RADIOJanuary 24, 2023

THIS is why global elites & the WEF want you to OWN NOTHING

Global elites and the World Economic Forum may be trying to hide it now, but they’ve clearly stated in the past that by 2030, they want you to ‘OWN NOTHING.’ And that goal, Glenn explains, run entirely oppositely to the principles on which America was founded. Ownership is a HUGE part of the American experiment, so what happens when it’s taken away from us? In this clip, Glenn is joined by Carol Roth, author of ‘The War On Small Business.’ She says the anti-ownership goal of global elites is making us into ‘indentured servants,’ and that there’s one, huge way we can all peacefully fight back…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, Carol, it's a new year. A new you.

How are you?

CAROL: You know, I'm doing well. I'm just making sure that my private jet is doing okay. Because, you know, there was a climate crisis going on. It was very important for me to go take my private jet to go talk about the climate crisis. And then have steak dinners, while I tell everybody that meat is bad. So just trying to get that all together.

GLENN: It is so crazy. By the way, did you hear today, let me see. It was just approved -- where is it? Where is it?

Yeah. The European Union just approved cricket powder, as a component of flower-based foods.

CAROL: Amazing. Amazing. Sounds tasty. Looking very forward to that.

GLENN: Yeah. I unfortunately have a deep allergy to crickets.

I can't have anything with crickets in it. It's too bad.

CAROL: We're all going to develop cricket allergies, as part of our crisis.

GLENN: Yes, and I want to play this clip. This is from the World Economic Forum, last week. Listen.

VOICE: What is a polycrisis? And how and when could it happen?

VOICE: We're actually in the midst of one at the moment. We have energy crisis and food crisis. And they're all happening at the same time. It's the set of concurrent cascading risks that happen at the same time.

So that's where we are today. That's 2023.

What we're seeing though, that in the two-year time frame. And the ten-year time frame, we're at the risk of more of these polycrises unfolding. Two years out, there's still a concern on the experts that we surveyed, that the cost of living will be number one. But at the same time, a big risk of natural disasters. Ten years out, it's all --

GLENN: It's all natural disasters. Nothing else, but natural disasters. She doesn't seem to find any irony in the fact that we're in an energy crisis and a food crisis and a trust crisis. When all of those come directly from the policies of the World Economic Forum.

CAROL: Yeah. First of all, I have to say it sounds more regal, if you say it with sort of a British accent.

Polycrisis sounds much more terrifying. So I think we should do that. But it is. It's so ironic that they're sitting here, and they're talking about the inflation.

They're talking about the energy issues. They're talking about the mistrust and disinformation that came from the policies, that stemmed from global governments, and the World Economic Forum.

I mean, they are the ones that shut down, and said, we need to have this wonderful Great Reset.

They're the ones. The central banks around the world. That printed trillions of dollars. They're the ones that moved away from traditional energy. Because of the push from the World Economic Forum. So they've caused these crisis. All of them. Except for this global climate emergency, that clearly no one is paying attention to.

So we now have to add into our polycrisis or have Al Gore go on an unhinged rant, to make it extra special.

GLENN: Can you give direct correlation to our inflation from ESG?

CAROL: 100 percent. If you think about what inflation looks like. A large percentage of that was gas. Some of that was shipping costs, related to the cost of gas. And then, you know, fossil fuels have 6,000 derivative products, that all thing up in price, because of the cost. And the cost went up because we didn't have enough supply. And we didn't have enough supply because of ESG policies. ESG policies directed capital away from investments in fossil fuel, to the extent that Saudi Arabia, and OPEC, says that we're underinvested by, like, $12.1 trillion over the next coming decades.

So by doing that, by ensuring that companies, who make the investments in drilling and processing, for fossil fuels. Couldn't do that.

They are directly attributable, to the increase in prices. As well as, you know, the obvious direct correlation to the increased energy prices.

GLENN: So here is something that you're hearing. And you're just hearing the setup, right now.

That the Republicans are going to be so dangerous on this debt ceiling. And we are just going to default on all of our debts. And we will have no credibility.

We have no credibility now. But we're not going to default on our debts. But they are talking about the debt ceiling.

Why should the average person care about this?

CAROL: So the reality is, we shouldn't care about the debt ceiling. We should care about spending.

I mean, the debt ceiling is just saying, we cannot finance our overspending with debt anymore. But they don't do that at the same time that they pass the bill. They do it after the fact. So they've already spent the money. And you have to pay for it.

Short-term, we're not going to default on -- on our debt. It's just stupid. We have plenty of assets, that we could lease or we could sell if we got into a pickle, or things that could be reconfigured around. But in the medium to long-term, the spending is unsustainable.

And so if you overspend, and you have a deficit, there are only so many ways to find it. And we're probably not selling off all our assets at this point in time.

So that means, we're going to finance it with debt. And it's just going to become by and large, and bigger. To the point, that it becomes unsustainable, from a tax standpoint. From a money printing and erosion of your wealth and value standpoint.

And so that's really the area that -- this whole debt thing is kind of the sideshow at the circus. We need to be focusing on the main act. And that is the spending.

And I said this before, Glenn. If we just rolled back, like, five years.

If we went back to 2018 spending, which, you know, two years before the pandemic. Or even the year before the pandemic, we would be running a surplus, we would be paying down debt.

Or 2018, we would be about breaking even. So it's not like we would have to change that much, to get this under control. And they refused to do it.

GLENN: Okay. There was a call last week, for a windfall tax on food companies.

I've never heard anything more dangerous and stupid than that.

CAROL: So there's a legendary investor named Charlie Munger. He's Warren Buffett's partner in Brookshire Hathaway, one of the best.

And he has this famous saying that says, show me the incentive, and I will show you the outcome.

The reality is that taxes influence behavior. And if you don't want something, you tax it. That's what you do. Right?

GLENN: Right. A tax on SUVs.

CAROL: Right. A tax on Sim products. Alcohol. We don't want them.

We tax those things. By the way, the things we want. We get tax credits.

GLENN: Marriage, kids. All of it. Yeah.

CAROL: So here's what you're saying. We're going to tax food. And it's saying, we do not want you to produce food.

Who says that, other than utterly nefarious, and crazy people, who want people to starve.

It is utter insanity. And the fact that people are like, oh, yeah. That makes a lot of sense.

We should definitely put a tax on food!

It's -- I mean --

GLENN: First of all, that -- that does not hurt anybody at Davos. But it hurts the very poorest among us, in the world.

And I'm not even talking about America. I mean the poor of the poor. And they're already in a food shortage. These people are so anti-human, they do want people to starve.

They also, you know, said that they are raising, I think it's $3 trillion, privately, and with the help of governments. To buy farmland. To buy up 30 percent of the land eventually, 50 percent, on the entire planet.

CAROL: Yeah.

GLENN: And they're talking about 30 percent by the end of this decade. And they're going to do it with fundraising. I mean, the guy who was talking about it, was -- was John Kerry.

I mean, it's insanity.

They -- when will people understand, they mean you will own nothing.

CAROL: Perhaps when they read my next book, which you have been instrumental in helping shape.

Which ironically, is called You Will Owe Nothing.

And connect the dots between all of these things that they are saying, and the destruction of our property rights and freedom.

I mean, when they come out and say, oh, you know, we -- you owe nothing. That's a right-wing conspiracy.

It's not. It was on their website. In an article in 2016, which now they -- I think they have pulled. So we --

GLENN: Yeah, they have. They have.

CAROL: We can use the wayback machine to resource it. Then they made a video that they put their logo on, that it was their first prediction.

So they're predicting the end of private property. This is not a coincidence. And, by the way, it's not like a cute little Jetsons fantasy. It's not Rosie the Robot folding your laundry. Like, these are scary things. But they're going, oh, this is going to be great for you.

This is not great. And so going through all the different things. That we've been talking about, ESG. The purchase of land by private individuals.

It is scary how much has been purchased by a small group of people, and as you said, the government is now paying to take some of that farmland, out of commission.

There are reasons for this. There are sort of empire cycle reasons for this. And there is a jockeying of the elite to put themselves in positions to rule.

GLENN: What do you mean an empire building process? What do you mean?

CAROL: End of empire. So basically, we are where the Romans were at one point in time. Where the British were. Where the Dutch were. And here's this sort of disconnect between high debt loads and power. And when we're in a high debt situation like the US is, and frankly a number of other countries, the people in charge get desperate. And they start doing desperate things. They never cut back on services.

They never try to salvage it. They just kind of run straight into that cliff. This has happened many, many times in history.

And we're moving in that direction. The elites see this.

So all these things we're seeing is basically them trying to reshape the outcome and put themselves up on top, by having you owe nothing.

GLENN: Correct.

I'm going to go back to owning nothing.

And the -- what that does to a nation, that was built around ownership.

That is a total reversal of the basic foundation of America, and most of the western world now.

More with Carol Roth. I'm sure you can -- can you order the -- the book yet?

CAROL: No. But you can sign up for more information at CarolRoth.com/Glenn.

And we'll let you know.

GLENN: Yeah. It will be a good book. I have seen the outlines. And it's really -- she's good.

All right. Donald wrote in about his dog's experience with Ruff Greens. He says, I've never seen my dog lick the bowl clean. I mean, she's licking the bowl clean all the time now.

Because she's looking for any remaining traces of Ruff Greens.

My dog does that too. And I'm like, dude, it's not soaking into the metal. You're done. You're done. And man, lick and lick and lick.

You really need to check out what Ruff Greens can do. It's not a dog food. It's a supplement. Developed by naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black. You sprinkle it on the dog's food. And it's chalked full of vitamins, minerals, probiotics, antioxidants. You name it.

If it's healthy for your dog, it's probably in Ruff Greens. I want you to see the special deal, where you can get the first bag free. It's just a trial bag that you can just test, to make sure your dog likes it.

They don't want to you pay for anything, if your dog doesn't like it. But if your dog likes it, then start on Ruff Greens.

And feed Ruff Greens -- put it on the food, every single day, twice a day.

And over the months, you'll see a huge difference in your dog, at least I have.

And so has everybody here, that's tried it. The first trial bag is free.

You just pay for shipping at Ruff Greens. R-U-F-FGreens.com/Beck. That's RuffGreens.com/Beck. Or you can call 833-Glenn-33. 833-Glenn-33. RuffGreens.com/Beck. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So what does this mean, Carol, the -- the idea that you will own nothing, in a country that's whole identity and whole theory is that you can become wealthy. You can change your station by even landownership. Just being able to own something and call it yours, is fundamental to the American experiment.

What does that do to us?

CAROL: I mean, if you owe nothing, then the powers that be, own you.

It completely changes everything. It crushes the American dream. And it makes basically -- basically makes people indentured servants to the government.

And, you know, to some extent, big tech as well. I mean, that's really -- if you think about all these things that are being put out there, they sort of want to take your life and rent it back to you. Whether it be through a terms of service, or through, you know, dependence on the government. But that is the goal. They want that intradependence. They want you to not have freedom. Not to have agency. Not to make your own choice.

They want to control everything you do.

And it's coming from a wealth standpoint. It's coming from a technology standpoint. It's coming from a cultural standpoint.

Social credit. So, you know, really, this is -- this is a war. And this is one that you're going to have to fight, on multiple fronts. And at the end of the day, we need people to own everything.

We need you to have that ownership, so that you can fight back, and not be at their whim.

And not be an indentured servant to big technology, to big business, and to the global elites.

GLENN: If we don't stop the regulatory state, the unelected officials from just being able to introduce new rules on things.

If we don't stop that, you -- you won't own anything.

Because they will make it so onerous, that there's no way you could afford to own it. They don't have to take it. If you're so broke, there's nothing else you can do, but sell it.

CAROL: Yeah. It used to be when they were looking for riches, they would go out and invade another land. And they would take those riches. And obviously that's somewhat politically unpopular. But for whatever reason, this legal plunder, the idea that they're stealing our wealth and doing it in a legal way, because they're passing the rules and the regulations that we have to deal with, somehow is more palatable to people. And it shouldn't be. This is your wealth.

GLENN: That's the sheriff of Nottingham story. I mean, all the king did was just say, hey, what's yours is now mine.

CAROL: Right.

GLENN: Go, sheriff, go out and take it. And he would take it.

That's Robin Hood. This is the part they always get wrong. They think Robin Hood worked for the government.

No. Robin Hood was against the government. Because they were doing exactly what they were proposing to do, to the entire world now.

CAROL: Yeah. And if you look at just a case study, like Venezuela, who, you know, mid-last century was the fourth wealthiest nation in the world, and they used this rhetoric. They said, things are unequal. And we wanted to make it more fair.

So us and the government, we'll just nationalize everything.

We'll take it over, and you'll be so much better off. And with that, they went from the fourth wealthiest country in the world, to, you know, a recent study, showed that the median net worth of a person in Venezuela was zero! Literally zero.

So that is, you know, a very clear case study on how quickly it can happen.

To say, it will never happen here in America. Ten years ago, 15 years ago, maybe I agree with you, Glenn. But look at what just happened over the past few years. Look at the level of compliance, with these COVID rules and regulations. They took away people's jobs and livelihood. Of course, they're going to continue down.

GLENN: I remember saying in 2008. We stay on this path, we will be Venezuela.

Venezuela had just really collapsed. And I realized at the time. And I said it at the time. It took 20 years, to take that strong state, that was the fourth wealthiest, and destroy it.

Well, we are now approaching a 20-year mark, where we have been doing it.

It's not out of the realm of possibility. In fact, every day we continue down this road, it becomes more likely. All right. Her new book coming out soon. You will own nothing.

CarolRoth.com/Glenn. Will get you all the information. CarolRoth.com/Glenn.
(music)
Carol, talk to you again.

CAROL: Thanks, Glenn.

FEMA blacklisted CONSERVATIVES? Biden's secret policy EXPOSED

The Left claims that President Trump is weaponizing the federal government following the indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and former Trump national security adviser John Bolton. Ignoring the fact that Biden's FBI tried to jail Trump before the 2024 election, damning evidence has come out that under the Biden administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency secretly blacklisted conservatives and lowered their priority when it came to FEMA assistance. Where is the outrage?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So they say that Donald Trump has weaponized the government. Okay. Then he turned the DOJ loose on his enemies. He's targeted John Bolton. And obsessed with James Comey. They've said it a million times over and over again.

Without ever asking, you know, who actually held the trigger here?

Okay. But for a moment. Just for the case of this argument, let's just say all of that was true. Let's say Trump had used the power of the state to punish those two people who had crossed him. Okay?

People like Bolton and Comey. Just say, for the sake of argument, that's all true!

These are men who said in the highest rooms of power, they have lawyers. They have money. They have microphones.

If that were true, it would be ugly. It would be dangerous.

And it would be limited!

Because what we just learned from the Department of Homeland Security. Is something far, far worse. This time, the target is not a political rival. It's not a Washington insider. It was you!

There's new news that's coming out today. According to the DHS privacy office report, which was launched after a bunch of whistle-blowers came forward. That now says that FEMA did not mishandle just a few cases.

They kept notes. They were making a list.

They tracked American -- Americans, their political and religious beliefs, during disasters. Not in theory, in black and white.

Let me give you some of the quotes: Angry political rant. Sign in yard states I'm a bitter gun owner, clinging to go my religion. Homeowner had a sign stating, "This is Trump country."

They -- they -- these are not comments, you know, about storm patterns. These are comments about people!

And when these people were flooded, they were homeless, they were desperate, and asked for help from the same government that preaches compassion and equity, they got something entirely different! They got silence. Delay. And sometimes, nothing at all!

The DHS report now confirms, quote, FEMA violated the privacy act of 1974, by collecting and storing data, tied to protected speech.

They were checking bumper stickers and writing you down in a book!

They logged gun signage. Seventy-two times. Trump, 15 times. Firearms, five times. Biden, twice.

The FEMA workers then. And we told you all this. But it was a conspiracy theory. Now it has been proven.

FEMA workers skipped homes, if you had a MAGA flag. Or a yard sign. And then they left notes. There was a political fire. There was a political flier, I'm quoting, so I didn't leave a FEMA brochure.

Quote, we don't recommend anyone visit this location, end quote.

That's not a clerical error here. That's a blacklist!

This is the same agency that airlifts people off of rooftops after hurricanes. That distributes food and shelter.

When nothing else works, and they were told to avoid Americans because who they voted for.

Not terrorists. Not not criminals. Citizens. You!

I will tell you, I have been in disaster after disaster. Much of it not of my own creating.

But natural disaster all over the world!

I've shown up at the hurricanes and the floods and the tornadoes. With help!

And not once did it even occur to me, to ask you, what's your political affiliation?

Not once did it even occur to any of us to say, where do you stand on the Second Amendment?

Who did you vote for?

What do you believe?

What church do you go to?

Never. Do you believe in God?

Never! That is absolutely 100 percent un-American. Un-American.

I read this report, the floods in Florida, and the tornadoes in Tennessee, and the hurricanes in South Carolina. Where people waited for days for aid, that never came!

And when it did come, because of pressure from people like us, survivors. Americans who lost everything received a 700-dollar check.

$700. Meanwhile, billions are being funneled to illegal immigrants.

To foreign wars. To bureaucracies studying climate equity. And now we know why.

Because they were busy making notes about bumper stickers.

I read this, this morning, and I saw it firsthand. But I couldn't prove it. But I saw it firsthand. And I reported on it, at the time.

But they could say, it was an isolated incident. And I could prove otherwise.

We can now. The report is now out.

This is as un-American as our withdrawal in Afghanistan. Why was that so offensive?

Because we -- we left in, A, humiliation.

That's the least of my concerns. We left in humiliation. We betrayed all of our allies. And we left people behind.

We never leave people behind. Never!
That's one of our highest rules! You don't leave people behind!

One of the biggest things about Americans, that we are generous. We are good! We're charitable. We help everybody. We are the world's lifeboat.

And now we find out we had a president, and an administration, that was making a political list. A blacklist. Where they would not give aid to Americans who are suffering!

You're taking my tax dollars, and if I happen to be the one that needs aid, I don't get coverage?

Because of who I voted for?

It's the most offensive thing I've heard of our country ever doing on aid. Ever! Can you -- can you remember anything like this, ever? I mean, they say, "Democracy dies in darkness."

Yeah. Well, why don't I shine a light on some of these things? It doesn't die in darkness, it apparently is dying in databases. The FEMA database quietly flagged citizens as politically undesirable.

Let me ask you this: What would the media have said or done if Donald Trump would had ignored those who lost their homes in California after the ravaging fire?

If he didn't just show up, it would be bad enough. Right?

But he showed up. He brought his cabinet with him! He brought FEMA. He brought relief. He tried to cut all of the red tape in California. Couldn't get that done. But he was there. Can you imagine if he just hadn't have showed up. Which Biden never did. If he hadn't have shown up. Worse yet, can you imagine what would be said, if you had found out, that Donald Trump -- his FEMA was making a list, and saying, they voted for Gavin Newsom. They voted for Joe Biden. No help for them on their house!

Can you imagine the outrage? I would be outraged. I am just as outraged that it happened under the last administration.

Why? Why am I outraged?

Because it cannot happen. It cannot happen under any administration!

You allow this to happen, and stand, good luck, America, on what you have left! Will anything be done? Will anyone go to jail?

Will the left be outraged by this?

You want to talk about no kings? What is a king?

Other than, let that serf die. We don't care about those guys. They aren't for the king!

You know, Mercury One has already rebuilt homes. We are -- we are moving people back into their homes every single day. I know it. Because I watch Mercury One do it. But not in California. We tried in California. Gavin Newsom, the Democrats, they won't help those people. They won't allow any help for those people. Their own voters they don't care about. If you get in the way of this leftist administration, these leftists, it doesn't matter. Ends justify the means. Let them die.

You know, they keep warning you about authoritarianism, but here it is. Cloaked in compassion. Branded with a FEMA logo. This wasn't rogue. Not a rogue agent.

This was not a one-off scandal. This was a database.

The DHS investigation says, political bias was systematic, dating back to at least September 2021.

That means, that while the administration accused conservatives of conspiracy theories, it was literally compiling lists.

And the media went right along with it. And will the media ever tell you this story?

When what was her name, the FEMA administrator Criswell testified before Congress, in 2021, she said, "This was an isolated case."

Well, unfortunately, your files tell a different story. It's not isolated. It was national. And it was deliberate.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said, quote, for years, FEMA employees under the Biden administration intentionally delayed much needed aid to Americans suffering from natural disasters on purely political grounds.

This is not your political enemy! This is your neighbor! That's not mismanagement. That's moral rot!

It's not just another Washington scandal. This is a betrayal of the covenant between citizen and state!

But they're not going to tell you about that. The media won't talk to you about that.

The Democrats won't do a damn thing about it.

None that side will condemn this. You, but they'll talk to you today, about how trump is destroying the White House. Oh, my gosh.

He's destroying the White House.

And he's spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a ballroom of his own money.

And other people who are donating!

And, you know what, they're not donating in secret. It's all listed right there.

They don't go through Arabella advisers or the Tides Foundation.

They give it straight, and it's reported straight. So you know who built that building!

My gosh.

They'll report on the White House today. But they won't report on your house. You know, when FEMA didn't show up because you were on their list. The moment this government decides that you are less worthy of rescue because of how you vote, your faith, your flag, a bumper sticker.

The -- the -- you don't need darkness for democracy dying. The republic is dead!

There is no republic.

A republic represents all voters! It ceases to exist. You do have a king.

You know, weaponizing law enforcement against political opponents is really bad! But weaponizing disaster relief against ordinary citizens, people standing on their roof, waiting for a helicopter that never comes, is something absolutely pitch black dark!

If your politics can determine whether you live or die, we cease to be a republic. We cease -- we cease to deserve the rights God gave us.

WARNING: Will the "AI Bubble" CRASH the Stock Market?

The AI revolution promises to change everything, but what if it’s leading us straight into another financial collapse? Glenn Beck and economist Peter Atwater break down the eerie parallels between today’s AI boom and the 2008 housing crash, revealing how speculative hype, overvalued tech giants, and circular corporate investments are inflating a dangerous bubble. Could this “AI gold rush” be the next market disaster waiting to happen?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Is it not a bubble?

I don't know. Are we close to AGI or not close to AGI.

Again, I don't know.

Is it to change things? Yes. I saw a story in our show prep today. I'm not going to get a chance to get it. It's about other countries that are building these giant server farms. Their electricity and their water is being shut off because all of it being diverted to these big server farms. And if we're not careful, that's exactly what's going to happen to us.

Peter Atwater is a guy that Stu and I have been talking about for a while because he's comparing this AI bubble. He's like, "Look, I wanted to show you a chart. I'm not smart enough to figure out the chart. But let me show you a chart, and I want to show you a chart that I did in, like, 2007 or 2008 with the housing bubble! Wow, they kind of look exactly the same. And it's a little frightening."

Peter is with us now. Peter Atwater from the College of William & Mary. He's an adjunct lecturer there. He's the guy who coined the term K-shaped recovery.

Welcome to the program, how are you, sir?

PETER: I'm great, Glenn. Thanks very much for having me.

GLENN: You bet. Okay. So can you explain the housing -- or, not the housing bubble.

The AI bubble. Do you believe it is? And if so, why? And what does that mean?

PETER: I do believe it is.

And I study confidence and its impact on what we do.

And so what I see in the AI bubble is a lot of similarities to what we saw during the housing bubble. Where everybody wants to be involved.

There's a social frenzy to it. There's a want to, you know, make a lot of money, to see the opportunity in it.

There's a lot of speculation.

And what matters so much, to me as a researcher, is that this network that existed in the -- in the housing bubble. Where mortgages were sliced and diced.

And you had these conveyor belts that moved everything from, you know, mom and pop's house to folks all over the world.

GLENN: Right.

PETER: Now, it's within the AI system. Where you have enormous amounts of capital moving, but also equipment.

So it looks a lot like the Just In Time Network that we saw stumble during COVID.

GLENN: Okay. That doesn't make me happy. But there's a difference between the housing bubble, where it was all being inflated and resold and repackaged. And this, which does seem to be a game-changer on productivity. Where housing was not.

This seems to be like it could be a real game changer for economies. Agree or disagree?

PETER: Oh. There's no question, it will be a game changer. But we can think about it the same way we said dot-com was going to be a game changer. Like railroads. And all of these other things that we have in terms of speculative mania.

There's real productivity. Real improvement that comes from it. But what happens is that investors anticipate it happening far sooner, in far larger scale.

And much more profitably than it ever does.

GLENN: So what are you predicting? How is this going to -- how is this going to happen?

What's a bad case scenario, not necessarily worst?

I don't know if I can handle worst. Bad case scenario, and realistic scenarios.

PETER: Yeah. So to me, the realistic scenario is that valuations come down dramatically. At the same time, the build-out continues at a much lower pace.

And eventually, maybe a decade from now, it all settles out.

But in the meantime, there's a lot of financial pain that's going to go along with it. Particularly because today, more than 40 percent of an S&P 500 ties to AI.

GLENN: Like seven companies. Right?

PETER: Seven companies, and -- and the ones that are closest to them. So that, you know, retirees, pension plans, you know, folks that invest in index funds, have a super sized allocation to AI whether they realize it or not.

GLENN: Can you give me an example of this happening in history, that's not housing, but more industry?

PETER: Sure. You can go back to radio. In the -- in the 20s. I mean, RCA was a mammoth weight in the markets. Because people were incredibly excited about it.

You saw it even -- go back even further to canals. We -- we love new technology. Particularly where we can identify the efficiencies that we see coming from it.

STU: One of the things that's really interesting about the trends you've highlighted, Peter, is this sort of circuitous relationship with these companies. It's too complicated to go through all of it.

Just to give you one quick relationship here. And tell me if I'm understanding this right.

OpenAI, of course, buys a bunch of chips from NVIDIA. They're spending a ton of money with NVIDIA. NVIDIA is investing $100 million into OpenAI. OpenAI is -- has a 300 billion-dollar cloud deal with Oracle.

Oracle is spending tens of billions of dollars in chips with NVIDIA. And then NVIDIA is investing into OpenAI. There's a bunch of these arrows, that are pointing in this circular directions. And it seems like companies are flowing money back and forth to each other, and all these arrangements. And you wonder if there's any disruption here.

Are we looking at some sort of short-term collapse of all this stuff.

PETER: The -- the dog eating its tail phenomenon is extraordinary here. And what's so unusual about this one is, in prior bubbles, the -- the conveyor belts were among smaller participants.

But in this one, we had the largest technology companies in the world, to spinning money around, among themselves.

It looked like one of those Esther drawings, where the waterfall just keeps moving in perpetuity. And the challenge, particularly given that OpenAI is at the center of it, is that this is a company that is barely profitable. That is committing to hundreds of billions of dollars in commitments.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So what does it look like if it starts to fall apart? And what are the signs we should be watching for?

PETER: So what we know right now, is that everybody wants to be affiliated with AI in some way.

And so you end up with these late arrivals to the party.

And typically when a bubble bursts, the last guy to the party, is the first to leave. When you think of this in the context of a mortgage bubble.

Where it was the subprime lenders who showed up right at the tail end.

And then collapsed first. So I'm -- I'm watching to see these companies that are barely AI-related, that have tried to position themselves as being AI industry leaders. Who are likely to fail in the not too distant future.

They just need rarefied air to exist.

GLENN: Like what companies?

PETER: I don't have specific names to throw out there.

GLENN: Sure. Okay.

PETER: But they're typically smaller highly leveraged offerings. To very, very compelling, but untested technologies.

GLENN: Now, this would be -- I mean, if it collapses, I mean, that would be horrific for our economy.

But also, what -- what happens with the race with China? I mean, China is deeper into this than we are, at like crazy.

How -- how does this affect China, what happens to the race, how does -- I mean, how does this not move forward?

PETER: So I am by no means a China expert, but I would expect that if our confidence in AI begins to fall, confidence in AI more broadly will come under question.

STU: Hmm.

PETER: So they then face questions in terms of policy maker credibility. In terms of, why did you commit so much to this?

No difference than a CEO faces that test, when a bubble bursts.

GLENN: So what does success look like to you?

Because I'm not sure -- I had a really fascinating conversation a couple of weeks ago.

And he's going to come on the show in a couple of weeks with Max Tegmark, who is a brilliant AI ethicist. And we were talking about AI, AGI. And he believes that that may not be happening. And he makes a great case on this.

But is that the goal, or, I mean. Because what -- what is the goal that we're not going to hit, that would fall short?

That would cause this kind of stuff?

PETER: So I think you -- we tend to fall short in terms of immediate usage. So volume short.

But also profitability.

You know, if you go back through dot-com bubble. They all imagined this huge, you know, pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And you're seeing the same wild fascination with the potential profitability for AI.

And, again, that may come, but it's unlikely too come at the speed and magnitude that people now expect. I mean, we're -- we're fans of science.

GLENN: Boy, I mean, in a way, that would be really, really good.

Because that -- what I worry about is AI advancing as quickly as everybody says it is. And then what happens to all the jobs so quickly. I mean, you just can't absorb that kind of an impact. If it happens that fast. So I don't know which is better.

PETER: So typically, we'll see a backlash against new technology. I mean, if you go back to the 1920 bubble burst. And you saw this backlash to, you know, innovate technologies like the vacuum. And the ironing board. And all these things that people said, took jobs away. Well, we'll have that same thing in all likelihood. And this time, too, to a point you made earlier, likely compounded by a greater awareness of the environmental consequences of this, and also, the cost that it creates in the average consumer, in terms of the utility bills.

GLENN: Hmm.

Can you explain one more thing? Because you're the guy who invented the K-shaped recovery. And as Stu and I talked about the K-shaped recovery -- can you explain that? K-shaped recovery.

PETER: Sure. So when COVID hit, I immediately saw that if you were a white-collar worker who could work from home, your confidence improved immediately. Whereas, if you were a, you know, somebody who worked if a warehouse. Or stocked shelves in the supermarket. Or hospital worker.

Your confidence didn't start to improve for a long time.

And from that, what I have seen is that the economy that results from these two different tracks of confidence, are vastly different.

And today, those are the top, whether it's because of the markets, or because of corporate earnings, growth. Those at the top feel invulnerable.

And they're spending like it. They're investing like it. They're living like it. They're living like there's no tomorrow.

Well, on the other hand, those at the bottom today, aren't sure how they will make it through the take. They're delinquent on their car loans. They're now worried about health care costs. And so to me, this K that -- this divide has created two classes of Americans.

You have the increasingly desperate, and those who feel invulnerable.

GLENN: That does not sound stable long-term.

PETER: It doesn't feel stable to me too.

And I worry that those who are in a position to do something about it, we're spending so much of our time in this country, fighting between the left and the right, and we're not seeing that our biggest divide is up and down.

That those at the bottom, there's a bipartisan hopelessness that exists.

GLENN: Hmm.

PETER: That I feel like Washington is not paying enough attention to.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Advice for Men in Their 20s & 30s to Achieve YOUR Life Goals

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Matt & Maxim Smith HERE

Are young men prepared for a future dominated by AI, surveillance, and shifting societal rules? Glenn Beck sits down with Matt and Maxim Smith to explore how young men can reclaim their agency and build real-life skills in an uncertain and ever-changing world.

Order a copy of Matt and Maxim Smith's Book: “The Preparation: How to Become Confident, Competent, and Dangerous” HERE

Trump told me why he's "DESTROYING" the White House...

Construction for President Trump's ballroom has begun on the East Wing of the White House, and every Democrat in America has lost their mind. Does the President have the authority to alter a historic structure like the White House? Glenn and Stu discuss, as Glenn shares the story where he reveals even Trump was shocked at how easy it was to get the alterations approved.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: Well, you still haven't really addressed why Donald Trump for is knocking down the White House for his own --

GLENN: Well, he just hates America.

STU: That's -- what I've been reading. Yeah.

GLENN: Right. And how crazy excited the left should be that he's knocking down something built by slaves. They're like, we've got to preserve that.

Slaves made that!

It's weird.

STU: I actually do have questions about this though.

GLENN: What? What question do you have?

STU: Well, and they come from, you know, everybody's source of thinking these days. Which are group texts.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: I'm on with some friends. I have some really basic questions of like, I feel like, there would be a conversation and a bill passed if we're going to put a giant new building at the White House.

GLENN: No.

STU: That's not how it works at all.

Is it? How's it work? How does this work?

GLENN: You ready? So the president says, I want to change the White House.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: And the White House architect says, how would you like to change it?

And he says, this way. And they say, okay.

Well, you need to approve all the permits. Okay. I approve all the permits.

Okay. We change it. That's literally how it happens.

STU: Really? They can do anything they want.

GLENN: Well, I mean, within reason.

When I say within reason.

I think with restraint from public outcry.

Like, I want to paint the White House black.

Well, you know, as president, you can do whatever you want.

But I don't think that will fly with the American people.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So there some standards in there. I will tell you about a conversation I had with Trump next.
(music)

GLENN: She's about to become a mom.

She is scared beyond fear. Any fear she's ever felt before. She's maybe the most vulnerable she's ever been in her life. Or even will be.

And thank God, she is in a Preborn clinic. They offer a free ultrasound. She hears the heartbeat. She sees that little face and little hands on the screen.

And in that instant, that crisis feels like a connection.

Because when you see life. When you understand its worth, protecting -- protecting that child becomes everything.

Preborn works every single day to make sure that moment is possible.

They provide free ultrasounds. Counseling. Support to women, who are not looking for judgment.

They just need some hope.

They need some help. And when a mother chooses life. Preborn is there for her. Not just for the birth of the baby. With diapers. And formula. And baby clothes. And books and real community. Preborn is expanding their life-affirming care in the darkest corners of our nation. Would you like to help hurting women and save more babies?

You can do it. $28 will provide an ultrasound. $15,000 will put a machine in a needy woman's center, saving countless lives for years to come.

Dial #250 and make a donation. #250. Say the key word baby. Or go to Preborn.com/Beck. Don't forget I'm with Megyn Kelly this Saturday at the Dickies Arena. You want to get tickets, go to MegynKelly.com.
(OUT AT 10:29 AM)

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We're glad you're here.

Thank you so much for listening. You know, Stu has been freaking out about the White House.

STU: I'm not -- I'm not freaking out. I just think it's an interesting. I thought there would be more of a process to something like this.

GLENN: No.

STU: Because I certainly was not think at this point, the American people understand what is about to happen. Which is like, the White House is about to double in size.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: My -- just by my eyeball look at it.

It looks like it will maybe be more than two times the size.

GLENN: It's going to be large! But it's not the actual White House. It's part of the east wing.

STU: That's -- that's a totally misleading commentary.

GLENN: No. It's not.

GLENN: Because the White House is the original piece from the 1700s. Okay?

That's the center house. The east wing and the West Wing was not done until FDR. They were added later.

STU: It was a big deal.

GLENN: The biggest change in the White House since FDR. And happened in our lifetime. Right after 9/11.

The White House became enormous. But it was all underground.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: They completely changed everything underground.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And we didn't have a conversation about that at all.

STU: Because it's underground!

I assume all sorts of things are happening underground. Our well-known monuments and buildings.

GLENN: Right. Sure.

STU: But this is -- this is -- it's not a -- they keep saying this.

They're going to be changed the West Wing.

GLENN: No. The East Wing.

STU: They're going to be changing the East Wing. That's not what they're doing. This is like doubling the size of the White House.

Now, I'm not opposed to that idea.

I'm just sort of surprised that it wasn't like a big conversation and a bill.

GLENN: All right. Okay. Okay. You ready?

So was Donald Trump.

STU: What do you mean?

GLENN: So I'm in the White House with him. And I'm up in the private quarters with him.

And he is showing me some things that he is doing. And talking to me about some other things that I can't talk about. Because he doesn't want.

I don't know.

STU: He doesn't want to discuss it.

GLENN: I didn't want to discuss it. And I don't know why.

Because it's all really good stuff.

So, anyway, we're taking about it. And then he brings up the ballroom.

And we're walking down the stairs, from the residents, and we're going into the ballroom.

And he says, you know, this is the ballroom that Abraham Lincoln had dinners here.

I said, you know, it's that window over there, that Fredrick Douglass had to open up the window and had to crawl in because they wouldn't let him in because he was black. And Abraham Lincoln was like, let him in. He's my friend. Why is coming through the window?

And we were talking about all the history of the ballroom. And that it's very, very small.

Because it was built in the 1700s. And we keep using that ballroom. And he's like, we have to have a bigger ballroom.

We have it out in the wet, and the cold and the rain. Yada, yada, yada.

And so he said, we come over to a window. And he's like, right there, I will build a big, beautiful ballroom.

And it's going to better than anybody thinks. It's going to be the biggest, most beautiful ballroom. And I'm just trying not to laugh. Because that's the way he describes it.

And he said, you know, surprised that I could do that.

And I said, I bet. How long is that going to take? What's that process like?

And he's like, right. That's what I asked.

He said, I went to the -- I went to the -- I don't know, chief usher or somebody. Whoever is in charge of the White House. I think it's the chief usher. He said, I think we should have a ballroom. He's like, what do I do?

And he said, well, you just have to talk to the architect.

So he went to the White House architect. Now, this is a guy who makes sure the integrity of the White House stays. Okay?

You can't make it into a modern house. Okay? You're not going to redesign the inside. You can add some gold I guess.

You can add a lot of gold, I guess. You can't make it into. You can't wreck the integrity of the White House.

And he said, you know, I just put these flagpoles in. And he's like, all I had to say was, I want to put some flagpoles in.

He said, yes, sir. Where?

He's like, what?

One in the front. One in the back. They were like, okay. Tell us where.

We went out into the yard. Right here. Right there.

And they put them up. And so he's talking to the White House architect. And he said, we've got to have a ballroom. And I think we should have it over here in the East Wing. A big, beautiful -- and he said, but what is this going to take?

And he's like, well, it's going to be very expensive. Are you expecting the people to pay?

And he's like, no, I'll raise the money for it. I'll pay for it, and I'll raise the money, extra, so American people are not going to pay for it.

And the architect said, well, then all you have to do is sign the permits.

And he's like, what?

And he said, well, you have to go through the permitting process.

He's like, how long will that take?

He said, well, the President is the one who controls the process and signs the permits. So as on short as you would like it to be, Mr. President.

And he's like, are you kidding me? And he looked at me, he's like, I'll have this done by spring of next year.

So he can change it. The -- what you have to understand is, the -- the east wing and the West Wing, those -- those are FDR.

So FDR went into a works project. And he added those wings.

The east wing is where the first lady's offices are.

Just the east wing is like, you know, it's -- it's just the east wing.

And it's --

STU: Okay. Shade of the east wing?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. But anyway, and so what he's doing is he's taking some of it town, and he's going to link it to the ballroom. And the bail room is going to be the biggest, beautiful ballroom in Washington DC.

It's going to link from there. So you will walk -- if you're in the White House, you will walk from the front door, through the -- the dining room.
Or, the east dining room. You'll go into the East Wing, and you'll go to the ballroom.

STU: I'm looking -- I'm at the renderings as we speak. And that's exactly --

GLENN: I've not even seen the renderings. Just describe it to me. Can I see it?

STU: No. They're mine. This is my computer.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: This is the -- I can't obviously show it to the people here. You can see it over here.

GLENN: Okay. It's big, beautiful. What a surprise, the tables are golden.

STU: By the way, it's different --

GLENN: That's amazing. Holy cow.

STU: My conversation about whether this is the -- the -- you can't. It's already zoomed in. They're not the best images.

Here.

GLENN: There's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong with that? It looks just like the White House.

It fits. It's appropriate.

STU: I was in the middle of saying. It's -- my conversation on this is not whether it is -- looks good or is appropriate or anything like.

I actually think his point on the ballroom is so obvious, every president should have been making it.

The fact that we don't have a big room to have state dinners in.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Unless you wanted to do them off campus everywhere else.

You have to have that, and why not have it at the White House. It makes a lot of sense.

GLENN: Except, I don't want to pay for it, as a citizen. I don't want a dime going for it.

You know what? Hey, all you Frenchies, you can eat on the lawn. Literally, on the lawn.

Just throw the food out on the lawn.

Yeah, I mean, I'm fine with that.

But if he wants to pay for it. If he wants to get rich people to pay for it, go for it.

I don't want any of my tax dollars going for it.

STU: Right. So my criticism is not how it looks. And that we need it.

We actually showed the inside of it. It seems like the facility we should have for these type of events.

We're going to have them somewhere. Why not have them there?

GLENN: Right. And who better to build it than one of the best builders of all time.

STU: Donald Trump. We've had this conversation about how you project American power.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And I think Trump's approach to -- particularly in the Middle East. I think it's been effective around the world. Of these trappings actually are effective in diplomatic relations with other nations. Donald Trump has a lot of places that are lined in gold. That can have meetings. It's not like that's what he wants it for. The left tries to portray. Of course, he does.

No. It means something to him. And he knows how these people think.

GLENN: No. No.

Because I asked. I -- I won't tell the whole story.

But I really want to, really desperately.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: But, you know, he's gilding everything.

And that's not necessarily my favorite look.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And -- and he -- he came in, Tania and I were alone in the Oval for a while. And we were talking about it.

And he comes in. He says, you know, I'm doing all of this.

You see all the gold? Yes. You can't miss it. You can't miss the gold.

And he's like, you know, it's so important. These foreign leers, they all come from palaces. And they don't understand. And I know, you know, the White House is different. America is different. But they understand power in a different way.

And he said, they are coming from these old countries. And these big buildings.

And these palaces.

And he said, it is important for us to project power.

STU: Yes!

GLENN: And that's -- and that is why he's doing this. Not because he likes gold. He's doing it to project power and wealth.

Notice how many prime ministers.

They're all flying in all the time, from all over the world. You know, I've never seen a president meet with so many foreign dignitaries in the White House all the time!

STU: Yeah. And the media likes to say, well, that's because he's self-important.

And he's --

GLENN: No. He's projecting American power.

STU: Yes. I think so too.

When I say it's important to him.

That's why it's important to him.

He believes it's an important tool in that world.

GLENN: Correct. It's not him.

He knows the language they speak. And not just body language or, you know, spoken language.

All of the entire -- that's what protocol is all about. It all means something.

STU: And so my criticism -- and it's not even criticism.

My observation is not whether it fits. Or whether we need it, or whether it's appropriate.

My -- I don't think my observation here in the group text, that we started this with, which is that, holy crap.

I don't think the American people have any idea what's about to happen. Like every time I bring this up to Glenn.

And we have to understand how these conversations work.

I say, people will look at the White House. And it will be totally different.

He's like, oh, president Tyler did on more than that. In 1940 -- shut up!

That's what I get from Glenn.

Oh, well, there was more changes underground. You don't understand the piping -- that he totally changed the -- the -- the piping back in 1807. You moron!

Okay. I'm sorry.

I didn't know that. What I think of. And, you know, FDR made these changes.

My whole life, it's been the same, pretty much from the outside.

I know what the White House looks like. You go up there, I look at the White House.

It looks like the White House.

It is not going to look like the White House when this is over. It is going to look like the White House plus another White House next to it.

And it's going to be, I think, massively impressive. But I'm surprised there's not more conversation about this.

GLENN: When was the last time you were in Washington, DC?

STU: The inauguration.

GLENN: So you would not believe the difference in the White House grounds.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: The difference from, you know, when I went with George Bush.

You could stand right at the front gate.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You can't do that anymore.

They've taken the park. The park in the back is all gone.

The security --

STU: Just for security.

GLENN: Everything. All of the trees. Everything that has been done to not see the White House.

Except, for that iconic front.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

Everything is -- is not really -- you don't see it like you used to anymore. You don't walk up to it.

STU: The last -- I was in town for the inauguration. Last time I actually walked by the White House.

It's been a long time.

GLENN: Oh, you would not.

You will not recognize it.

I mean, just driving by and seeing it.

You will get pictures and everything else. But walking by it.

Today, you wouldn't recognize it.

It's -- it's -- what has -- what has happened with security is so sad. When I have the bell from the White House front desk, they're will it used to be a little desk right in the front, right as you walk in. There was a desk, and a bell. And I -- I have it. I think it is from Tyler's, you know, administration.

STU: Of course.

GLENN: And you would walk in. And you would hit the bell. And you would say, I want to see the president.

And somebody would say, okay. All right. Sit over there.

And you would wait. And you might wait all day, but you got -- you can walk in without an appointment and see the president of the United States.

You're not getting within two blocks of the White House right now.

It's sad. It's sad what's happening.

STU: Yeah. And for good. I wouldn't disagree with that either.

It's for good reason, security-wise.

I think back, the classic. I think what everybody thinks of when they think of the White House.

Is the scene from Superman two.

GLENN: Try to remember.

STU: When they showed the White House. And it's supposed to be -- it's a motion picture.

But they were too lazy to actually get video footage of the White House.

So it's just a still.

And you can tell, because there's like things that should be moving. That aren't moving. Right.

GLENN: Is that because --

STU: I think that's Superman.

GLENN: On Independence Day, they blew it up.

STU: But that's another example.

You had that picture of what the White House looked like. And, you know, I guess from certain angles, it looks pretty much the same. From the front. You won't notice it. Because it's kind of wrapped around the back. The back is pretty iconic too.

It's not going to look like that anymore.

In some ways, it will look a lot better or impressive.

It is a major change. That when you say, hey, they're redoing the West Wing, putting a ball room in there. That's not what they're doing.

GLENN: East.

STU: Sorry, East. I hate Glenn.

GLENN: I'm only saying it because I know how much he hates it.