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 consider the extent to which Americans of all political persuasions seem to be drawn to more pessimistic messages these days and discuss why negative messaging seems to have such a grip on us these days.
And later on, we're going to take a look at President Biden's recent executive order on cryptocurrencies and really try to sort out what's happened there and what we think is coming after that or what's coming next.
Joining me today is a man who, although he likes to party, he doesn't cause trouble and he doesn't bother anybody. Tunde Yoga and Lana Tunde, are you ready to show the people how when you rock up on the mic, you rock the mic right?
[00:01:09] Speaker B: Only right?
No wrong way to do it, bro.
[00:01:13] Speaker A: All right, all right.
[00:01:14] Speaker B: It's like when they say even when these ladies on time, I was like, even when I rock it wrong, it's still right. There you go.
[00:01:21] Speaker A: That's why you're here, man. So now we're recording this on March 14, 2022, and we saw a piece this past week in the Christian Science Monitor entitled Politics of Pessimism, why Neither Party Is Selling the American Dream. And we want to take a closer look at this idea that pessimism is what is driving American politics these days. And that'd be on both sides of the aisle.
And also consider what it means for the future if the American dream simply doesn't play to Americans anymore or to American audiences.
So, Tunde, what was your biggest takeaway from this piece on how pessimistic outlooks just are dominating the American political mind?
[00:02:05] Speaker B: I would say what stands out to me, I think, just to give you a straight answer, would be that.
[00:02:13] Speaker A: Both.
[00:02:13] Speaker B: Sides use pessimism now as a true just political tactic.
Clearly, pessimism in politics is not new and trying to disturb, let's say, your side quote unquote, or your base of voters about how bad things might be if your opponent wins. I mean, that's kind of par for the course, I think, with politics. I think you said it right, though, in bringing kind of me in here is for the first time in this kind of era and this modern, I guess, generation of politics, it's like both sides have jettisoned the idea of the future and the American dream, and both is just constant, this pessimism only type of thing. And I think that might be A reflection a little bit more now than, let's say prior, of our current ecosystem of information where, whether it be Internet, social media, cable news, that kind of stuff, because it seems like they're rewarded by shock value.
What makes people click the most, what makes people engage the most, is usually donate the most. Yeah, it's usually negative things. Us humans, again, it's kind of like rubbernecking. When we see an accident on the highway, we all kind of stop and look out of curiosity. And what kind of the media industry and social media and all those kind of different nodes in the ecosystem. From a corporate standpoint, they figured out that the greatest way to make revenue is to constantly give us train wrecks and car accidents, to rubberneck and look at, at the side of the road, which in this case would be on our phones or iPads or whatever, or the tv.
So we are, instead of looking at the road and driving down the highway like most of us, I think, would want to. Right. We're being constantly led and distracted by these kind of collisions, cultural collisions, all these kind of things. And some are serious stuff. Like let's say, I would say the Russian invasion of Ukraine is pretty serious. That's probably one that all of us should stop and make sure we understand that that's happening.
Other ones that may be less serious would be something like the issues of Dr. Seuss or books or NFL players kneeling in front of the national anthem. Like, yeah, I understand those things can be emotional to some people, but we shouldn't stop our whole society over those smaller issues.
[00:04:39] Speaker A: Yeah. Or pass laws, spend time legislating. Yeah, I actually, I think that you touched around what my biggest takeaway from this was, but what. It all goes back to the attention economy, so to speak. Like the fact that people respond so strongly and this is just inherent in our nature to fear and anger, that in order to get our attention, the media plays into that. Media sources play into that to get, you know, getting you mad, getting you afraid, will get you, keep you paying attention more. And what's happened basically is that in order to be heard, in order to be paid attention to, it seems like the, the politics has had to go into that. Now the other piece about that, though, and you kind of. You touched on this as well, is that what you are angry about or pessimistic about is different depending on what side of the aisle, so to speak, you on, or really what you. What. What you hold dear, what you find valuable. Or it could be even to. On. On a more greater extent, how you're wired, you know, how you're what you're wired to worry about versus what you're wired or not to worry about and so forth. So it's not that everyone's worried about the same thing. Some people are more worried about the environment and climate change.
Other people are more worried about demographic change. And that, oh, you know, if there are too many or not enough of this type of people in the country, then things are going to fall apart or something like that. And so we can talk about how what these worries may say about the different constituencies later. But just the idea that one, in order to even be heard or paid attention to, it seems like politics has to go into this because that's the stuff that gets talked about in the media. And then two, that each side then has to then tailor their message and say to some people the way they're going to make them afraid is by saying or is by focusing on attempts to steal an election. And apparently that works on both sides, depending on who you're saying is trying to steal the election or overturn the election and so forth. So, but nonetheless, the messaging in order to what's gonna make you afraid or what's gonna make you angry depends based on who you are. And there's one thing I'll add to this and I'll kick it back to you. And that is just that we discussed previously, as you said, you know, we have kicked around, around these issues. But the other thing about this though, and how the media interplays into it is just that your focus then we've talked about this in terms of this is studied like how your focus defines really your reality. And so what we're really seeing, I think in this sense is an effort and, or a successful attempt to focus people on negative things. There always been negative things that have gone on. Depending on your perspective.
Integration may have been a negative or slavery may have been a negative or whatever you want to say, but there's always been these negatives. But right now, our sources of information, our sources of entertainment, all, you know, as these things come to us, we're focused on negative things more as opposed to maybe positive things. If you have, you know, if you spend more time focusing on your kids and their soccer game or focusing more time on different things that you enjoy as opposed to just being constantly bombarded with these things that are negative, that are meant to get you angry, that meant to get you, make you afraid. And that's, and that's. And then encompasses you. Then it's almost like we, I wouldn't say this because I don't think it's con. It's conscious, but it almost seems like we're asking for it, you know, because our attention is on things and is drawn to things that makes us angry and makes us pessimistic. So we're then bombarded with these messages.
With this though, like I do, I want to keep our conversation moving. And like, okay, so we see that while depending on your sensibilities or your political affiliations or whatever, you might be getting different messages of negative things, of what negative is on the horizon, so to speak. So tell me this. Were there any, was there anything in the article specifically that you looked at that just kind of illustrated how the, you know, just what your sensibilities are, the things, the people that you listen to or whatever could you would see how you're being made to worry about or what your attention's being focused on is different.
[00:09:00] Speaker B: Yeah. And I want to come back to JD Vance in a second because the article spent some time about him, which I'd like to expound on. But quickly I'll say from the past.
It's interesting because they note that President Biden's pitch during the 2020 campaign for the past was just having a vision of a pre Trump America. And then the kind of Donald Trump's vision of the past was kind of the make America great again.
Both of those mean different things to different listeners and a different audience. So I found that interesting how they're both playing both men. The most recent presidential election played on parts of the past that are appealing only to certain Americans and unappealing to others.
[00:09:49] Speaker A: Well, let me tell you this because one thing that in this, if you look at the messaging in terms of the 2020, 20 election, 2020 election, is that they were both looking back in a way of we're going to undo some things, not necessarily looking back and saying, okay, we liked that before, so now we're going to do something moving forward to, to put us on a trajectory going up. It was like, okay, Trump's trying to undo, you know, whether it's diversity or, or certain things with religion or they're trying to take things back to something like undo things. And Biden is trying to undo Trump literally. And so it's still not a forward looking message in saying that there is a vision of how things can be better in the future and we'll take guidance on how that was in the past, on how to get there or something like that. It was like, no, no, no, we actually want to pull.
We want to take back things that have already been done, undo things. I think that's the best way to put it is undo things that have been done so that things end up like they were yesterday or five years ago or 20 years ago, not actually build to something that's better than the past. Using the lessons of the past.
Yeah.
[00:11:01] Speaker B: And I think, you know, that's the past. And then looking at the future, we're definitely absent of any great leadership like John Kennedy talking about we're going to go to the moon in 70 years.
Because that type of shared vision at least doesn't exist right now.
What I would say is on kind of the left or the Democratic side, a lot of the look to the future. I mean, in fairness to them, they do have things like the Green New Deal and ideas about the future. Whether those ideas are salient for the majority of the country or not. I guess that's part of politics. But aside from something specific like that, like we just think that, you know, we should get off fossil fuel for the future and kind of do the right thing for the environment and all that. And a lot of the current political tactics is not so much about here's what we're going to continue to do for you. It's a lot of it is kind of dumbed down to the ecosystem right now like we've been talking, which is if you elect the opponent, then they're going to bring back the racism of the past.
They're going to put private equity and venture capitals in charge of schools and hospitals. Kind of the whole the memes that we know that some on the left and the Democratic Party have negative views and those get espound to if you vote for the opponent, all this is going to happen. And it's the exact same on the right. Their concerns tend to be more of the, you know, the changing demographics, which, let's be honest, that means, you know, more brown and black people in this country and a lower percentage of whites. So that has some people on angst and, you know, kind of a lost American identity. This talk about the Judeo Christian values that are eroding. You know, like we saw when we did one show, I think last year, we were joking about how over 200 times between 2010 and 2018 or 2017, there were laws in individual states about Sharia law. And we were joking because the First Amendment makes sure that no religion can be a law in this country. But it spoke to that angst of and why immigration is such a big deal today.
[00:13:10] Speaker A: Versus talking about that got people angry and afraid. So people spent a lot of time talking about it, even though nobody was pushing for it on the other side.
[00:13:17] Speaker B: Correct. And so that's my point, is that. So instead of being both sides being talked to in terms of the base of voters being talked to about the future in an optimistic way, it's like the political leaders have now dumbed it down to, well, you gotta keep me in or you gotta put me in, because if you don't, that guy over there is gonna make your life miserable for this. And that reason not put me in because I'm gonna make your life so much better by sending you to the moon like Kennedy or doing something, I.
[00:13:47] Speaker A: Would say even more like cynical than that in the sense we used to.
Politicians used to get a bad rap because all the bills that they passed always had to have pork, so to speak. The whole concept of you have to do something for your district, we long for that now. Like, hey, why don't you do something? Because what's happening now is that everything that politicians are doing, and I agree with you, I think there's a big problem here, and I wanna talk shortly about how this plays out.
[00:14:12] Speaker B: Finish Chev, because I got a quick one on you where you're going. I wanna follow up with that.
[00:14:16] Speaker A: But what I see in this, actually, is that politicians basically have found a way to escape accountability across the board for everything. So all they're doing, I see this. I don't look at what's happening from the Democratic side and the Republican side as being equal here, but I do see similarities in terms of what seems to be resonating with people, even though I should say the type of things that seems to be resonating with people, even though what they're actually pointing to is different. But what I do see, and I see this happen on the left more than the right, is that in a sense, the Democrats claim to be elected all the time is only so that the Republicans can't do the things that they're trying to do. And. And that's it. They get in office and it's like, all right, we're done. Now that we've stopped the Republicans from enacting this law. So, hey, thanks, we're good now. We'll just chill for the next few years. And then when it comes time to elect us again, we're going to tell you, hey, the Republicans are going to do this to abortion. Hey, the Republicans are going to do this to voting rights and all that. And they're telling the truth. The Republicans are going to do those things to abortion and to voting rights and so forth if they get into, if they take the majority of. As we can see that. But. And the Republicans will tell you that, but it's like once they get into office, they don't actually try to do anything. Well, I should say this. They don't try hard enough to do anything. They don't stake their reputation or everything that they're there for, for doing something where on the other side it's again, a related issue, but an issue that is different, which we'll talk about in future shows as well. But just that when the Republicans get inside, they're also not trying to necessarily do things very productive.
They're trying to do things that will appeal to the culture wars, like, oh, we're going to win the culture war. And it's like, well, that doesn't really make the country prosperous, you know, like it doesn't. Like that's just settling scores and oh, we're going to stick it to this group of people, we're going to stick it to that group of people. Like, there's nothing that increases prosperity about saying, oh well, abortions can't happen in 15 weeks or after, after 15 weeks. And this is like, okay, we're spending all this time on this stuff. And so on both sides, nobody seems to be focusing on real issues that affect our prosperity, that affect our society as far as our ability to continue to build as things become, as more people, more things going on, things keep becoming more complicated and we seem ill equipped because our politicians are. All they're saying is that, hey, we're the only thing standing in the way of you are in gloom and doom. And if you're just elect me, then I'll do some things that'll make you feel good or I'll prevent some things that they will make you feel bad. And that's it.
[00:16:43] Speaker B: Yeah, Remember, it feels good to get rowdy and on the libs. So, you know, sometimes you just need to get it out, man. Come on.
No, I think, look, you're speaking to a lot of interesting things and I think that's part of what we all see as dysfunction, right, Is that politics isn't easy. Politics is hard because it takes debate. It takes the desire to see your opponent as legitimate. You know, it's like, it's like if you played a basketball game or a football game, you know, it's to have respect for your opponent. You know, the gold, magic and bird rivalries or you know, the bulls and the Pistons type of thing.
What made those games great also was that they had a lot of respect for each other and then they had, you know, referees that generally, you know, or whatever, you know, that kept it, that kept the rules.
[00:17:30] Speaker A: Well, hold on, hold on. Not just respect for each other, but respect for the game as well.
[00:17:34] Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I'm saying about the referees. The game was fair. And what happens is because I think we got a bit of the tail wagging the dog here over time, which is number one from what you're alluding to is I'm thinking about what I just mentioned before you started speaking, which was Biden's 2020 message was we're going to go back to a pre Trump era.
[00:18:01] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:18:02] Speaker B: But see, the problem with that is Donald Trump was elected because people were sick of the system. You see what I'm saying?
[00:18:09] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:18:09] Speaker B: So he's still not giving us a, hey, I get, I really understand what's going on here. And I'm going to offer you a vision for the future that can be different from where we're at or the past. He's just saying I want to take it back to prior to four years ago, but half this country didn't like where we were before four years ago.
[00:18:25] Speaker A: So by the way, real quick, that's an excellent point because if you just take it back to then, then you're creating the conditions under which he got elected in the first place.
[00:18:32] Speaker B: Exactly.
[00:18:33] Speaker A: That's not.
[00:18:33] Speaker B: That's what I'm saying is, that's what.
[00:18:35] Speaker A: I meant though, as far as like saying you learn from the past and then build a better future. And nobody seems to be really doing that. It's all about finding some point in the past and say, okay, we're going to take, we're going to stop doing this thing or stop doing that thing in order to try to make it just like it was then.
[00:18:49] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:18:50] Speaker A: Now, one of the things. Well, there was a quote in this piece that you specifically pointed out to me that I thought was very interesting. And that went into how this level of pessimism that we're dealing with from so many different angles makes it impossible for us to deal with long term challenges because it distracts us and allows us to avoid talking about stuff like that. Because everything that we're talking about is things that pull on our emotions, get us angry or make us afraid. And so those, anything that makes you angry or afraid oftentimes will always take precedent over things that rationally, you know, to be a relevant issue. But it's like, oh, well, that's your rational mind. You, your emotional mind always takes precedent over your rational mind in terms of priorities. So do you think that this is something that basically that prevents us from addressing issues in the future and will lead to us being either less capable or incapable of self governance in the short term?
[00:19:49] Speaker B: Yes, I think the first part is more of an emphatic yes, I think it does prevent us from dealing with issues and I'll give an example in a second. But. And the second part is this might be me not wanting to believe this could happen. Right. But I don't think we're there yet. But I really hope it wouldn't lead to a breakdown of our society where we literally have another civil war or something where we cannot be governed anymore and we just, it just kind of goes to total disorder, you know, like. So is that impossible? No, but you know, maybe it's just me being hopeful we don't get there. So I mean, my thoughts.
[00:20:25] Speaker A: Well, no, but my thought with this is that I agree with the concept that the pessimism prevents you from like. And I've had a problem with this all along in terms of looking at over the past couple of years how politics is covered and politicians behave in the sense that it seems like the goal, and this is an aligned goal from whatever media you're talking about and whatever politician you're talking about is to make people think like whatever they're talking about at any given moment is the most important thing in the world. And you get it. The reason they're doing that is because if they don't tell you it's very important, you're just going to go watch Netflix or you're going to watch football and you'll get to it some other time. So in the effort of trying to get people to pay attention, they over emphasize how vital, necessary, the stakes of everything.
And so I think that as a society we cannot differentiate. We as a society in general, by and large, can't differentiate between what's important and what's not anymore. And so because we're told all the time just so that we'll look, just so that we'll look, oh, this is the most important thing in the world. And some of the things that we're dealing with are very important. I personally think that efforts to destroy or get rid of the democratic process make it so that the state legislature can just override the people's vote. I think that stuff is a big deal, but I think that that gets as much oxygen as other Issues that may not be a big deal. And if that's going to be the case, and we cannot, we as people cannot distinguish by and large from what's really important and what things that may satisfy our emotional itch but aren't really something that's important, then how can we hold our politicians accountable for that? Because we cannot forget they're ultimately dancing to the beat of the drum that we, that they think will go along with, like they are. They're looking for us, you know, in terms of what happens. And there's one other point I want to just let me say with this, that goes along with this is that the fundraising stuff tells you all you need to know.
The people that come with measured, thoughtful positions and takes aren't the people out there with big fundraising numbers. And so it's almost like as long as we, the people are going in this sense are being, because of the way it appeals to our emotion, led in these pessimistic directions to keep our attention, then we are going to be unable to. We'll be unable to even recognize what's important.
[00:22:47] Speaker B: Yeah. No, and I think, you know, it's. Listen, what you said then turns us right back to the tail wagon, the dog. Right.
It's the ecosystem that is being viewed by the voter, which then the voter. I mean, a great example of what you just cited was the big lie, what happened after the election, remember? Yeah. And the fact that so many Republican congresspeople were saying, look, you know, I believe Biden won, but I just got to continue to look into this because of my constituents.
[00:23:13] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:23:13] Speaker B: It's interesting. And that's why I was saying, well, what about being a leader and actually standing up to your constituents saying, look, I'm telling you as a congressperson, that's, you know, in the inside that this was legit and we need to move on. So that's an example. But you mentioned something very important just now, which is the behavior of the politicians. And so. And that's something I want to speak on. And I know you want to move after this is, you know, because the articles really was cited and, and kind of, I think, started and was kind of highlighted around the candidate for the Ohio Senate, or really the U.S. senate from Ohio is J.D. vance.
[00:23:51] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:23:52] Speaker B: And, you know, I'll do a. He said something. He vowed to fight in Washington on behalf of Ohio. Ones who, quote, look to the future more with frustration and fear than with hope and optimism, quote, optimism, close quote. And I thought to myself, wow, I think they look to the future with More fear and frustration because they continue being told to. Right.
And people like you aren't giving them hope and optimism. I started thinking, okay, let me look into this guy J.D. vance. Like, who is he? And I started, I wanted to say, okay, this guy, he says he's a Marine. So I looked up his background, and all due respect to him, I never served in the military. So I'm not here to belittle him. But what I found is he served in the public relations and public affairs office of the Marines. So I said, okay, so he's a guy that worked and he was in the military, but he was in an office.
So then after his military career, he becomes a venture capitalist.
And I started looking at where the guy goes to school. He's got a Yale graduate degree. And so I started looking at how about these other guys that I've seen espousing all this stuff about elites?
Because one of the quotes they have to JD Vance is they seem to want to take our love of country away from us. And again, it's this cultural war stuff, you know, that he's telling his constituents. So I look up Ted Cruz. He's another big one, right. Dual Ivy League, Princeton undergrad, Harvard law.
Josh Howley was the other one who voted against certifying Biden's election and is with all this populism stuff and talks about how the elites are so bad. Wow. He got his undergrad from Stanford.
He went to a private boarding school in London, and then he got his law degree from Yale.
And I looked up, you know, the third one to me, who's Tom Cotton, and I looked at his, you know, I respect, you know, he did serve in the military and did serve in infantry, assault, combat. So he's got a little more he can talk about, I guess. But he also went to Harvard undergrad and graduate. He got his graduate. His law degree from Harvard as well. Graduate degree. So these guys are elites. And that's what makes me concerned when we have these people like this, because really what they're doing is being disingenuous. And I'm not here to defend Democrats, but what I'm saying is I don't see Democrats that went to Ivy League schools that are nationally elected, you know, calling out elites. They just don't behave that way.
[00:26:14] Speaker A: No, it's interesting in the sense that Bernie Sanders didn't come from running a hedge fund to being now like this.
[00:26:21] Speaker B: Yeah.
When I read that JD Vance was a venture capitalist, I'm like, hold on. I know venture capitalists and private Equity guys, there's only so many people in that world, and all of them are well healed. There's not a venture capitalist getting free school lunches for his kid, trust me. So it's just.
That's the sad part, is that it seems that the ecosystem has now, instead of rewarded people that are serious about going and making the country better long term. It's, it's, it's.
[00:26:48] Speaker A: Or even being somewhat authentic, you know, like, in terms of.
[00:26:51] Speaker B: And that's a great word.
That's what I think. You helped me hit the nail on the head. This is so inauthentic. That's the key.
[00:26:57] Speaker A: But that was my point, though. They're responding to what the cues are that they're getting from the public.
And so that's where this whole system becomes incestuous, so to speak, that what drives the public, because the public is made of human beings, what drives the public is emotion. So the public is given a motion and given a motion and given a motion. Red meat. And then the politicians capitalize on that.
They're existing in the realm of emotion because that is what can get them power, keep them power, and also allow them to avoid accountability for whatever it is that they do or don't do, because whatever it is they don't do or don't do isn't as important as all the negative stuff that they make you afraid of or angry about that the other side is supposed to do. And so it really does come back to this pessimism that you're seeing and hearing, comes back to the fact that the messages that are. That are stoking anger and fear are the ones that are resonating with people because they're human beings. And as long as that incentive structure is in place, we're going to see this pessimism and we're going to be handicapped, like I said, not only from being able to address big issues, but even from being able to recognize which issues are big and which issues aren't. And that's the thing that really stands out to me about all this. And so. But I do want to get to the second, second topic that we were going to get into today, and that is the Biden executive order, which as soon as this thing comes through, shortly after this thing comes through, you start blowing up my phone like, oh, we got to talk about this. We got to talk about this. And basically what it is, is it's the first piece of.
First piece of paper coming from the government, so to speak. You know, like, whether it be president or the Congress just kind of legitimizing and saying, okay, we need to take cryptocurrency seriously and look at this in a way to figure out, okay, where, where do, does the government, government and the American people's interests fit in and how can we protect those interests and so to speak. So you know, what was your, you know, what do you look at with the executive order and what, what, what resonates with you? What stuff you think is worth taking note of?
[00:29:02] Speaker B: Several things.
So I'd say, you know, just interesting to watch. Kind of the maturity of something new, right? So, so cryptocurrency.
Smile embarrassingly. My 23 year old son, probably 10, 11 years ago, used to play a video game called Runescape.
And the currency in the game was bitcoin. At the time really Bitcoin was probably trading at around 11 or $13 a coin. I remember it was one of those two numbers because I remember this like yesterday and he told me, he goes, dad, they're talking about this might be money one day and that people are starting to invest in it. And da, da, da. And I'm like, and I looked at him, I was like, man, no one's gonna ever invest in that BS. Get out of here. $11 a coin, bro. I was thinking about when it hit 60,000 like two years ago. And I was thinking, what if I put a thousand bucks in there, you know, all my problems would be gone.
So you know, I, I say that, I tell everyone that joke that yeah, I'm tortoise, not the hare, I gotta buy Philip Morris and get a dividend. You know, I'm born. So.
But my, my, but that's what I'm saying, it's, it's kind of, you know, it's just cool and unique to see something like this that is new in our society, you know, starting to get now. I think what the President's move did is it definitely gave a stamp of the legitimacy to cryptocurrency as something that will be here to stay.
[00:30:25] Speaker A: Because basically you're talking more conceptually as well.
[00:30:28] Speaker B: Yeah, conceptually. And I'm saying it's going to be what coin it's going to be and all that. I just mean like to me this reminds me a lot of the post 1929 crash with the capital markets, where it was kind of the wild west prior to the 29 crash. And then once the crash happened and enough Americans got hurt and you had the Great Depression, the system said, okay, this stock market thing is pretty good and it's a good way to raise money for companies, give the little guy an opportunity to be a part and have some chance to grow the wealth and all that.
But, you know, we got to regulate this thing. We can't just let it be the Wild west and allow Ponzi schemes and pump and dump schemes and all that to just go around. Because in the end what happens is that the public will become distrustful of it and then all the benefits of it long term for the society will go away. And so what you had over that period of time, for almost a decade, the big ones were the securities act of 1933, the securities Exchange act of 1934, which created the SEC, which is still the kind of biggest regulator for securities and investments in the country, and then a bunch of other smaller pieces of legislation that ended with the Investment company Act of 1940, which that became what regulated the structure of things like mutual funds. So think about how many of us today are exposed to things like mutual funds and ETFs, just even passively, like through a 401 plan.
So that's what was kind of cool about this to me is I was like, all right, this is just kind of that early time in crypto, which is telling us just like the capital markets now, this is something that the government is saying, okay, enough people are in this, it's been accepted, but now we got to put some sort of structure behind it.
[00:32:09] Speaker A: Well, it's interesting you say it that way because one thing like what stands out to me about that actually is that if that's the case, and I agree with you, but then really this is Joe Biden doing exactly what we were expressing concern that the government wouldn't be able to do in the future because it took the Great Depression for the securities, the SEC to be created and for the government to take that stuff seriously enough on a federal level to try to regulate it and make sure that we didn't. It took a lot of pain, as you talk about it before, basically before the powers that be got in and said, okay, we need to, you know, like, we need to do something about this. And so this would be, apparently this is Joe Biden and the Biden administration. So in some. Not waiting for that super draconian outcome in order to get ahead of it. And so that would, I would say that that's good. You know, like, obviously it's not coming from Congress, which I know you want to get into in a little bit. In terms of what this, this is another example of what this represents for Congress and them not Doing their job. But I also thought, like, to me now, I was not aware of this to the extent that you were, you know, when these things, these things that are trading in the 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 range now, there were 10, 12, $15. But I always looked at it.
[00:33:27] Speaker B: So you would have bought it if your kid brought it to.
[00:33:29] Speaker A: No, no, I would, I wouldn't have.
But I always looked at it as something that, when I told you this offline, like, I always looked at it as something that was, that had potential because really what distinguished. It's a digital currency which people exchange money all the time without actually passing bills nowadays. You know, like, so we've, we're comfortable with the idea that money doesn't have to have a physical embodiment necessarily, at least in theory. But what this is, is this, this ledger, this decentralized ledger is what cryptocurrency is really based on. And the fact that the, the ownership and the transactions of it is all something that is kept track and with cryptography and that, but that can be seen, so to speak, or inspected anywhere by anyone. One person doesn't control the ledger and how all the comings and goings of all the money, it's something that's distributed. And so it actually can make it much more robust from a security standpoint. And you don't need like, if a government fails, their currency fails. But this distributed ledger type thing, it doesn't rely on a government, it doesn't rely on any body to, to, to say, hey, this is, this is still here, so to speak. So that I've always looked at it from that standpoint. That's a pretty cool idea, Will. I never knew if people would adopt it, you know, like from my. Because it's like, that's me. I, My background in undergrad is computer science. So I, that to me is like, okay, yeah, that's pretty cool you're using cryptography in that way. Like, that's cool. But that's not like people think of money, you know, it still thinks of. I mean, if you think about it, all the stuff we do electronically is a lot, but most people don't think about it. We're just so used to it. So ultimately seeing this now I think is great. I'm happy that the federal government is doing this. Basically, I'll say it, because we're not waiting for something terrible to happen or for like, there have been bad things that have happened. But I'm talking about on a large scale and this is what the government should be Doing is trying to figure out, okay, what holes do we need to fill in here? How can we make this work for people? Because this can be another tool, another arrow in people's quiver as far as how they're transacting, how they're engaging in our market.
[00:35:40] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, first of all, you keep showing how much better you are than me because my undergrad was in beer and marijuana. So you're doing pretty good.
I did good in those topics though in college. It was fun.
So anyway, that's why you're the smart lawyer and I'm just a dumb guy over here.
[00:36:01] Speaker A: Hey man, I would challenge that, man. You got into the business where the money is literally.
[00:36:10] Speaker B: I'll just keep it moving, no need for my wife to hear what else I majored in.
And so no, but I think you're right. Part of this is obviously a new technology.
It's the government clearly identifying and saying we know this is here and we see it, so we need to start putting some kind of framework around it to again, that's why it reminds me a lot like stocks back in the old days, like not.
[00:36:39] Speaker A: That was a really good comparison.
[00:36:40] Speaker B: Yeah. Just to protect people. Because you know, another example of a new technology, right. Is something like broadband and how that's part of the infrastructure bill for last year they allocated 65 billion to just put more broadband and fiber net and all that stuff out into rural areas. So clearly the government recognizes when certain technologies are kind of here to stay and we just need to continue to invest infrastructure wise around the country. And I think this is just to.
[00:37:08] Speaker A: That real quick what the reason why rural areas is just what the government's doing is again filling in a gap. That market doesn't just. The market doesn't justify necessarily some company going and spending the money to run the, the broadband to those areas. So the government then is saying, okay, we'll do it because we think it's important for our citizens to have it. And in this instance, same thing, the government saying, hey, this thing is important. We think this thing is important and may have more importance. So let's fill in the gaps. It's not going to regulate itself. It's not going to just become something where bad, active bad actions are punished. You know, so it's the same kind of thing.
[00:37:42] Speaker B: Yeah. And so that's the thing is that, so this is an example just like we don't have changes to our money that often. Right.
You know, we have paper money, we have checks, you know, we had then when credit cards that Technology came. I'm sure there was some of this going on where somebody figured out that, you know, you can, you can put information on the back of a plastic card on a metal strip and you could store information and a person could take that card and go, you know, from store to store for the atm. At some point they had to regulate and say, okay, people are going to use this. And so I think this is the first time, you know, 21st century, the information age, that the computer technology, binary code and all that stuff was literally, it's in a position to just offer us a new way to have currency.
And so I think that where we'll go from here, though, is, and this is an argument I've made, which might be a separate show, is things like Bitcoin and all that aren't actually real currency, they're ideas that people find value in. But an actual currency like the US dollar or the Chinese one, in terms of at least first world nations, you don't see them fluctuating 15% in one day. Because currencies are things that nations do import, export and trade with, and they just can't. A business like Walmart can't afford to not be able to forecast where the US dollar is going to go when they're sending money back and forth to Chinese factories, for example, and it has to be converted into yuan and whatever.
So probably this is now full assumption. I have no kind of factual basis on this because it's all future. But I'm going to assume that what will happen is we will just have a digital dollar that will be able to be tracked by, on the blockchain and all that kind of. You can have a digital wallet that has a dollar in it. Banks will begin to hold digital dollars just like they hold our dollars anyway through computers, you know, right now. And you know, that will be seen as the US Currency. And then Bitcoin and all that can still be around. And if individual people still think there's value there, there'll be the value there. And if they don't, they won't. But I think the idea of a currency is something that's backed up by a central bank and a Treasury in today's modern world.
[00:39:55] Speaker A: Well, that's. But no, but I mean, what you're saying though, again is that that's an important caveat in today's modern world because that currency, broadly speaking, you know, if you disentangle it from what we understand It From a 20th century type of mindset, 20th, 21st century is currency could be Stones. Currency could be shells, currency could be precious metals or whatever. It's, it's the value that is what, is what's in people's minds, so to speak, agreed upon, so to speak. And so, and that can fluctuate, but a lot of effort, and this is what you're, you're kind of leading into. A lot of effort has been made.
And 2,000 years ago, yeah, like one guy would give you X amount of sheep for, for 20 shells and another guy would give you another, you know, like, and it's like, so what the, what the states have done, large scale states, nations have done is try to create stability with that so that there's predictability and which has enabled such large scale commerce that we've seen. So there have been certain benefits, pretty substantial benefits that as a world society we've gotten based on all the work that the governments around the world have done to stabilize currency.
And so, yeah, obviously I would imagine people don't want to give all that back at this point and go back to literally the wild, wild, ancient Sumerians, so to speak, as far as how we're treating value and currency. And so but this is the first step of that to seeing if cryptocurrency can be integrated into a system like that where we're still providing the level of stability that our modern economic engines rely on.
[00:41:29] Speaker B: Well, you know, the Sumerians had some pretty shells though, man.
[00:41:33] Speaker A: That's what you think.
[00:41:34] Speaker B: Those blue green water of the Mediterranean.
[00:41:37] Speaker A: I wouldn't take, I wouldn't take a Samaritan for nothing.
[00:41:40] Speaker B: They produce nice crustaceans, you know.
But no, but just to see that.
[00:41:46] Speaker A: That'S the example though, Tunde will give you financial advice for some shells. You can't get no legal advice over.
[00:41:51] Speaker B: Here for some shells. I know, come to me with the shells, but only like hermit crab shells and things I can actually use.
[00:41:57] Speaker A: There you go.
[00:41:57] Speaker B: So come at me with those flat shells.
[00:41:59] Speaker A: So we need a government to tell us how much, what's the exchange rate for the shells?
But no, I mean, but that's my point.
[00:42:06] Speaker B: Now you're going communist on me. Come on, why we got to regulate this? We can't just have fun at the beach.
No, but then just to finish off and then we'll go home, give everyone a break for a week.
But so the issue I have with this executive order is again, you know me, I'm going to go back to the Constitution. It points to our dysfunction. Yes, right now, currently, because, you know, it's great that somebody decided to do this, you know, so, hey, give President Biden props. He says, you know, let's, let's do something about this. But the reality is that I better seen, I would have rather seen it done in the place it should be done, which is Congress.
[00:42:42] Speaker A: Correct. That's not Biden's job, in fact.
[00:42:44] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. So I went to the US Constitution like I have done many times in the past few years. And if the audience wants to follow and draw with their crayons, it's Article 1, Section 8, Part 5, and specifically states, and I'll read it here, the job of the Congress, we're in Section 8 as part of that whole. What do they do?
Number five is their job is to, quote, to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin and fix the standard of weights and measures. Close quote. So they have done a good job of fixing the standard of weights and measures because we use, we don't use metric. We use feet and inches and pounds and ounces.
[00:43:29] Speaker A: You're an imperial guy.
[00:43:30] Speaker B: Yeah, so. So. Well, they haven't talked about changing it. So I'll give them another one of those emotional issues.
[00:43:36] Speaker A: If they start talking about that, people will get angry and mad angry.
[00:43:40] Speaker B: I know, but I'm just saying that I'm being nice to them, that I'm not going to get on them about not dealing with that because that's something we haven't, you know, no one's been really advocating to change. And the President, I guess, has felt he hasn't needed to make an executive order to make us go back to the Met or to make us start going to the metric system, but to coin money, regulate the value thereof, that kind of speaks to me that that's Congress's job to deal with cryptocurrency. Right?
[00:44:03] Speaker A: It is.
[00:44:04] Speaker B: And so and so. But I think based on the first half of our show, there's not too much confidence that this Congress currently could debate anything and have it solved within, you know, less than a decade. So that's kind of on a serious note. That's what stuck out to me about this too, is that it's another example over the last, definitely since 2008 and maybe a little bit prior to that, because we saw a lot of it during the Bush years too. That was more to do with the war on terror. But just this idea that, you know, the Congress isn't really doing its job in legislation as much as more and more presidents are continuing to use the power of the executive order pen.
And there's two problems with that one is, you know, the system isn't supposed to have one guy waving a pen and being a king or whatever. The second thing is that when the next guy gets in and doesn't like it, he just immediately overturns it.
[00:44:59] Speaker A: Yeah. And it's harder to overturn laws once they're correct.
[00:45:03] Speaker B: And so that makes things a lot. I mean, and just like a good example would be the Iran deal where Obama had to do it with executive order, Trump tears it up with executive order, and now Biden might be back at the table trying to negotiate with them. So other countries looking around, how the hell would he deal with this long term?
[00:45:18] Speaker A: Yeah, we look like idiots. Like we can't keep any, like the stability that we're supposed. The reason that's with Congress is for stability purposes and deliberative purposes. We lose both. Even if it's something that we think is a good thing, we lose both when it's an executive order and that's the wrong way to do it. And I think that, yeah, to your point, looking at the first half, what we're really seeing is that Congress can't debate and deal with any important issues with a forward looking bent. It seems like depending on your president, your president may be able to. But even still, that's something, as you point out, that changes can change completely from next person to another. And so it's not a good place for the government to be, particularly as far as providing stability and reliability in terms of what our country is and what our country is going to be. So.
[00:46:05] Speaker B: But I think that's why I just want to say this. The Iran example was not to say I'm for or against it. It was more to make that example from the outside of America looking in. Right. How do other countries are supposed to trust us on big negotiations if it's done this way? And the next they're going to say, look, in four years you got an election. How do I know that this is going to stay?
[00:46:24] Speaker A: So why would I make a deal with you if.
[00:46:26] Speaker B: Yeah, this will hurt us all together in the long run as a nation? That's the problem.
[00:46:30] Speaker A: No, for sure. But I think we can we jump from there, man. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call It Like I See It. Remember, you can get us wherever you get your podcast. Subscribe to the podcast, rate us, review us, tell us what you think, and until next time, I'm James Keys and.
[00:46:45] Speaker B: I clearly had a lot of fun in undergrad.
[00:46:48] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you next time.
[00:46:52] Speaker B: Sam.
