Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to Call It Like I See it, presented by Disruption. Now, I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to take a look at some interesting issues around President Biden's new infrastructure proposal, including the timing of it and the approach to infrastructure that it represents.
And later on, we're going to discuss the recent Global Trends report released by the US National Intelligence Council, which aims to take a look at the next 20 years from a strategic perspective to try to consider what kinds of things we may be possibly facing in the near future.
Joining me today is a man who believes that you, too, can cool out poolside at the Delano if you could just flow like you was out of your mind. Yo, Tunde. Ogunlana Tunde. Are you ready to break down how life is all about Guns N Roses?
[00:01:10] Speaker B: Yes, sir.
[00:01:11] Speaker A: All right. All right.
[00:01:12] Speaker B: I'm going to use my illusion.
[00:01:16] Speaker A: All right, let's do it.
[00:01:17] Speaker B: See if you know that reference.
[00:01:18] Speaker A: There we go. There we go.
Now, we're recording this on April 12, 2021, and following the enactment of last month's $1.9 trillion Covid relief bill, we see that Smokin Joe Biden is now looking to fire out another piece of major legislation. This time, the proposal is a $2.3 trillion plan which aims to address many of America's infrastructure needs.
And as many have noted, the plan seeks to define or approaches infrastructure pretty broadly, including and includes all types of things that would enable Americans to more consistently live up to their potential from a productivity stand.
But we can get into that part later on. So to start us off, Tunde, do you think this is the right time to be dropping money on infrastructure, considering we have an ongoing pandemic, and that pandemic and the fallout economically may have our economy in a fragile state?
[00:02:15] Speaker B: My simple answer is yes.
[00:02:17] Speaker A: All right. Please explain. Please explain. Okay.
[00:02:19] Speaker B: I thought show was going to be over.
The shortest show ever.
[00:02:24] Speaker A: Now I'm done here.
[00:02:25] Speaker B: Yeah. No, the reason I say yes that quickly as well is I don't think there's ever really a bad time to spend money on infrastructure. And I'll maybe. Let me be clear on that.
Maybe the only bad time would be after you just spent a bunch of money on infrastructure. But since we haven't done that as a country in a long time in a real focused, targeted way like this, I don't think it's a bad time. And I think. Look, I think this is one of those kind of things that goes back to our Traditional political arguing kind of in America, the left and right, conservative Republican versus more liberal Democrats, where it's kind of what's the role of government and in what roles and what ways should the treasury and the taxpayer money be spent.
And so I think that's where we're getting back to some of the old fault lines of argument, which is kind of nice to see instead of kind of the last five to ten years of, I don't know, crazier arguments. But I do think that it's good to get it done sooner than later because. And I know we'll talk about this, about some of the infrastructure decay that we've had in this country, number one. Number two, where we lag behind maybe some other parts of the world and where we target and where we focus on our infrastructure spend.
Three, we have the jobs side of it that this could be stimulative from a job standpoint and then stimulative from an economic standpoint, which I know we'll get into as well. So the idea is I think yes, my answer. That's why I say yes. I think it's a good time to do it. And I think that if not now, when type of attitude. And so I think the devil will be in the details. But I think the answer of doing it is a yes.
[00:04:13] Speaker A: Yeah, I actually would say that this is actually the best time to do it, you know, because right now is a time we actually if a time when it may not be the best time to do it is if you have full employment, if you know the private sector is not hemorrhage or was not hemorrhaging jobs over the last 12 months where everybody's working already. And if the government wants to spend a bunch of money, they're gonna have to pay a premium to do it now. If you have people, all the job loss, we've had everything like that. A job's a program where you need to hire a bunch of people to build a bunch of things. And that would be great. That would be stimulative, as you said, not just in the short term with actual people getting money, getting paid either through government contractors or directly by the government for doing work, but also stimulative in the future in terms of laying the groundwork for private businesses to then utilize these things that are being built and that we have the fruits of this labor, so to speak. You know, Amazon didn't build the interstate highway system, but they use it to build a super valuable company when they got to move all these goods around. And so this is actually to me the best time to do infrastructure spending is when the economy has been reeling, when there's a lot of people out of work and when we can use this shot in the arm. And then as you said, the need, like we had the Flint water crisis right now in Florida, we have this crisis with some water treatment plant, you know, like all like we're falling apart as a country, bridges have been falling and stuff like that. Like we need it one. So yeah, I guess if we had just finished an infrastructure program and we just did everything new, then it wouldn't matter what the economic situation was. It wouldn't be a good idea to tear apart the things we just did and do them again. But we haven't done it in a long time. So yeah, but timing wise again, this seems like the perfect time to do it because this money being spent, this is the kind of good spending, so to speak, that you want from the government. Things that there's immediate payoff that stimulates, gets money into it so that the private sector can build off of it and then it also further enables the private sector. So yeah, I think there could not be a better time to do this. And I'm glad that they're going big with it as far as trying to look at this and really try to solve problems. I'm glad that Biden's taking a legacy approach here and say, hey, I want people to remember me for this thing because I think that's what's needed.
[00:06:30] Speaker B: Yeah, no, it's interesting too because when you think about the spending that a lot of people are concerned about, I mean, number one, our government spends money in a lot of areas.
Some that make the headlines, that cause some people to be concerned and a lot that doesn't make the headlines, but yet the money is spent anyway. And we seem to survive as a country from the stimuluses of the past decade, from the great financial crisis, the tarp, quantitative easing, all those years to I mean we didn't go from 4 trillion in debt as a country in late 20 2008. Sorry. To roughly 30 trillion today, 12, 13 years later, because we weren't spending money on things. So this idea that we shouldn't and what I would say in the term truly invest, that word, we shouldn't invest 2 trillion into our own country's infrastructure at a time when rates are still historically low. And like we're talking about the long term benefits from better infrastructure as well as the jobs that can create all that.
I think that it makes a Lot of sense. And just to get into it a bit, this is over a 10 year period, so we're talking on average, right, but that'll be about 200 billion a year. And there's already targeted, where he's going to raise the money is bringing the corporate tax rate back up slightly to 28% from 21% where it sits. And it was at 35% for I think most of our lifetime prior to 2017.
So you know, I look at it as a bit of a win win. You know, corporate America is still in a lot better position than they were prior to three, four years ago.
And then, and then the, the U.S. treasury gets to know that over a decade because basically that tax rate is estimated to raise 2 trillion over the next 15 years. So that's a large percentage that'll come back through the corporate tax raise, not 100% of it. And then they're still talking about some tinkering around with personal income tax rates. And then there's a lot of just assumptions that the growth from this infrastructure plan will generate higher tax revenue over the next decade. So this could be, obviously future has to play out, but this could be a revenue neutral type of move.
And I think it makes, well the
[00:08:58] Speaker A: reason you do it though is because you think it wouldn't be, you're saying worst case scenario it's revenue neutral. But the whole point in spending an infrastructure like that is to enable more commercial activity, to enable more participants, to enable more efficient ways of doing things and so forth. So I mean I think that conservatively the way he's laid it out is saying, okay, I'm gonna raise 2 trillion and I'm gonna spend 2 trillion more or less in order to, you know, like make it, make people feel better about it. But the whole point of this kind of spending is to create an environment where the, where companies can make more money and businesses can make more money. One thing that when you look at this, and I think that this infects us all to some degree on personal levels and on business levels, it oftentimes takes a little foresight to avoid this, is that you noted, you know, just the incredible spending we've had debt spending over the last 15 years and so forth, 15 to 20 years. And most of that spending though, well, I shouldn't say that most of the big chunks, when they went out in big chunks, you know, 3 trillion here, 2 trillion there, 4 trillion there, those were all in response to crisis. And when those crises happen, people don't ask as many questions as far as all the money that's being borrowed or whatever.
But if that, that's not a way to run an economy, any kind of budgeting processes to only make big expenditures with in response to a crisis. It's easier to stomach when you feel like you have no other choice. But if you want to use foresight, you actually want to spend money in ways without having to, but spend it in ways that will make more money. It's as you termed investing.
You don't wait until there's some crisis to invest into the future. You actually try to do that with a little bit of foresight. And so I think this actually is a healthier way to spend that kind of money. We're not waiting at until a building is on fire and then showing up and saying, hey, let's buy a fire truck. We're buying a fire truck already. So if some fire gets started, we'll be able to put it out easily. We won't wait till the fire's raging and then say, oh, let's pull our money together and see what we can do. And so I think the way this approach is a much healthier way to do it, it's just harder to gather to garner the political will to do it because people look at it as optional. But again, I think that's backwards. The people who get ahead are not the people who wait for crises in order to try to make moves. They make moves with foresight because they want to do things that are going to help them in the future and not wait until the guns at their head before they do it. Because when you wait till that, then you get the worst terms possible. When you do something in a crisis, you do it the way that generates the least return or the way you're just plugging holes.
[00:11:42] Speaker B: Yeah, but I think that points out something that is very important, which is we've had a dysfunctional relationship with just our country, with its own infrastructure for now probably two, three generations. So what I was reading as I was preparing here was our national investment as a percentage of GDP has fallen by over 40% since the 1960s.
And so what I think is, culturally in the United States, we've gotten used to dealing with crisis to crisis and kind of putting band aids on things. And we've been conditioned to believe that this type of spending is just kind of governments wasting money and that, you know, lower taxes and all that are just going to spur this growth. So the other thing is, you know, we got to look at what does this really mean? I mean, it's funny I was reading actually on the WhiteHouse.gov about this stimulus and the first thing I thought of was Donald Trump. And because not, not in terms of
[00:12:45] Speaker A: anything about it, they, I think they have 10 step programs for that where people who, whenever they read anything about politics, all they think about is Donald Trump.
[00:12:53] Speaker B: No, but it's, it was really about the America first concept and what I read and this is why it's just funny to me that you know, different labels and kind of marketing, I guess, you know, some people are seen to be as pro American while others may not be. But this plan is actually an America first plan, which was why I thought about it because it's just funny that, you know, it's out of Biden administration. We get all this in writing stuff like one of his big things I'm reading here, revitalize manufacturing, secure US Supply chains, invest in R and D and train Americans for the jobs of the future.
[00:13:28] Speaker A: So but that's only surprising if you buy into the narrative that's told to people on right wing media like that.
[00:13:35] Speaker B: Well, yeah, I'm not here to talk about all that.
[00:13:37] Speaker A: So I mean, of course Biden is trying to build, he ran for president. He's the president. Of course he's trying to build up America. Only people who don't believe that are the people who believe in fairy tales.
[00:13:45] Speaker B: Yeah.
I'm not here to talk about them or to them because that's not the time I have to spend here.
Life is short. And so the plan I'm reading here, the plan will require that goods and materials are made in America and shipped on US flag US Crude vessels. You know, I don't think this is going to go through in that way because I started thinking on a serious note like let's be careful what we wish for. And this is, I even say it about, you know, that the kind of Trump supporting crowd that would want to see this America first stuff in this way because this to me is truly America First. I'm not, I don't have a problem with it. I'm just saying when I saw this about materials that are made in the US and shipped on US flagged vessels, I thought, you know how much we're going to be paying for all that?
Because all those employees are going to need health insurance, 401k matching, all this kind of stuff, which is okay. And it's going to that if that all gets implemented, it would bring up the lower and middle income worker. But everything that we think is so cheap, like the 65 inch Sony flat screen I just paid 860 bucks for.
That'll have, you know, an extra cost at the tail end. So that might cost, you know, two or three thousand dollars when you go through a US main supply chain. So I think that it's a very interesting thing to read all this because it's, it's, it's a really detailed plan to say let's bring a lot of stuff back to the US and what I'm saying is there's pros and cons with all of it because one thing could be an increase in jobs and lifestyles for the lower and middle income Americans, but the offset would be higher prices for everyone.
[00:15:28] Speaker A: But that's not a fair comparison though because it's higher price or you're talking lower prices with more debt or maybe higher prices but with solvency. So I don't think what you're doing is cherry picking that and I don't
[00:15:42] Speaker B: think I'm cherry picking because remember that debt doesn't go away that we have.
[00:15:45] Speaker A: So well, but more you can still, you may be able to not keep borrowing or maybe make payments towards that debt if you increase your tax base, so forth. So I don't think we should go down that road basically because I'm sure you have counterpoints as well and I have points as to why that I would say with that though that is not, that's saying for the dollars that the government is spending though the government isn't buying 80 screen, 80 inch screen TVs.
So the money that they're spending, they're saying, yeah, if we're going to be spending money, we want that money to be stuff that's, that's being spent on Americans, so to speak, or American ships. And I think that makes sense. It's not saying that, no, no private company can source things from anywhere if they're just selling them at Best Buy. So I mean it's not that big of a fundamental change. And I think that honestly I think that's a good idea when you're doing tax dollars being spent. I want my tax dollars being spent even if it is costing a little bit more on American workers, you know, and paying. I don't want tax dollars being spent as part of a race to the bottom as far as who can, who can do things, who can squeeze their workers the hardest? Because you know what happens when people squeeze their workers the hardest? The government ends up stepping in and kicking in insurance subsidies for them or kicking in housing insurance for them. Like one of the things in our country that we just do now is that we're okay with people working full time and being in poverty and it's like, well, you know, who picks up the tab then? The government tax dollars. So, I mean, I have no problem with saying, hey, let's have higher standards for the people that are going to get this government money. That I mean, honestly. So, But I will say the plan in particular, and I mean, you went down the road a little bit as far as what's in it. So what. Give, give me more, you know, of your thoughts as far as what's in the plan, you know, beyond that issue. But, you know, and so as far as your thoughts as far as what's in the plan and the pushback, you know, that we're seeing.
[00:17:27] Speaker B: Yeah. So other things in the plan and then getting to some of the counter arguments, too, I mean, which is very interesting. I mean, just to read real quick some of the stuff I'm seeing, like replace 100% of the nation's lead pipes and service lines. And I think you made the point about the drinking water crisis in Flint and certain other parts of the country over the last decade. So I think that's where when we talk about the investment in our country as a percentage of GDP having dropped so much in the last 50, 60 years, those are the things that I could totally see. Right. Like if we're not upgrading our pipes and our system, then of course that's, you know, those things are going to corrode after a while.
They're also talking about things like putting $17 billion into domestic waterways. So that would be making rivers more efficient for barges and cargo.
They're talking about reinvesting in some of the coastal areas, like I guess, you know, in the Gulf of Mexico, Florida coast with the things like the natural barri barriers like the mangroves and the sand dunes, so that when we have these hurricanes, they're not as destructive to the actual dwellings and the costs aren't as high. And then there's an interesting thing here that we can get into because I found this one interesting, which is about the broadband and the goal of really expanding broadband to rural areas.
And so I didn't know this until reading, you know, up on this stuff, which was in 1936, there was actually a law passed called the, the Rural Electrification Act.
And it was the first time the federal government made a historic investment in bringing basically electricity to nearly every home and farm in the United States. So think about it. Before that time, electricity wasn't really available in rural parts of America. And so I think it's interesting, we're almost 100 years later and now the same thing is being discussed from an Internet perspective that you and I sit here in South Florida. We live in a big metropolitan area. We're lucky that we have access to all these different choices of Internet service.
But, you know, if we were going to move to the outskirts of somewhere in Idaho or South Dakota or Montana and want to start a business out there that demanded a high, you know, bandwidth, let's say, maybe we couldn't because that system, that infrastructure isn't there.
[00:19:53] Speaker A: So just let me piggyback on that. See, that's the kind of thing though. All of the things you just mentioned are things that are, that are based on foresight. We know more storms are coming, so let's rebuild the mangrove so that when storms come, the costs, the crisis costs won't be as high. But what you just pointed out about broadband, people wonder, you know, we send like call center jobs and we say, okay, we're going to send them in India, send them in, you know, different countries around the world where, you know, the cost of the labor is lower.
Well, conceivably, if you have high speed broadband in Montana or Wyoming, you may be able to put a call center there and be able to have people who don't need, they don't need to make as much money from a cost of living standpoint in Cheyenne, Wisconsin or Wisconsin, Cheyenne, Wyoming, as you do in New York City or in Cleveland, Ohio or whatever. So you could actually be able to create systems and things set up in a way by that infrastructure, keep things in America, keep things within your borders as far as that goes, but enable areas, again, enable more productivity within your own country just by bringing everybody up to speed, so to speak. Bringing everybody up to speed as far as 21st century stuff.
[00:21:10] Speaker B: Yeah, no, and I think that's where it's interesting, just reading all this, where you really get into the idea that we haven't done this kind of investment in a long time. I mean, that's what I'm saying. 1936 was getting the electrical grid really out there to the rest of the country.
And it stands to reason that new century, new technology, that the same thing may need to be done with this new technology called the Internet and the cables and lines.
[00:21:36] Speaker A: I bet you when people started talking about doing that with railroads in the 1800s, same people were pushing back, oh, government shouldn't be doing that. I'm sure with the electricity, people were doing the same thing. Oh, government shouldn't be doing that. Sure. With the interstate highway system. Oh, the government should be doing that. All of those things though, increase the nation's potential. And that's what we're trying to do.
[00:21:54] Speaker B: And they're talking about specifically investing in community, the infrastructure of community colleges, childcare facilities that this one I find good. You know, upgrade VA hospitals and federal buildings. I mean, how long have we been hearing about a Veterans Administration being such a mess? And you know, I remember from the Bush administration on hearing about Walter Reed Hospital and being a mess and you know, that's what I'm saying.
[00:22:17] Speaker A: Where are all the people that are so pro troops when it comes to. We're trying to do things for the veterans and they're pushing.
[00:22:21] Speaker B: No, that's what I was going to say is that, you know, obviously if we're going to be a nation that acts like we care about, you know, our military veterans that protect us, then we got to take care of things like their medical facilities. And I think that's where it comes back to what's the role of a government. And none of this stuff is free. Right. Like it's interesting. Expand access to long term care services under Medicaid.
[00:22:44] Speaker A: You've brought up a couple of things though that are part of the controversial things. You've seen pushback as far as childcare stuff, as far as the long term care or elder care stuff, we've seen a lot of pushback. People saying that that stuff isn't infrastructure. And from my standpoint, that is really a very narrow view of infrastructure. That's like saying that a school building is infrastructure, but the humans who actually give meaning to the school, the school building itself isn't doing anything. But you have to have humans in there teaching people and, and they're not part of the infrastructure. Like, of course there's a human aspect to infrastructure. Again, it's all about potentiating. It's about allowing people to live up to their potential. From a productivity standpoint, we want more productive workers than it would seem like. And you tell me if I'm wrong here, but if infrastructure is about allowing people to be more productive, setting up things that we can share the costs on, you know, road, like corporate Amazon ain't are building roads, but they're using the roads. We set it up so that they can use the roads. We use the roads. Amazon or whatever company, Google's not out here teaching people the three Rs which are for anybody.
[00:23:49] Speaker B: You're starting to sound like our last communist president who was talking to Joe the plumber, remember him?
You didn't build that.
[00:23:57] Speaker A: Well, no, but that's what I'm saying.
Our employers, and for good reason, our employers don't teach people the three Rs, which, for anybody who isn't of a certain age or didn't have parents talk to them like that. The three Rs being reading, writing, and arithmetic.
But these things are all things that the government provides that allow us to then get out here in this great market system and make things happen and create prosperity for all of us. And so that's what that to me, is all infrastructure. But I mean, so I thought that the debate that we're seeing right now is like, oh, this part is an infrastructure. This part is an infrastructure. Infrastructure is roads. And then it's like, no, that's transportation infrastructure. That's a particular type of infrastructure. Like, that literally would be like arguing that cybersecurity should not be a part of national security. Like, if it doesn't deal with guns or troops, then it has nothing to do with national security or defense. And that's ridiculous. Like, that's. The world is not the same world as it was 100 years ago.
Cybersecurity now is a part of national security, whether you like it or not. Whether you think little guys, nerds on computers or whatever should be part of your defense team or not, they need to be, or else you are exposed and somebody can shut down your whole army without firing a single bullet. So it's the same argument with infrastructure. Like, if you want to say, oh, well, infrastructure, there's somebody in 1940, in 1940s, 1950s, would have said, no, well, infrastructure, that's just electrical grid and trains, that's not roads. Like, was like, no, that was then, this is now. And so now infrastructure has to include more things. Now, how you divvy it up? Or if you're saying, well, I don't think this is a compelling enough interest, then, yeah, sure, let's have that debate. You know, I'm not here unequivocally saying what has to be and what can't be. I'm saying conceptually, don't give me the argument of, oh, well, that thing which clearly sucks away at society's ability or society's ability to maximize productivity is not infrastructure because it's not a physical structure. But I mean, because again, human infrastructure is a big part of any kind of major venture, so we want to maximize that. So I just wanted to make that comparison, though. I didn't want to jump step all over You. But go ahead.
[00:26:07] Speaker B: No, no, it's, it's, it's. That's why I say it's, it's all good. Because, you know, as you were talking, that's where I was going to interrupt you is, is it made me realize that's where I felt that way when my mom was. I was realized thinking about the Social Security is that at the time when she passed away, I was just starting my business and I had, you know, my wife, my three kids, all that. And I just kind of thought about it like to your point, like, you know, had I, had she not had Social Security income, I might not have been able to start my business because my income would have been going to supporting her. And so, and so I'm not saying, you know, I know so.
[00:26:50] Speaker A: So us as a society, we have one less business. And if you multiply that by, by a million, then we'd have a million less entrepreneurs out there starting business. Any one of those could become rich and famous like Tunde.
[00:27:02] Speaker B: Well, I don't know about famous, but anyway.
But no, that's it. That's the point. Right. And I don't want to say that my example would be perfect on everybody else, but it was just this idea that. Yeah, and I think that's a different way to sell the idea of, you know, proper government spend. I know that there is an idea of wasteful spending and I know that it's not an idea, it's a fact. You can, you can definitely have wasteful spending. But I think that, you know, when we look at it as an investment in long term things, it's, it's different than wasteful. And one of the things I was
[00:27:37] Speaker A: just gonna to some. I mean, that's kind of part of the argument.
[00:27:39] Speaker B: Well, that's where I think you get the cherry picking and that's where I think you make a good point with your cybersecurity example of war. Right. Because I think the same argument as when you were saying that I thought about, let's say the Air force, you know, 150 years ago versus just 100 years ago. We know that 1921, 100 years ago, we had already finished the First World War. And I've seen enough footage of old biplanes to know that we had planes 150 years ago, we didn't have planes. So I could see at some point, like you said, in the transition, somebody probably argued that, you know, who needs to spend money on those planes? We don't need those. You know, when, when there was first a new Technology. Yeah, and, and, and just like with space and with cyber, right now we have the space force as of a year ago.
So these things are always evolving. And then so the definition of something like a war has evolved. Right. There didn't used to be computers, you know, King Arthur wasn't sitting there typing code into a computer to go, you know, lance somebody out, you know, with a sword or a spear back in his day. But now we do use computers and cyber stuff in war. So obviously we have a cyber security defense, part of our defense apparatus and infrastructure. And so I just thought that was a good, good kind of analogy. And then just to finalize, I know we want to jump, but I thought about back to the climate thing real quick. And the, and the, the redevelopment of natural barriers of infrastructure which then themselves would be low cost going forward after that because they're natural, you know, mangroves, you might have to spend a lot of money one time they put them back where they were before, but after that they reproduce and it should be pretty, pretty cheap after that. So it says in 2020, so this is in one year only. The United States endured 22 separate billion dollar weather and climate disasters costing 95 billion in damages to homes, businesses and public infrastructure.
And it talks about in Louisiana, just Hurricane Laura alone caused 19 billion in damage. So the idea would be by part of this initial large one time investment would hopefully, let's say if the equivalent type of weather events happened five or 10 years from now, instead of costing 95 billion, maybe it only cost 10 or 15 billion because you know, so I think that goes another way of defining your idea about an investment is yeah, this is a big sticker price right now. But then hopefully it doesn't mean we have to deal with shocks in the same way, which is very inefficient right now.
[00:30:09] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, because the thing is, is that we know there'll be more storms.
So preparing for or trying to steel ourselves so that storms, the fallout won't be worse is a good idea because it's not like, it's like if another storm's happened, nobody's gonna say, but man, I would have never thought that would happen. Like, of course we know more are going to come. So yeah, there's things we can do that will make our land better able to absorb some of the higher impact stuff and make our crisis costs lower. That would be great. You know, and so to me, like, yeah, that has to be a part of your, any, all of these things. This is kind of like a test of Foresight, it didn't used to be a partisan issue in the same way. I mean, Eisenhower, you know, was a big. The Republican was a big driver of the interstate highway system, you know, so it's become that like the, in the last 40 years or so, 40 to 50 years, where there has been. The debate has not become whether or how much we should be devoting towards infrastructure or whatever, it's whether the government should spend on any of this stuff at all.
And, you know, and so that debate oftentimes isn't very constructive because you're just looking for reasons to not spend money on anything. And there's certain things that we know from experience that the government can do to boost our economy, so to speak, and to boost it in a way that allows us, the citizens, to take it and run with it. And that's really what I see here is more of a saying, okay, how can we give our citizens the tools to create, to grow, to make this thing even bigger than it is now, make it 10 times bigger and not have to rely indefinitely on the borrowing that we've been doing like crazy for the last 20 years? So, you know, sometimes, you know, like you do look at things from a long view, sometimes you look at things from a short view. You know, we talked about infrastructure as if you want to understand kind of the concept of it, you have to take the long view. Well, one thing the US Intelligence Service does, you know, the US Intelligence Services and the US Intelligence Council do every four years they do a Global Trends Report. Now this is different. Last year we talked briefly about the annual report that they do. As far as threats, the Global Trends report looks more. Takes like a 20 year, looks 20 years into the futures and talks about the potential risks. Obviously it can't tell the future, but just the way things are going, the kind of things, what we're seeing now and the way things look, what kind of threats we should be prepared for or we should be worried about and so forth.
So it's always fascinating anytime you see it. The Last one was 2017. And it's always a fascinating look at just what people who study all this stuff all the time see as the risks and the things that we need to be watching out for. Tunde. So what did you think of or what stood out to you? I guess I would ask in this Global Trends report that. And we'll link to this Global Trends report in our show notes.
[00:33:09] Speaker B: It's interesting. I mean, I should say not a lot stuck out to me and I say that not out of like, arrogance or that I'm so excited, that I'm so smart.
[00:33:18] Speaker A: But, you know, let me throw something at you then. Yeah, the thing that actually like the way that information was presented and the way that it kind of presented the look of how the problems that we have on the horizon, whether it be things like pathogens, pandemics and so forth, or like global warming and so forth, there's these things that affect more than just one region or one nation. So we have all these threats on the horizon or potential threats or growing threats, rising threats that require coordination amongst a large number of people.
At the same time, the way the Internet has kind of evolved and the way things are going from an inequality standpoint and just the way societies are developing, it seems like we're becoming less and less able to cooperate across different people to solve problems. So our problems are becoming larger in scale that require more cooperation, while our ability to cooperate seems to be going, you know, going the wrong way. So that, that to me is what stood out the most. Like, okay, so that doesn't paint. When you play out all the permutations of how this can work out, that doesn't paint a good picture because as the problems grow in scale and they're going to require larger levels of cooperation if our abilities to cooperate are being compromised and are lessening by the year or whatever, I don't see how we're supposed to deal with those things.
[00:34:46] Speaker B: Yeah, well, I mean, that's the whole point of the report telling us we probably won't. And that's what goes back to why I'm not surprised in anything that's written here. I mean, it's pretty. We spend time every week talking about these things, whether it be, you know, when we did the documentary on social dilemma, to all these type of things about the fragmentation of our society.
So that's why then when we do
[00:35:07] Speaker A: the global warming stuff or when we've
[00:35:08] Speaker B: done these things on the pandemic, it's just. That's why nothing here really stood out to me. But it was interesting. I mean, it was well written and, you know, to see it all put together in one place. I mean, one of the things they did point out is something you just spoke to, which is that these challenges often lack a direct human agent or perpetrator. And I thought that's what makes it kind of worse. Because what they point out to us, how the marginalized communities within the various larger countries or markets are often the ones kind of like what has always happened in human history, the scapegoat the minority group within a larger group gets kind of persecuted.
Whether it be that you know, the Jews in 1930s Germany that were blamed for everything that led to the Holocaust, whether it was, you know, right now maybe the Uyghurs in China, you know, or some, or the what's happening to the people in Myanmar, those could all be examples of some minority group that's being persecuted for whatever their issue is in that region and their culture. So I just thought, you know, it makes sense that's probably going to happen more. I mean right. If, especially if these are gonna. And that's what I thought too reading this stuff. Like if it's gonna be more non human or let's say directly caused. Like if you believe that climate change is caused by human burning of fossil fuels, there's no one boogeyman even say that it's human created. But the idea that the next Category 5 hurricane or whatever the case is rising sea levels, that cause. Cause that's what they talked about is climate change will continue to cause migratory patterns. And I think we've talked about this on air a bit is like the Arab Spring which then led to the migration over a decade from Syria and Lebanon and these areas into Western Europe.
A lot of that was caused by climate change and the change in. Correct. The drought in the Middle east and the need for food for large populations and all that. So we see how already these things then created the migration really started by creating the civil war kind of situation in Syria and that Middle Eastern region which then led to the exodus.
[00:37:26] Speaker A: Well, it feeds into it, it doesn't directly cause it. And I mean that's kind of the thing when you look at let's say the World War II, there was a Axis powers that like hey, if we can take out the Axis powers then we win the war. And so it's something for everybody to focus their energy on. But even with climate change there's not like one person you can focus your energy on or one group and say if we can just knock these guys out or take these guys down and, or whatever, then we solve the problem. There's these problems are more complex, they require more cooperation, not less.
I think that inequality that it acknowledged that inequality plays such a role I think is very important because that's something I've talked about a lot and just that the society is not going to work if the have so to speak continue to just try to take more and more and more. Like we saw just, I mean you and I had talked about some articles this past week talking about how much wealth the billionaire class had grown in 2020 with the pandemic and so forth. And it's like this story doesn't end well when the few concentrate all the resources. And part of what the Global Trends Report talks about is how this essentially leads into less buy in amongst the population. And like, less people are willing to buy into the system because it's like the system is screwing us. Of course they're not going to buy in. Of course they don't. They're not going to see anything worthy in the system to try to protect and defend when a few are just taking all the spoils and putting it all on Instagram, or maybe not, but either way, that type of inequality, you can't keep social stability with both.
And so we see that the intelligence agencies are talking about this as well. It's like, okay, we're not crazy, but when we're talking about a need for society to account for that and to find some way to give everybody a shot, give everybody a fair take and give everybody something to lose so that you're not, you don't have the masses of people walking around feeling like the system's just sitting on them and they have nothing to lose. The other thing which I think plays into that, which was talked about, is the quote, unquote, trust gap, where you have the informed public kind of buying in more. And we see this in small ways now or some large ways, but the informed public, people with quality sources of information that know how to sort through information, they're able to understand and either buy into or even offer substantive critique to government solutions and try to improve them, whereas the wider public just being skeptical of everything and saying, look, we don't trust anything that anybody's doing except maybe our one, you know, populist savior or whatever, but that's it. And so, and how that type of approach from the masses, again, is, you know, that doesn't lead to a good place, you know, that we, we've seen how that unfolds in human societies. And so all of those things are like, things like that we've talked about or talked around or kind of pointed at. But to see them, like I said, intelligence people look at this stuff all the time. Like they're looking at this stuff, they're studying how the world's unfolding and stuff like that, like that's. To see it in there is like, okay, wow. So this stuff really does need to be taken seriously. We need to keep banging this drum, you know, as far as to the society needs to like people. We're not here by ourselves. We're here with each other. And so, you know, like, to a certain degree, the things that we do are all connected and we need to come up with a system, you know, where people can be rewarded for things that we think are good and people can be punished for things that we think are bad and so forth. And if we don't, then we're just going to have continued, excuse me, deterioration of what we would consider civilized society.
[00:40:54] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I mean, I think that's why to me, just nothing in here was a big surprise. I mean, you're right. It's. It's.
[00:41:00] Speaker A: So we got pessimistic Tuesday, definitely.
[00:41:03] Speaker B: And no, but it's just because it's like it goes back to the cycles that we've talked about and all that is that we've gone through a cycle now where, you know, that the mass population, through economics, demographic shifts and technology shifts, has become tribal again and distrustful of, you know, what once was the order and the messengers that were accepted in that order. And so there will be a new order created that will develop over time. But I think we still have another decade or two of sausage being made, quote, unquote, in global societies as we figure this out.
[00:41:42] Speaker A: And we just hope that, like, some of our institutions can survive. One thing I would add to that, just to kind of fully contextualize what you're saying, is that the previous order was set up to solve the previous problems.
[00:41:55] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:41:55] Speaker A: And so now those problems aren't necessarily as salient. And so people are. The order is becoming more fragile and people that are on top of the order are taking their liberties more with that order and, you know, just really being out for themselves because, you know, hey, those threats that we needed to all be worried about aren't there anymore. And so conceivably, the new threats need to actually really kick in and we need to see how bad it is for us then to respond and create a new order to deal with those threats. Now, hopefully, you know, you. If you have leadership with insight and foresight, then you can avoid some of the, most of the pain in that and kind of transition to something new. But. But with that, that's kind of the exception. That would be exceptional. That would not be the norm. Normally we got to feel the pain fully for enough people to get on board and say, hey, we gotta do this a different way.
[00:42:47] Speaker B: Yeah. And that's why you can't predict it. I mean, I'm sure there's an ability to predict, to look through past cycles because humans have predictable patterns when you look at it from 30,000ft over long periods of time.
[00:43:01] Speaker A: But I mean, as you said though, you don't know how it's going to play out. Like, even the report kind of acknowledges that our democracy could be. We could look back at 20 years and our democracy was refreshed and you know, or we could look back and it's completely like we're in a wasteland. Like we change.
[00:43:18] Speaker B: I agree.
[00:43:18] Speaker A: It's just all these different factors that are coming into play that either going to have to be dealt with or that are going to deal with us.
[00:43:25] Speaker B: Yeah, and I agree. That's why I'm not trying to predict it, because I do think that we're still early in this and you know, a lot of important things can happen that change it one way or another. And so I just think that, that out of this though will come a new order, whatever that is. Because I think one thing that again, human beings having patterns that are somewhat predictable over long periods of time is that in the end humans do prefer order and stability versus chaos. So at some point, whether it's an order like a Joseph Stalin order, or if it's an order like the type of democracy we want to see, again, you know, at some point this too shall pass and there will be a new order.
[00:44:04] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, but part of that is because it has to be because these are the new challenges that the new order, whatever that's gonna be, has to be able to meet. You know, like. So it's instructive in that sense because as, yeah, as you said, there will be a new order because the old order, the problems it was trying to solve, those aren't, you know, and so now there's new problems and you know, like there are global in nature and we're going to have to come up with a new order. And hopefully through, you know, like you said, hopefully the new order will take things from this existing order that we value and still have those, you know, and that's, and I mean it's not passive. It's, it's. We have a role, all of us have a role in that as well. But also, you know, you just don't know. And so it's good though, to see what the possibilities are.
[00:44:52] Speaker B: Yeah, no, and that's why I think going back to even what we talked about earlier in the discussion is that's why I found it fascinating reading about that Electricity act of 1936, because I think to Your point? We all, and especially big governments are kind of the general that fights the last war.
So right now, like you're saying, some of the pushback we've heard to this current going back to the infrastructure bill here in the US is people not, you know, tying together that maybe cyber and certain things that are modern technology are part of our infrastructure. And that's what I mean, like you're saying 100 years ago people thought electricity maybe shouldn't have been part of infrastructure or no one would question that today.
So I think you're right about this, this, this second part of discussion we're having, which is about the, the consequences of social fragmentation and, and, and kind of as the world changes, the new order that will be created. I'm sure as we set up the solutions that everyone wants today, within a couple years of those solutions being discussed and agreed upon, they're going to be old, but it's going to take another 50 years for humanity to deal with the fact that they're obsolete already.
[00:46:10] Speaker A: And this is kind of part of
[00:46:11] Speaker B: the problem is what I'm saying.
[00:46:12] Speaker A: This is kind of the reason why we tied these two together though, is because the infrastructure bill, in part, not in full, but in part is actually set up to equip us, to better equip us to deal with some of these issues. It's not like they didn't just make up this stuff when they're looking at the threats that we have as far as climate change. Okay, well let's repair some of these coastal areas so the earth can help us as far as managing this thing or with the childcare or the long term care stuff. Let's do things to try to counteract some of this inequality that's driving social media so many people to just hit eject on civilized society, on working together with people. So that's actually foresight. That's the kind of things that if we can put in place can help us develop a working sense of how we combine together through our government to solve our problems so that as more problems come, this new order will arise out of we the people knowing that we can come together and solve them. So I mean, I think it's, you know, it having a broad view like that of what the infrastructure approach is trying to do and also the kind of threats that we're dealing with can be helpful and just in terms of contextualizing these things so we can wrap it from there, man. But it's a good way to look at these things when it's not just about as you point. I always love when you call this out. The general fighting the last war. It's not just about that.
We can't that's the crisis form of spending, you know, like where we're just, oh, bad thing happens. Spend a bunch of money. Bad thing happens. Spend a bunch of money. Like, let's let's try to we know the types of things that are coming, so let's try to massage the system a little bit so that we can absorb those easier, that they don't cause such a big disruption or we can mitigate them all together. But, yeah, we appreciate everybody for joining us.
Until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:48:02] Speaker B: I'm Tunde with Atlanta.
[00:48:03] Speaker A: All right. Subscribe, rate review. Tell us what you think, and we'll talk to you next time.
