Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we discuss Mackenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos ex wife, and the staggering amounts she's donated to charitable causes, not just in 2025, but since 2019. And we'll consider whether this is a feature or a bug in how society is being rearranged over the last decade or two from a wealth distribution standp.
Hello, welcome to Call Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys, and joining me today is a man who has been known to do a rich flex from time to time. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde. Are you ready to go savage on him today?
[00:00:50] Speaker B: Yeah, man. And for the YouTube viewers, I'm wearing my Christmas sweater just for you guys. And it's got these two deers on it, and I didn't notice that both have antlers until after it arrived at my house. So it's a lot of fun at the Christmas parties.
[00:01:07] Speaker A: Yes. Yeah. You have to check out that joke.
[00:01:08] Speaker B: This is how we're gonna end the year.
[00:01:10] Speaker A: I don't think that we could say the full joke on the audio without making this thing explicit, man.
[00:01:15] Speaker B: Yeah, no. So we'll just keep going. Yeah.
There's a downside of you doing a show with me that I bring stuff up like this up periodically.
[00:01:24] Speaker A: Yeah. Now, before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe, like the show on YouTube or your podcast. Appreciate doing so really helps the show out. Now recording on December 16, 2025. And Tunde, we saw reports, Kyra, coming up at the end of the year that Mackenzie Scott, who is Jeff Bezos ex wife, has been making lots of charitable donations. And we've heard stories about this in the past. She's donated with the HBCUs and lots of causes. But what we've seen this year, I think the amounts really have to be. Attention has to be called to this. With the amounts we're talking about $7.1 billion in 2025, and since 2019, it's over 26 billion.
And I mean, this, needless to say, that's a lot of money. And so we wanted to have the discussion 1. To just talk about this is what she's doing. I mean, she's an angel. You know, what she's doing is amazing as far as this goes. And so I wanted to get your thoughts on just kind of your reaction to what you see when you see these numbers. But then I also want to get into a societal kind of conversation as well, because while charitable giving is a great thing and something that really makes us a. I would say, adds to the morality and the cohesion of a society that we kind of all in this together, we've seen a lot also that seems to indicate that more charitable donations are needed nowadays than maybe they have been over the last 20, 30 years. So first, just your thoughts or what reaction do you have or when you see, you know, the, the, her donations and really the amounts, you know, that.
[00:02:59] Speaker B: That she's been given, it's pretty fascinating, man. I think it's, you know, I was thinking about, she gave away $7.17 billion this year, and I'm 47 years old. I can remember a time when the richest person in the world was worth like 7 to 10 billion dollars. You know what I mean? Like in the fact she's just given this away in one year. And like you said, not only has she given away 26 billion since 2019, but there's estimated that her net worth after this year's giving of the 7 billion is still at around 30 billion.
[00:03:31] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:03:32] Speaker B: So it makes me think, wow, how much more wealthy could the Bezos family be if Jeff didn't divorce her for the other lady?
And, and, and it's just, that's what I mean. It's just staggering the numbers we're talking about that some people have and their own personal wealth. And so, and I'm not saying that as a good or bad thing. I just saying you asked me to react. It's my first reaction is, wow, she gave away that much money. And like you said, I think it's a commendable thing. I would call her an angel in that way.
And so, and that got me thinking about our society and just thinking like, wow, I think that's cool that she's, she's given away around half of her net worth, if we can say it that way. And she seems young enough that, you know, she seems like she'll be given a lot more away if she continues this over her lifetime.
So I commend that.
But that's got me thinking, like, that's interesting. It's just different culture than we've seen from many billionaires that we see publicly. I'm not going to say that there aren't a lot of billionaires that do philanthropic things, but the ones we see publicly, at least in the last year or two, tend to be very about themselves. And so it's a nice, refreshing to see someone at this wealth level that is willing to give.
However, I do feel it's interesting, kind of like I always heard the term, but benevolent dictator, as the kind of perfect Leader, as a kind of half in jest saying.
And now I just kind of thought like, so now we're looking at benevolent billionaires to kind of bail us out and save society. Because like you said.
[00:05:01] Speaker A: Well, that's the next part.
Let me get in on the initial reaction before you go there.
[00:05:06] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
[00:05:06] Speaker A: I note that she is, you know, after her divorce, you know, from Jeff Bezos, when she got a lot of wealth, personal wealth from, you know, as a result of that proceeding, she signed one of those giving pledges, you know, that we've, we've talked about this in the show before, years ago, but where it talks about, you know, like you're committing to giving away your wealth, you know, like as, as you live and then when you die, you know, to not try to just create this dynastic thing going on.
[00:05:36] Speaker B: So.
[00:05:36] Speaker A: And yeah, you talked about how she, you know, she's very prolific with this. Like, she's up there basically with Buffett and gay Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, as far as that goes.
I do. What stands out to me is the sheer number. Like you said, like we, we've been alive long enough that we've seen the richest person in the world ask. The numbers just go up. So, so hot, you know, so it's like where it was, you know, 10 times more now than it was. And it's like, you know, it's kind of jarring when you think about it, because that's a lot of money, you know. And you know, for someone who is, I'm not a millionaire. So it's like, okay, yeah, somebody has a million dollars, you know, somebody has a billion dollars. A lot of times if you're not in that circle, I mean, you understand a billion dollars is a lot more than a million. But I don't think you really think about how much more a billion is than a million.
A billion dollars is a thousand million, you know. And so we, these, the words flow kind of, they rhyme and they kind of flow off and it's like, oh yeah, a billion. You know, somebody said this person has a lot of millions, this person has a billion. And it's like just a lot of money. But it's like when you're talking about the billions here, you're talking about so much money, the scale of so much money. And so I worry and this gets to the point that what you're talking about, that when billionaires and people who have great wealth in our society can give this much money away pretty freely, I wonder if it's indicative that something's broken in our system, you know, because if there's this much money going on yet we're having affordability crises and so forth, then it seems like the distribution of money may not be in a way that is set up for our system to sustain. So let's go straight into it. Tunde. So you were leaning into it. So I'll ask you this and I'll say it like this.
Charity I'm always interested in, can you have an economy that turns over? Can it continue? Can it sustain? And so is charity itself. Are we looking at this as. Is this the kind of trickle down that we're relying on?
As we can see the wealth disparity continue to grow and the richest people continue to get richer and richer and richer?
Is this the setup now? Is that we are going to be dependent on benevolent billionaires to sprinkle us a little bit and throw some ones down at us so that we can continue to have things like universities and so forth?
[00:07:57] Speaker B: Yeah, that looks like the plan.
[00:07:59] Speaker A: Looks like the plan.
[00:08:01] Speaker B: No, I mean, and again, just to.
[00:08:03] Speaker A: Be clear, we both said it, but this is not a shot at Mackenzie Scott at all. Like, she is amazing person for doing this. Like, this is just that this setup, this is looking at the setup, you know, like asking questions like about the setup.
[00:08:19] Speaker B: All right, everybody, that's my friend who's a lawyer that's being concerned about, you know, liability here for us, talking about somebody. Don't worry about her. We already said our praises about her.
[00:08:28] Speaker A: How those things. We called her an angel, man. So she's good. These things cut up these clips, man. You don't know.
[00:08:34] Speaker B: But we, we called her an angel. So we put our thoughts out, but not. So here's the thing, man, I think you say something that makes me want to say a joke about the 80s because we were kids then and we got taught about trickle down economics that, you know, if we just cut taxes. And I want to also clarify this, I recognize that there is an equilibrium and if you tax people at 90, 100% en masse, that you're going to be unproductive. Just like if you tax them at zero, you know, like there is, there is a point where things can make sense or they don't make sense. So what I'm just saying is that we were sold a big tax cut in the early 80s during the Reagan administration. And the idea, when people are worried about, well, that's gonna.
The cutting of that revenue is going to hurt the ability to take care of the lowest among Us and, you know, they emptied out the insane asylums and people were, people were disabled living and all that. And we had a spike in homelessness in the United states in the 80s.
[00:09:34] Speaker A: More particularly to our conversation now, people also worried that it would encourage the large accumulations of wealth when those taxes were cut. Yeah, but go ahead.
[00:09:45] Speaker B: And so, and so. But the reason I'm bringing it up is because for those people who are maybe our age older will remember that what was sold to us as Americans is. Well, don't worry. All those things that are going to go away, they're going to be replaced by the altruism of all these small group of wealthier Americans, this top 1%, and they're just going to sprinkle. It's going to trickle down.
The money that they accumulate is going to come down like snowflakes on the rest of us. And they're even going to hire more.
[00:10:15] Speaker A: Specifically, they were going to spend more. And so now they're spending. Instead of having the spending from the 90% of population to drive the economy, it was going to be the spending from the 1% that was going to drive the economy.
[00:10:26] Speaker B: Yeah. And so, and so I think that's why I say it's. It's kind of a cruel maybe joke that's being, you know, maybe unintentionally played again on Americans where now it's not going to be about economic spending. We're going to be sold. We're going to just be sold that. Yeah, you know, there's going to be this, you know, we'll cut more to give people like me and McKinsey more tax cuts.
And on the back of that, then we're going to expect Tunde and McKinsey to just open their wallets and help all these people when they're hungry. And, you know, mackenzie is a great angel and she'll do it, I won't. And so, and so that's the difference is I'm going to keep my money because that's just how I am. And other people with wealth may distribute it out, and that's how they are, and that's okay. And so I think it comes to this question of certain things in life, like giving to universities like MacKenzie did, or giving to charities that help people get food on the table. Should that be something that's left to people like me and her that are going to make individual decisions about it? Or is that something that, as a collective society, through representative government and electing people, do we want the government doing that? And I think that is the forever tension in the American culture.
Because even hearing myself say that, I'm already conditioned to say, no, I don't want the government doing that. But that's more of a cultural conditioning than reality.
[00:11:45] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, you gotta. This conversation oftentimes requires a little context because like you said, for example, there is some equilibrium and the government using taxation. Taxation can be used for a lot of different purposes. It can be used to kind of incentivize or disincentivize behavior. It can be used to raise money. It can be used to say, you know, like to put an income cap or a wealth cap on people and say, hey, we don't want people to make more money than this in a year. And that latter thing, it was used in the past, actually in the 1930s, 40s, where the top income tax bracket and inflation adjusted, I believe it was around over $4 million in income.
And the top tax bracket though was 93% once you got over that threshold. And so as a result, no person with any sense would pay themselves more than that or earn more than that in a year because then you'd be handing over all this money to the government. So it created almost a salary cap in that sense.
And maybe that was too much, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. What we do know is that whether this is causation or correlation, following that, and during the time of the 93% tax bracket, which I'm not advocating for, I'm just throwing out the information, you had the largest middle class in the history of the world.
1 earner households could live middle class lifestyles, own homes, send kids to college, one earner. So we had that happening in the United states. The average CEO would make 30 times more than the average worker. And that was the system that was set up. That was the outcome that was created through that and other policy choices that were made.
And since then, a lot of that stuff has been disassembled. But I do want to say, like, this isn't some choice in American culture. This is a choice of all cultures. There are many countries right now that the norm is for very few people to hold, own all the resources, own all the land and have all the wealth. And we oftentimes call those third world countries.
So it's not that this is some new idea where it's like, hey, we're going to transfer all this wealth from the middle and from public institutions to the upper class. And through mechanisms of, again, through policy mechanisms, though, you know, it's not like this is Just happening. It's like, okay, we're going to take down some of these barriers, take down some of these things that were in place previously because we want more wealth to flow and to stay at the top.
And so it creates a different kind of society. And in those kinds of societies, I mean, Ebenezer Scrooge, you know, that story was written in a society that was like that. It used to be like that in the United States, you know, and. And that story. And they used to be like that in England and so forth. And those stories call a time recall a time when the regular people, you know, were living with very little. You know, they were owning homes and stuff like that and barely could eat, and they relied on the generosity of the wealth class. So to me, we've seen a lot of kind of signals, you know, that people are looking, oh, this is like the Gilded Age. This is, you know, like this. This is just another one of these symbols that it's like, okay, we're getting to the point now where there's such a reliance. Because one of the things you sent me also was Talking about, like, GoFundMe and how often, how commonly GoFundMe right now is being used for people to just help pay in their bills. And so we are kind of swinging back into that. And I find that commendable that people are helping with that. But I think the goal, at least for the masses of us, the masses, the working people, I think the goal should be to set up the system so that if you work, you work hard, that you should be able to live a decent lifestyle. You know, people have had that idea in the past that was called the Square Deal. And then the New Deal was called the New Deal because it was the new version of the Square Deal. But that's the idea, that policy that the people used policy to try to bring about in their country. And so now, again, like, that stuff's been taken apart. And so the result is kind of, this is what we get. And so we get another sign, basically, is my overall point here, another sign that this is kind of. This is the. The trajectory that we're on. And. But it's not something that's unique to human society or unique to American society. It's just the policy choices or lack of decision making that's been there has led us down this path.
[00:15:52] Speaker B: Yeah, I think. And you say a lot there. I want to. I want to definitely get back to that 93% taxation concept, but just where you were. I think, you know, this is a very Unique thing. I mean, America is exceptional in many way. And like you said, we. One example would be the square deal New Deal stuff which kept us from being a third world country or becoming one during the Great Depression.
[00:16:16] Speaker A: But you can't call us exceptional for that though, because maybe we're exceptional at the beginning, but now that's much. How much of Europe operates now, you know, similar kind of structures versus us. And so it's, it's been, it's in place elsewhere, it's not even in place here anymore.
[00:16:30] Speaker B: But I'm sorry, think about it. The exceptional nature is. We brought it to them with the Marshall plane. I mean, a lot of, a lot of the European countries, yeah, we showed them how to do it. So that's what I'm saying is, and I'm making obviously a broad statement of that exceptionalism because of the way you framed it, that if you don't behave the way we behaved since the early 20th century, we call that, we define that generally as a banana republic or third world or at best the type of economy that a system like Russia has, which is kind of this crony capitalism, you know, this quasi state run stuff that's, that's, you know, privatize wealth for some the oligarchs and then, and then everyone else just has to deal with it in a sense. So.
But I want to get back to what you said because I think this is actually a very important part of the conversation for us in America that doesn't often get a chance to get nuanced. You made an important comment about the tax rate in the 1930s and into the 40s. So I did some math here. On an inflation adjusted basis, we'll go with your numbers. If it was today at 4 million.
I just thought of this because this is where I think people don't understand this because they think taxes are just negative, confiscatory, which they can be, but the idea of how it affects society and when people begin to complain, when we get into these situations of an imbalance of wealth, whether it was the first Gilded Age or we're at today, the general public seems to have an issue with that. So that's why I'm bringing it up this way is if I had a company that generated enough revenue or profits that I could pay myself $10 million in just income, let's say just straight salary, today I'd be taxed at 37%. And there's probably a lot of loopholes and games I can play to reduce that even further. Yeah, so 37% would be 3.7 million. On the 10 million, I'd still net 6.3. And then with the loopholes I can play, which I'm even thinking of in my head, I could probably knock that down to 1 to 2 million.
But if I had a flat tax of 93% over 4 million in income, I would be looking at making that 4 million, paying the taxes up to whatever that bracket would be. And then anything, the $6 million that I make over that 4 million being taxed at 93, I did the math, it will be 5.58 million.
This is where we go back into the idea of incentives. I'd be incentivized, like you said, not to try and make much more than the 4 million. And let's say I'm a small business owner that was making, you know, let's say I had a medium sized business. I had a, you know, 50 million in profit. So I could afford to pay myself that.
What this would incentivize me to do would be one of several things or a combination I might choose. Okay. Because I don't want to necessarily depending on this type of corporation, maybe it's going to be tax itself. So maybe I want to get this money out of the corporation.
Maybe that'll mean instead of paying myself and letting the IRS keep 5.58 million out of 6 million, maybe I'll pay more of my staff. Yeah, your workers.
[00:19:30] Speaker A: More.
[00:19:31] Speaker B: I got to get this money out anyway rather than have it in the irs. Right.
[00:19:34] Speaker A: I can develop more products, I can do product development, I can do art.
[00:19:39] Speaker B: I can reinvest into the company. I could look at buying a competitor. There's all these other ways that the money can flow, which is not to my pocket. And that's the idea of creating a tax code that incentivizes the redistribution of money. Not to lazy people, not to the way it's always sold to people on welfare, but the redistribution of money into the system in a term we call velocity of money, that the money is just going to fly through the economy more and touch more people, more things, all that and you get this more a more robust system, robust economy with a middle class and people that are producing and all that. And so that's why to me, this is just an interesting thing when we see these billionaires giving away this kind of money. Because I do say this with all respect. She is an angel. Mackenzie Scott.
That's great that she's doing that. I appreciate that. I may not do that if I had that kind of Wealth, I don't do it now. And I could give more to charity. And that's all I'm saying is it. Then it creates this other thing in my mind, okay, so is this how we want to do it? That to rely on all these billionaires just to be nice to society? And also then I got to hope that she chooses the things I like, right? Or are these things that we would as a country like to have collectively decided by people who were elected by us representing our interests as Americans. And this is a conversation that, you know, we're probably going to start having more and more with these imbalances.
[00:21:05] Speaker A: I think so. And I think that we're starting to have the conversation we saw with, with the, the recent elections, you know, and we've had a democratic socialist be elected, you know, in New York City now, so self proclaimed. And that the socialist is a bad word. And I don't think that he should be calling himself a socialist personally. But the idea though of hey, let's create a commons, let's create and enrich stuff that we all can take advantage of as opposed to allowing all the money to be sucked up to the top and just stay there. That idea, I think fortunately or unfortunately, I think people have to feel pain. It seems to me that people have to feel pain in order to recognize that they have a role in this. And I hopefully, hopefully people recognize they have a role in it before it gets like, you know, in other societies we've seen, you know, like, I hope that we don't go the French Revolution route where the wealthy people suck up all the wealth, flaunt it in everybody's face and then they, they start killing people. You know, that, not the wealthy people, the poor people. So they screw this. So I'm hoping it doesn't go there. I mean, I think that what happened in the United States and with the, the, you know, the post Great Depression was a great kind of approach. I was concerned at the time and I am concerned now that we kind of missed our window because the time that we had to rebalance things was following the great financial crisis, because I think these, there were people, the bankers and so forth showed us they were reckless and doing us dirty. We had a chance, they were, the public sentiment was there, but we kind of bailed them out and let them keep going doing what they were doing. And since then things have actually only gone up exponentially in terms of the concentration. But it seems to me that I think the public just has a shorter attention span and the people who Aren't obsessed with money, just aren't obsessed with money. Like people who are obsessed with money, they're in the billionaire class or they're in the wealth class, so to speak. People who aren't obsessed with money aren't thinking about this stuff all the time. And we're all human, so we can all be distracted with housewives and all this other stuff and the gorgeous housewives of this and that, or I don't watch any of the shows, I guess, so I guess I'm not distracted by that.
But there's plenty of things that distract us, you know, or, you know, the one you or the crt, or there's always things to distract us and get us looking at other stuff because we're not obsessed with money. We as we the people. But there is a balance that is being tipped right now. You know, I should say there was a balance that's being tipped and kind of resources are diverting into a place that is not sustainable. If we want to run a society where the wealth accumulates at the top, then we need to. In order for that to continue, then the country needs to borrow money all the time. So we just live in this society now where the United States borrows money every quarter to fund its operations. That's just standard operating. Nobody even questions this right now. And now we're at the point where you have large numbers of working people, not people sitting on their butt, working people who are borrowing money or getting charitable donations to buy groceries. So the system is being thrown out of whack.
And if we don't recognize signs that that may be happening and act on it while we still have, we have a democratic system, we have a system that's now the system. We may have issues because that money is considered speech. Now following, I know you cite this all the time following recent Supreme Court decisions of money speech. And so if you have free speech, that means money, you can use as much money as you want to influence elections, then we kind of are behind the eight ball a little bit. But as long as you have people, then there is power there. So I mean, to me, it's really a matter of. And like you say all the time, a matter of asking ourselves what kind of society we want to build. And if we don't want to do anything, then trust. There are people working to build a society that they want to build. And their society apparently will rely on people using debt to buy groceries, countries using debt to finance operations which large part give them money, and billionaires every now and again. Sprinkling us with a little bit and we make it, make us feel good about it and rubbing our bellies, I guess.
[00:25:01] Speaker B: Yeah.
As you say that it's kind of sobering, man. Because you know, this is one of those things that I feel like if we had a time machine and went back 30 years or something and just said, hey, this is what America is going to accept in just 30 years from now. I think people would have been like no way. And you know, I've said that before about things like the amount of school shootings, mass shooting, things like that in the past, in past conversations we have here, here. And you talk about money being equal to speech. Like I just think in any other.
[00:25:31] Speaker A: Non physical from a logical standpoint.
[00:25:33] Speaker B: But yeah, yeah, I mean think about it like, like and then you start.
[00:25:36] Speaker A: We all only have one mouth.
So.
[00:25:39] Speaker B: But it's also, but it's also. But forget about even getting into that. Like is this the history of understanding money and power?
[00:25:45] Speaker A: Power, yeah.
[00:25:45] Speaker B: And that money corrupts. It's just like everybody knows that like you said about from the French Revolution, human societies have learned this much, right. That, that just concentrated wealth and power usually isn't good for the mass of the population. It's good for a few.
[00:26:00] Speaker A: The whole anybody in the long term it ends up these bubbles ends up getting crazy.
[00:26:06] Speaker B: Well, like you said, the few get to create their own society. Yeah, that's so it's good for them, but everyone else suffers. And I think coming out of the Gilded Age, coming out of idea, like one could even say the Nazi party in World War II was a little bit like this, you know, this type of fascism. They hoarded all this wealth, remember they're stealing art and they said what do they do with it? A lot of things we don't talk about. They spent a lot of that German treasure on hunting for occult stuff in the Andes and thing and under mountains and Tibet. They're looking for the Holy Grail. What I'm saying is they just were going on excursions and expeditions that they thought were of interest to them, but they didn't really care what anyone else in Germany thought. Just like now we got billionaires trying to go to Mars and do things that isn't like helping people afford groceries and houses today. So, so this is what happens when the wealth gets like this is that you get this small concentration of people at the top that become just eccentric. And that's why the French Revolution happened, because Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake. Her life was so separate to the rest of France that she couldn't even like comprehend what she said was gonna get her killed.
[00:27:12] Speaker A: Yeah. And there's something you gotta keep in mind with that also, because a lot of times we will then say, okay, she was this terrible person and she behaved in terrible ways, don't get me wrong. But what it really is is that people oftentimes act and react in accordance with their circumstance. And so, as you pointed out, she got so isolated from society that she became that if you put a lot of people, if you put the median person in that situation, they will become something like that. And so what we have in our society right now, not for mackenzie Scott, but for many people in the ultra wealth class, is that they're getting so isolated from everything else that they're becoming something different, something different than they themselves were at one point. Because the mechanisms in society to keep us all, not all equal in terms of we all have the same amount of money, but keep us all kind of in the same game, those are broken down. And so they're playing different games than we are, you know, so it ultimately these things tend to go cyclical, though, you know, and again, you've talked about you and I've talked about it. It seems to be people need to just learn these lessons, you know, every few generations, so to speak. So, yeah, I think that again, revisiting, you know, commend mackenzie Scott.
You know, her approach to this is something that, is something that we should. Excuse me. It's something that we should honor. You know, that she wants to contribute and bring other people up with her own money is amazing.
But as a society, we should look around and consider whether or not the systems that we have in place are exacerbating the problems that she's trying to solve and making it so she's the only one through charitable donations that can solve them is the only way they can do it, or she or someone else. Or whether we actually, if we're going to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people, whether we have some control of this for ourselves as well. Because that's kind of the point of a government of the people, by the people, for the people, otherwise, like you said before, you just signing up for the benevolent dictator or the benevolent billionaire, like. But there's no point in other people, by the people, for the people then. So I think we can wrap this topic from there. But, you know, again, as we close it up again, it's just we got to keep our eyes open because things are changing. If they change Slow enough, you don't notice it, you know, and that's happening right now. Go ahead.
[00:29:34] Speaker B: Okay. Sorry. I just. Because you said something important. For the people, by the people, I think. And I'll just say this. In America, money is our religion. And so we have this dilemma where we. We believe in this ethos of for the people, by the people in this country is, you know, the common man and all that. But we seem to worship money, so it's like. So we don't. We don't trust ourselves. We don't trust the people. Yeah, we trust the people that want to take from the people, but yet we tell ourselves it's all about the people, and then we're frustrated. So part of this is we got to look at ourselves and keep electing these same kind of people. And this is, I guess, what we get when a democracy and people are.
A lot of them believe that money is speech.
[00:30:12] Speaker A: In a democratic society, you get the government you deserve. Unfortunately.
[00:30:15] Speaker B: Unfortunately.
[00:30:16] Speaker A: Depending on how it plays out. So. But I think we wrapping this up.
[00:30:18] Speaker B: That'S a good way to end it.
[00:30:20] Speaker A: We appreciate it. That's a mic drop. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think, send it to a friend. Until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:30:30] Speaker B: I'm tuned to everyone. Lana.
[00:30:32] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you soon.
