you're in the position, where you don't have to do something. And you are taking on BlackRock. The right way. Can you explain what you're doing?

VIVEK: Yeah. So we're taking on the three largest asset managers in the world, Glenn. Starting with BlackRock who is managing over $10 trillion. That's one firm managing more than half of the U.S. GDP. And here's the problem, Glenn: They're using the money of everyday American citizens, most of the listeners of this program, yours and mine, to foist values on to corporate America, to advocate for values, in corporate America. To vote our shares in corporate America. In ways that we would disapprove of, to advance these social and environmental policies, that we should instead be debating as citizens.

GLENN: Amen.

VIVEK: And Glenn, you know this stuff well. Just think of this for a second, as a thought experiment. If you had the CEOs of Exxon and Shell and Chevron get together in a room and say, we're going to cut gas production.

And then gas prices spike at the pump as a result.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

VIVEK: This would be the stuff of movies. People would be walking up, perp walks and handcuffs. Okay. It's anti-trust violations.

Guess what, when the same owners of these competing firms, all force those firms to do the exact same thing, somehow that gets celebrated as ESG instead.

That is a problem. And that's a problem we're solving through competition. And so my message to BlackRock is really simple. Good news is we'll solve your anti-trust problem. The bad news is we're going to do it by taking market share, by actually representing the voices of everyday American citizens in every boardroom in this country, eventually.

GLENN: So when will this begin? When can average people move their 401(k)s or their investments over to you?

VIVEK: Yeah. So the movement begins in the third quarter of the year. What we said that the first products will launch in the third quarter. This was just unveiling the company itself.

And I have been humbled. I've been blown away by the level of support we've received. In fact, the number of employees, of the big asset managers including Vanguard and BlackRock and State Street, who have said, we are -- and these are their words and not mine. In one message I got, we're fed up with the nonsense. Ready for something new. And, you know what, I don't hold it against employees who are willing to move with their own feet.

Actually give credit to brave people who are willing to act on their convictions. And, you know what, these firms did not act this way 20 years ago. This is a newer trend. Even for employees of these large asset managers, who have seen the lurch that these firms have taken. I give those employees credit, and our doors are wide open. But to answer your question, Glenn. It's the third quarter of the year that we'll be launching it.

GLENN: So, Vivek, I've been preaching this ESG stuff for a while now.

And --

VIVEK: Yes, you have.

GLENN: And couldn't get -- couldn't get the states, you know, about 20 of them. But so many Republicans even are like, this is a private business. They can do whatever they want. Well, S&P global just came and said, we're now rating the states, with ESG scores. So you may -- you may lose your status for businesses. Because we may not be able to recommend that people do business in your state.

VIVEK: At a certain state, we should just call the charade for what it is. We tell ourselves, we live in a Democratic society. Let's call the charade for what it is, and start bowing to our monarchs instead. This isn't even a battle between left and right, Glenn. This is a battle between living in a Democratic republic, and living in a monarchy, where a certain group of corpranacrats, people who run a corpatocracy and monarchy, decide what the right answer is to these moral questions for everybody else.

Now, I don't think that public policy makers are up to the task. I think you agree with me on that. I also think a lot of public policies can have unintended consequences. That's a different game. That's not the game I'm playing. At the end of the day, I think that the market here. The actual market. The true free market.

Not the one guided by the invisible hand of government. But the one that's guided by the demand of everyday citizens. That's the system that I think could deliver the cleanest solution. If brave enough people are actually brave enough to step into that individual. I think there's a great economic opportunity. I think there's a great opportunity to change our culture. So that's the path I'm taking. That doesn't mean the policy makers can't act. It's just, I'm focused more on the market track.

GLENN: You know what's amazing to me. I see these media companies, that sell for a billion dollars.

And they got nothing. We're the largest streaming network for right of center in the world.

It's like we're worth $10. It's like, you're never going to be able to sell that. You're like, the market doesn't understand. And they refuse to understand, that I don't know. Half the country, doesn't agree with them. And still wants products.

VIVEK: And, Glenn, let me just give you one shade further. I agree with everything you you said.

But further, the 100+ million people. The 100+ million people you're talking about, when you adjust for spending power, when you adjust for investment power, when you adjust for being good credit risks, good insurance risk. People don't lie on their credit card applications. People who have actual savings to put into investment funds. People who are hard workings, people who are sticky customers. That actually becomes one of the largest economies in the world.

GLENN: Right.

VIVEK: Now, that being said, I want to share with you my perspective here. I don't want to see a red economy and a blue economy in the long run.

GLENN: I don't either.

VIVEK: This is beyond -- this is beyond Democratic and Republican partisan politics. I do want to get politics out of the private sector. But we're not starting from neutral territory. So I think using market competition and competitive force, to bring that true diversity to the marketplace of ideas, when right now, especially in capital markets, Glenn, we have one view. It's the ESG centric view. And ESG is whatever BlackRock decides it means on a given day.

What we really need is just true competition and true diversity. If we get there, I'm happy. And I don't want partisanized economies left at the end of it.

I actually think that the economy can bring us together. The private sector, if it's tee politicized, can bring us together. We're just taking the steps to get there.

GLENN: Well, if we have to have a parallel economy, then we have to have it. But a parallel economy will take money from the other side. And they will either get competitive or they will be destroyed.

VIVEK: That's exactly right. I predict the way this plays out isn't that we have two permanent parallel economies, but companies like Airbnb and BlackRock and Disney, and for that matter, you know, every other company in corporate America is going to wake up and say five years from now, our approach to diversity and inclusion, probably wasn't as diverse and inclusive as we thought.

GLENN: Right.

VIVEK: They swing the pendulum back. That's how we get our culture back.

GLENN: Did you see what BlackRock, they announced today?

VIVEK: Of course. Of course. I think it's -- I don't mean to falsely pat myself on the back or take credit. Is not about me. It's about them trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, right?

So now, what are we going to see from BlackRock? Mark my words.

They'll say, well, the proposals we put up a couple of years ago, we want to roll those back, a little bit.

You know what I would say? That's an example of an institution that operates without a soul.

Have somebody who has a different view, who we could engage in healthy debate in the open. Rather than to debate with somebody who wants to look like a flag, but waves in whatever direction the wind is blowing. Now they're trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. I think they're going to have a very difficult time to do that. I think it's revealing, how they sense the tide is changing. We'll lead that tide hopefully to a more positive place.

GLENN: So I only have about three minutes left. And I want to ask you a question. And they're just ethical questions, that I don't know how to solve, both in the news today. Goldman Sachs backed firm buys Florida community of single-family homes for $45 million. BlackRock is doing this too.

They're coming in. Paying overprice. Buying old neighborhoods. I don't want to tell companies, that they can't do that. I wouldn't be opposed to that, if it wasn't for ESG, and the great reset, which says, you're not going to own anything, by 2030.

And everybody will be renters. So what are we -- what do you think of this? And how do you deal with this?

VIVEK: It's a great question, Glenn. I like the intellectual honesty with which you're approaching this too. This traces back to a deeper problem. Of the government, effectively having a private sector suckling at its teat over the last two years.

But in return for the trade of making sure that those private actors implement government policies through the back door. The government couldn't pass through the front door.

So institutions like BlackRock are effectively benefiting from a decades' long policy of not only easy money from the fed, but also Treasury spending. Also, of course, if you look at who administered the covid-19 stimulus packages. Guess what, it was none other than BlackRock. Taking their range at every step as well.

So this is crony capitalism. If it's a truly free market and private institutions are deciding to invest in real estate, you're right. I don't think that that's something that we should worry about as policy makers. Or policy makers should worry about. In saying that that's something that they shouldn't be allowed to do. But we don't live in that free market.

Right now, it's the invisible hand. Really, the invisible fist of government, that's engaged in mutual back scratching exercise, with firms like Goldman Sachs.

That's been happening since 2008. But also with firms like BlackRock in more recent years.

That make this the illusion of the free market, but they're using the slogan of free marketism, as a slogan to defang the conservative opposition, that you would otherwise feel in the intuitions, but conservative dogma says that we shouldn't interfere with the free market. I think that's correct, so long as we restore the actual free market. That's a complicated issue.

GLENN: Yeah. No.

I appreciate your answer. We're talking to Vivek Ramaswamy. Two kind of in the same question. There's a story from CNN today. Tesla stocks slide. Raises doubts about Elon Musk's Twitter purchase.

I think they're sliding just like everybody else. Myself.

And the other -- the other thing that I really would like your view on, there's a story in Fortune today, coin base admits users may lose crypto if exchange goes abrupt. Now, when I read the headline. My first thought was, Good Lord, are they going bankrupt? This is the federal government requiring them to disclose, what would happen in worst-case scenario. And now it's being reported on, and the average person will look at this, and go. Oh, there's trouble at coin base. Is this just another game that CNN is playing with Tesla, and the United States government is playing against cryptocurrency?

VIVEK: So you understand this really well, Glenn. Your intuitions are in the right place. And they're doing this all over the place. You're seeing it in the green revolution too. The -- we, the regulators aren't really forcing companies to pass a particular agenda.

Of course, we would never do that. We're just picking certain areas, where they have to over disclose their risks, such as climate risk. And you can see the war on crypto has a very similar feel to it as well. It rhymes in the similar way. Well, if we say what, the disclosure regime is really just a vehicle for packing in, for smuggling in a viewpoint-based agenda that forces companies to either bend the knee in a certain direction or not.

And when you combine that with the forces of the media which has really just become a fourth branch of government in many senses, that's how you use this soft power. It's not hard legislative power. Though, that may be come soon.

But it's this soft power of using a combination of a disclosure regime with regulatory pressure from the back door, with regulatory favors, given to large existing incumbents, that then create the conditions for nothing, but the right answer, which is the ESG-centric answer to have been the product of what they will say is the free market. Of course, it's really just the invisible fist of government, and the more -- and I don't use that word lightly.

But the more totalitarian forces behind it, conspiring to get to that same outcome. So I appreciate your insight, in helping people see through, with what otherwise seems like an ordinary, less nefarious affair.

GLENN: I mean, I tell you, you say authoritarian. The title of my book is The Great Reset: Twenty-first Century Fascism.

And it's -- people are like, you can't say fascism. But that's what it is. It is that.

VIVEK: The classical definition of fascism, is a merger of corporate power and state power. And I think we're seeing the beginning of the rise of that. On modern American soil. And in some ways, we fought a revolutionary war in 1776. It was not a war between partisan on one side or another. It was a war between the everyday citizen, and the monarchial class back in 1776.

GLENN: Yep.

VIVEK: And today, the new battle line is between the everyday citizen and the managerial class in the United States.

That's not left or right. It's something more fundamental than that.

GLENN: And isn't it crazy, that it's happening all over the world?

It's happening in every western cup. And it's being misidentified in every country.

VIVEK: You nailed it, Glenn. This is a trans partisan, transnational war for the heart and soul of both capitalism, and democracy.

And I even -- not to be fancy about this. Transpartisan, transnational. I even say it's transtemporal. This is transnational back in 1776. The French Revolution played out 13 years later. It was a Trans Atlantic battle then too. We live in one of these moments, where it's like the dose in the water. It's kind of like it was back in 1776. This goes beyond geographic boundaries, and partisan boundaries.

It's the human struggle between the citizen and the monarch. Between the citizen and the managerial class.

That's what is at stake today. And we side on the side of the everyday citizen. I'm just choosing to do it, not just through policies, but through actually creating a vehicle to compete with these new monarchs like BlackRock and Vanguard. So that's what I set out to do what I'm doing.

GLENN: Vivek, I cannot -- and I mean this sincerely. I have waited for people like you, to start standing up. And you have for a long time. But standing up -- I mean, you're going against BlackRock. And others.

I mean, you're going to get slapped around. Thank you. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. You give a lot of people, including me hope.

VIVEK: Thank you, Glenn. Appreciate it. Take your support every step. Buh-bye.

GLENN: Vivek Ramaswamy, the author of Woke, Inc. And talking about his startup that's going after BlackRock and ESG.

The Globalist Elites' Dystopian Plan for YOUR Future | Glenn Beck Chalkboard Breakdown

There are competing visions for the future of America which are currently in totally different directions. If the globalist elites have their way, the United States will slide into a mass surveillance technocracy where freedoms are eroded and control is fully centralized. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to break down exactly what their goal is and why we need to hold the line against these ominous forces.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s TERRIFYING Next Phase

Barack & Michelle tried to END divorce rumors. It DIDN'T go well

Former president Barack Obama recently joined his wife Michelle Obama and her brother on their podcast to finally put the divorce rumors to rest … but it didn’t exactly work. Glenn Beck and Pat Gray review the awkward footage, including a kiss that could compete for “most awkward TV kiss in history.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me -- let me take you to some place. I think kind of entertaining.

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

She does it with her brother. Who knew? It's -- you know, I mean, it's so -- it's a podcast with two brothers. Right?

And -- and it -- they wanted to address the rumors, that they're getting a divorce. And this thing seems so staged.

I want you to -- listen to this awkward exchange on the podcast.

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

MICHELLE: Oh, yeah. The rumor mill. It's my husband, y'all! Now, don't start.

OBAMA: It's good to be back. It was touch-and-go for a while.

VOICE: It's so nice to have you both in the same room today.

OBAMA: I know. I know.

MICHELLE: I know, because when we aren't, folks things we're divorced. There hasn't been one moment in our marriage, where I thought about quitting my man.

And we've had some really hard times. We've had a lot of fun times. A lot of adventures. And I have become a better person because of the man I'm married to.

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

GLENN: I believed her. Now, this is just so hokey.

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

MICHELLE: Get you all teared up. See, but this is why I can't -- see, you can take the hard stuff, but when I start talking about the sweet stuff, you're like, stop. No, I can't do it.

VOICE: I love it. I'm enjoying it.

MICHELLE: But thank you, honey, for being on our show. Thank you for making the time. We had a great --

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

GLENN: They're not doing good. They're not doing good.

Okay. And then there was this at the beginning. And some people say, this was very awkward. Some people say, no. It was very nice.

When he walks in the room, he gives her a hug and a kiss. Watch.

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

PAT: Does that look like they're totally into each other?

GLENN: Well, I give my wife a peck on the cheek, if she walks into a room.

PAT: Do you? If you haven't seen her in months and it seems like they haven't, would you kiss her on the cheek? Probably not.

GLENN: No, that's a little different. That would be a little different. But I wouldn't make our first seeing of each other on television.

PAT: Yeah, right, that's true. That's true.

GLENN: But, you know, in listening to the staff talk about this. And they were like, it was a really uncomfortable -- okay.

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

But I don't think that rivals -- and I can't decide which is the worst, most uncomfortable kiss.

Let me roll you back into the time machine, to Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. Do you remember this kiss?
(applauding)

GLENN: He turns away, immediately away from the camera. Because he's like.

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

GLENN: It was so awkward. When that happened, all of us went, oh, my gosh. He has only kissed little boys. What are we doing? What is happening?

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

And then there's the other one that sticks out in my mind of -- and I'm not sure which is worse. The Lisa Marie or the Tipper in Al Gore.

VOICE: The kiss. The famous exchange during the 2000 democratic convention was to some lovely, to others icky.
(laughter)

GLENN: That's an ABC reporter. To some lovely, others icky.

And it really was. And it was -- I believe his global warming stuff more than that kiss.
(laughter)
And you know where I stand on global warming.

That was the most awkward kiss I think ever on television!

PAT: Yeah. It was pretty bad. Pretty bad.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So when people who are, you know -- these youngsters.

These days. They look at Barack and Michelle. They're like, that was an awkward kiss.

Don't even start with me.

We knew when we were kids, what awkward kisses were like.

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

She claims, there was not been one moment in their marriage.

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: She just said a while ago. A month or a year ago, she hated his guts for ten years. She hated it.

GLENN: Yeah. But that doesn't mean you'll give up.

PAT: I guess not. I guess not. Maybe you enjoy being miserable.

I don't know.

GLENN: No. I have to tell you the truth.

My grandmother when I got a divorce, just busted me up forever. I call her up, and I said, on my first marriage.

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

And my sweet little 80-year-old grandmother, who never said a bad thing in her life said, excuse me?

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

I said, what's happening. And she said, I really thought you would be the one that would understand. Out of everybody in this family, I thought you would understand.

And I said, what?

And she said, this just -- this just crushed me when she said it.

Do you think your grandfather and I liked each other all these years? I was like, well, yeah.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Kind of. And she said, we loved each other. But we didn't always like each other. And there were times that we were so mad at each other.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

STU: But we knew one thing: Marriage lasts until death!

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

GLENN: Okay. All right. That's just not necessary.

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

The media is insisting that President Trump's tariffs caused a rise in inflation for June. But Our Republic president Justin Haskins joins Glenn to debunk this theory and present another for where inflation is really coming from.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is here. He is the president of Our Republic. And the editor-in-chief of stoppingsocialism.com.

He is also the coauthor with me at the Great Reset, Dark Future, and Propaganda War.

So, in other words, I'm saying, he doesn't have a lot of credibility. But he is here to report -- I don't even think you're -- you're -- you were wrong on this, too, with the tariffs. Right?

JUSTIN: Well, at some point, I was wrong about everything.

GLENN: Yeah, right. We are all on the road to being right.

But this is coming as a shock. You called yesterday, and you said, Glenn, I think the tariff thing -- I think the president might be right.

And this is something I told him, if I'm wrong. I will admit that I'm wrong.

But I don't think I'm wrong.

Because this goes against everything the economists have said, forever.

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

All of these things. You have been study this now for a while, to come up with the right answer, no matter where it fell.

Tell me what's going on.

JUSTIN: Okay. So the most recent inflation data that came out from the government, shows that in June, prices went up 2.7 percent. In May, they went up 2.4 percent. That's compared to a year prior. And most people are saying, well, this is proof that the tariffs are causing inflation.

GLENN: Wait. That inflation is -- the target is -- the target is two -- I'm sorry.

We're not. I mean, when I was saying, it was going to cause inflation. I thought we could be up to 5 percent.

But, anyway, go ahead.

JUSTIN: So the really incredible thing though. The more you look at the numbers. The more obvious it is, that this does not prove inflation at all.

For starters, these numbers are lower, than what the numbers were in December and January.

Before Trump was president. And before we had any talk of tariffs at all.

So that is a big red flag right at the very beginning. When you dive even deeper into the numbers, what you see is there's all kinds of parts of the Consumer Price Index that tracks specific industries, or kinds of goods and services. That should be showing inflation, if inflation is being caused by tariffs, but isn't.

So, for example, clothing and apparel. Ninety-seven percent, basically.

About 97 percent according to one report, of clothing and apparel comes overseas, imported into the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

JUSTIN: So prices for apparel and clothing should be going up. And they're not going up, according to the data, they're actually going down, compared to what they were a year ago. Same thing is true with new vehicles.

Obviously, there were huge tariffs put on foreign vehicles, not on domestic vehicles. So it's a little bit more mixed.

But new vehicle price are his staying basically flat. They haven't gone up at all. Even though, there's a 25 percent tariff on imported cars and car parts. And then we just look at the overall import prices. You just -- sort of the index. Which the government tracks.

What we're seeing is that prices are basically staying the same, from what they were a year ago.

There's very, very little movement overall.

GLENN: Okay. So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

Wait.

Let me just -- let me just make something career.

Somebody is eating the tariffs. And it appears to be the companies that are making these things. Which is what Donald Trump said. And then, the -- you know, the economist always saying, well, they're just going to pass this on in the price.

Well, they have to. They have to get this money some place.

So where are they?

Is it possible they're just doing this right now, to get past. Because they know if they jack up their price, you know, they won't be able to sell anything. What is happening?

How is this money, being coughed up by the companies, and not passed on to the consumer.

JUSTIN: Yeah, it could be happening. I think the most likely scenario, is that they are passing it along to consumers. They're just not passing it along to American consumers.

In other words, they're raising prices elsewhere. To try to protect the competitiveness with the American market. Because the American market is the most important consumer market in the world.

And they probably don't want to piss off Donald Trump either, in jacking up prices. And then potentially having tariffs go up even more, as a punishment for doing that.

Because that's a real option.

And so I think that's what's happening right now.

Now, it's possible, that we are going to see a huge increase in inflation. In six months!

That's entirely possible.

We don't know what's going to happen. But as of right now, all the data is suggesting that recent inflation is not coming from consumer goods being imported, or anything like that.

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. It's not housing, is it?

Because the things to make houses is not going through the roof. Pardon the pun. Right?

It's not building.

JUSTIN: No. No. The way the CPI calculates housing is really stupid. They look basically primarily at rent. That's the primary way, they determine housing prices.

GLENN: Okay.

JUSTIN: That so on they're not talking about housing costs to build a new house.

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

And then they try to use rent data, as a way of calculating how much you would have to pay if you owned a house, but you had to rent the same kind of house.

And that's how they come up with this category.

GLENN: Can I ask you a question: Is everybody in Washington, are they all retarded?
(laughter)
Because I don't. What the hell. Who is coming up with that formula?

JUSTIN: Look. I mean, sort of underlying this whole conversation, as you -- as you and I know, Glenn.

And Pat too. The CPI is a joke to begin with.

GLENN: Right.

JUSTIN: So there's all kinds of problems with this system, to begin with.

I mean, come on!

GLENN: Okay. So because I promised the president, if I was wrong, and I had the data that I was wrong, I would tell him.

Do I have to -- out of all the days to do this.

Do I have to call him today, to do that?

Are we still -- are we still looking at this, going, well, maybe?

JUSTIN: I think there's -- I think there is a really solid argument that you don't need to make the phone call.

GLENN: Oh, thank God. Today is not the day to call Donald Trump. Today is not the day.

Yeah. All right.

JUSTIN: And the reason why is, we need -- we probably do need more data over a longer period of time, to see if corporations are doing something.

In order to try to push these cuts off into the future, for some reason. Maybe in the hopes that the tariffs go down. Or maybe -- you know, it's all sorts of ways, they could play with it, to try to avoid paying those costs today.

It's possible, that's what's going on.

But as of right now, that's not at all, what is happening. As far as I can tell from the data.

GLENN: But isn't the other side of this, because everybody else said, oh. It's not going to pay for anything.

Didn't we last month have the first surplus since, I don't know. Abraham Lincoln.

JUSTIN: Yes. Yes. We did. I don't know how long that surplus will last us.

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

I don't think I've ever heard that before in my lifetime. Hey, United States had a surplus.

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

I think it was like 20 something years ago, was the last time that happened. If I remembered right.

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

I actually think there is an argument to be made. That this whole strategy could work, if American manufacturers can dramatically bring down their costs. To produce goods and services.

So that they can be competitive.

And I think that advancements in artificial intelligence. In automation. Is going to open up the door to that being a reality.

And if you listen to the Trump administration talk. People like Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce. They have said, this is the plan.

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

Automation. That's going to make us competitive with manufacturers overseas. China is already doing that.

They're already automating their factories. They lead the world in automation.

GLENN: Yeah, but they can take half their population, put them up in a plane, and then crash it into the side of the mountain.

They don't care.

What happens to the people that now don't have a job here? How do they afford the clothes that are now much, much cheaper?

JUSTIN: Well, I think the answer to that is, there's going to be significantly more wealth. Trillions of dollars that we send overseas, every year, now in the American economy. And that's going to go into other things. It's not as though -- when this technology comes along, it is not as though people lose their jobs, and that's it. People sit on their couch forever.

The real danger here is not that new markets will not arrive in that situation. And jobs with it. The problem is: I think there's a real opportunity here. And I think this is going to be the fight of the next election, potentially. Presidential election. And going forward.

Next, ten, 20 years. This is going to be a huge issue. Democrats are going to have the opportunity, when the AI revolution goes into full force. They will have the opportunity like they've never had before.

To say, you know what, we'll take care of you. Don't worry about it.

We're just going to take all of the corporate money and all of the rich people's money.

And we will print trillions of dollars more. And you can sit on your couch forever. And we will just pay you. Because this whole system is rigged, and it's unfair, and you don't have a job anymore because of AI. And there's nothing you can do. You can't compete with AI. AI is smarter than you.

You have no hope.

I think that's coming, and it is going to be really hard for free market people to fight back against that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

Because the -- you know, I thought about this.

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

If -- if the tech is going to grow and grow and grow. And they will start being -- they will be responsible for taking the jobs.

They won't be real on popular.

So they will need some people that will allow them to stay in business, and to protect them.

So they're going to need to be in with the politicians.

And if the politicians are overseeing the -- the decrease of jobs, they're going to need the -- the PR arm of things like social media. And what it can be done.

What can be done now.

I was thinking, at the time. Google can do.

But they need each other.

They must have one another. And unless we have a stronger foundation, and a very clear direction, and I will tell you. The president disagrees with me on this.

I said, he's going to be remembered as the transformational AI president.

And he said, I think you're wrong on that.

And I don't think I am.

This -- this -- this time period is going to be remembered for transformation.

And he is transforming the world. But the one that will make the lasting difference will be power and AI.

Agree with that or disagree?

JUSTIN: 1,000 percent. 1,000 percent. This is by far the most important thing that is happening in his administration in the long run. You're projecting out ten, 20, 30 years ago years.

They will be talking about this moment in history, a thousand years from now. Like, that will -- and they will -- and if America becomes the epicenter of this new technology, they will be talking about it, a thousand years from now, about how Americans were the ones that really developed this.

That they're the ones that promoted it, that they're the ones that does took advantage of it.
That's why this AI race with China is so important that we win it.

It's one of the reasons why. And I do think it's a defining moment for his presidency. Of course, the problem with all of this is AI could kill us all. You have to weigh that in.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

Well, we hope you're wrong on that one.

And I'm wrong on it as well. Justin, thank you so much.

Thank you for giving me the out, where I don't have to call him today. But I might have to call him soon. Thanks, Justin. I appreciate it.

The ONLY Trump/Epstein Files Theories That Make Sense | Glenn TV | Ep 445

Is the case closed on Jeffrey Epstein and Russiagate? Maybe not. Glenn Beck pulls the thread on the story and its far-reaching implications that could expose a web of scandals and lead to a complete implosion of trust. Glenn lays out five theories that could explain Trump’s frustration over the Epstein files and why Glenn may never talk about the Epstein case again. Plus, Glenn connects the dots between the Russiagate hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and the Steele dossier related to the FBI’s new “grand conspiracy” probe. It all leads to one James Bond-like villain: former CIA Director John Brennan. Then, Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer, tells Glenn why he believes his former boss Brennan belongs in prison and what must happen to prevent a full-blown trust implosion in American institutions.