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 discuss the federal eviction moratorium that was just brought to a sudden end in the United States.
And look at how as the pandemic continues to disrupt our economy, we as a society are and should be balancing humanitarian and commercial considerations.
We'll also weigh in on Spencer Eldon, the naked baby from the Nirvana Nevermind album cover, and how he's suing the band and all related parties now for what he terms as the exploiting his image as a baby.
Joining me today is a man who often wishes he could save everyone because he's a dreamer. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde, are you ready to give the people something to smile about today?
[00:01:12] Speaker B: Yep. I'm just not ready to wake up. I'm dreaming.
[00:01:16] Speaker A: All right.
[00:01:17] Speaker B: All right.
[00:01:18] Speaker A: Now we're recording this on August 30, 2021, and I want to get right into the discussion on the eviction moratorium. This eviction moratorium that dates back to September of 2020, when it was put in place by the Centers of Disease Control and prevention in the US because of the COVID 19 pandemic. And except for a brief time earlier this summer, it's been in place since then.
And as of August 26, though, of 2021, it has been struck down. It's over.
The U.S. supreme Court struck it down. Who. Who essentially are saying that for something like that to continue in place, something has to be done by Congress. It can't just be the executive branch putting it in by decree.
So to get us going, Tunde, what was your reaction to seeing the CDC's eviction moratorium get struck down by the Supreme Court? And do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?
[00:02:08] Speaker B: Good question.
[00:02:09] Speaker A: And those are the only two choices?
[00:02:10] Speaker B: Yeah, I was gonna say you give me a fork in the road here, right?
I gotta make a choice. Blue pill or red pill?
You know what? I'm gonna blow your mind here. You know what it reminded me of? And then I'll tell you if I think it's a good thing or bad thing. So I'm not avoiding it. Reminded me, since we're in this moment, of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Oh, wow.
[00:02:31] Speaker A: Wow.
[00:02:32] Speaker B: That's why I figured you wouldn't know what I was. Yeah, you weren't ready for that one.
[00:02:36] Speaker A: If I know you, this conversation's gonna end up about eating broccoli at some point.
[00:02:42] Speaker B: Actually, I'M glad you know me.
So, yeah, I mean, it's funny, in preparing for today, I'm doing the reading, I'm like, yeah, this is just like Afghanistan.
Everybody started. It was started with good intentions. And I'm sure, you know, people thought it would end a certain way or one day we'll end it, or let's kick the can down the road and someone else will figure out how to end it. But as we're ending it, it's going to be painful for some people, just like the Afghanistan withdrawal. And I even thought of it like, so let me not go there. Let me just tell you then my answer is yes, I think it's a good thing it ends.
But I say that with compassion. Like Afghanistan. I think Afghanistan is good. We ended it. It's been 20 years. We already had enough shows on that, so I don't need to get into it. But like the eviction moratorium, just like Afghanistan, it's unsustainable. And just like Afghanistan, the reason why it reminds me of it is there's going to be good people that are all doing the right thing that get hurt in this exit. So just like we have all the stories of the women and the Afghans that helped us in America and all that, you know, us Americans and all that, that are probably not going well under Taliban regime. I can imagine that there's going to be people evicted, unfortunately, that are good people, single moms working hard, you know, that probably have the right story that they don't deserve to get kicked out. So this is what I'm saying is I recognize there's going to be pain in this, but I think for the greater good of the society, we need to start normalizing again and getting certain things back to normal. And so I know we'll get into this during the discussion, but that's my answer. So I think it's a good thing. But it's, it's nuanced.
[00:04:19] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Well, I think that it, it's one of those things that there is good and bad to it. Ultimately, I would side with you. If you look at, from a big picture standpoint like this can't continue indefinitely. Now where I think the ball seems to have been, I don't know if you say ball's been dropped or if this is just the nature of bureaucracy, but they have this emergency relief or, excuse me, emergency rental assistance program with all this money sitting around, 40 something, billions of dollars, that's unspent, that's for this. And so it seems like the point Whether it was the point in advance or whether this has been kind of planned, this was supposed to kind of take over for just an out and out eviction moratorium. Like it was supposed to go from just no evictions whatsoever, and now this is hindsight reconstructing it. But nonetheless, the ERA programs were rolled out later and they've been two, two of them that total about $46 billion or so. And those are primarily untapped. So it doesn't seem like this should be a cliff, but it seems like in practice it is, because that stuff isn't up and running yet, though. So in practice it seems like it's a bad thing at this moment, but it is the right direction. Like, we should not have an indefinite reliance on just a complete eviction moratorium because for our society to function like part of our, part of what we do is housing, you know, and housing, people own stuff and they, they need to pay their obligations as well. So from a humanitarian standpoint, we don't want people on the street. But again, I feel like we have come up with a plan as to, we as a society have come up with a plan as to how we're going to lessen that, try to help people out. But for whatever reason, that's just not happening yet. So to me, that's what I'm looking at. Like, well, hold on. If we got, if we got all this money set aside, how come that's not. How come that part of this, how come the other shoe on that part isn't dropped yet?
[00:06:12] Speaker B: I agree. And that's what reminded me, when I learned about that part, reminded me of Afghanistan too. Because again, it just seems like, like, like we just are saying it's necessary that we, you know, people get weaned off of rental assistance at some point. Right? And we could sit here and espouse all the reasons for both the renter and the landlord, why that's a good thing in the long run.
But I felt like when reading this, like you're saying $46 billion as of July, only 5.1 billion had been distributed. So 89% of the money hadn't even been distributed by the initial, you know, time when they were going to start ending this. And I kind of felt like, well, that's like when we're hearing that they, you know, the US Military, you know, goes wheels up and pulls out of Afghanistan before making sure all the civilians and the people that need this military protection get out. And so that's all I felt like this is just seems like another poorly executed exit to something. And that's why I just make the Afghanistan comparison, since as we're recording it, we're in the thick of that.
And so that, to me, is why you're right. I mean, it's just an interesting.
I don't know if it's the bureaucracy. I know that the initial idea was that the states would be the ones doling this out. So maybe certain states are sitting on the money for whatever reason. I don't know.
[00:07:38] Speaker A: But clearly, I think that's still the idea. It's just, it's. But that increases the bureaucracy that makes it. I know when everybody got there, you know, when it's stimulus from irs, that seems to go much smooth, more smoothly. But that's a, that's not like that. That's one of those, like, they just send it out. You know, it's not like this is supposed to be like, you apply and then somebody has to look at it. And then in some cases, you need the landlord to agree. And, and so they, they built it in a way that it doesn't seem like it was going to go off efficiently anyway.
And so. But it's months in. This thing has been around for a long time. I know, like you said, they've only, they haven't distributed 90% of it. And so. But like I said, the problem here seems to be that the moratorium is ended, you know, now by the Supreme Court, because when it ended, when it would, I guess, at the end of June, naturally, they put it back in shortly thereafter, but. And it ended before the next phase, so to speak, started. And so that, yeah, like, everybody, I think we should be looking around at, like, who should we point the finger at because of this.
[00:08:37] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think. And that's the problem too, with these things. Right. Like we said, well, is it the federal government? Is it the states? Is it this? Is it that? And I think is what I did appreciate about the Supreme Court's ruling, because they basically punted it back to Congress that said, do your effing job. Which, which is really, they're the ones who can legit. They said, you need to legislate this.
[00:08:56] Speaker A: Yeah, it is.
[00:08:58] Speaker B: You can't just, just have this and just do it. And I agree with them. Like, they, they're right. Like, I think that's the problem, too, that we've had over the last probably decade or so with the Congress being so dysfunctional, really, since probably the end of the Bush administration, the courts have been the ones deciding certain things. And that really should be legislated. And I like that the Supreme Court pointed it back to the Congress, like, do your frigging job. Like the American. You're the House of Representatives, they represent us. So if American people want to extend this and all that. Legislated, if they don't want to, you won't. But you can't keep coming to us or you can't keep playing games with these agencies when you've got this other constituency who are the landlords and all that, that also need to have their voices heard.
[00:09:44] Speaker A: But that's part of our three branches of government. And so with the CDCs under the executive branch. So it's Trump and then Biden have controlled the CDC when they've put these in. And then you have Congress, but whose job it is actually to control the purse strings. That's Congress's job, is decide what we're spending money on and what we're not. And so the Supreme Court, in my estimation, in my view of constitutional law, is correct here. And so it. But it does. It puts the flashlight on. But we all know Congress doesn't work, at least as of right now. That's what happens. Yeah. You know, it reveals that even more now where we're looking like, oh, well, it's going to Congress. Well, nothing's going to happen. Like, we all know, like, there's no suspense there. Like, Congress is not going to get anything done.
[00:10:24] Speaker B: I know. I've read about the housing advocates and everyone else that's upset. And it's like, number one, this is where I'll say this from a civics lesson part. We as Americans have the power to elect our congressional officials. So if we stop worrying about Dr. Seuss and about BLM and about all these distractions and we start worrying about important things like this, then you'll elect people who take this stuff serious.
And then the second thing is, you know, the Supreme Court, it's interesting. I just find it interesting that they continue to show their flexibility in putting this back to whose job it's supposed to be. They've done this with other things as well. Like with Obamacare, for example, kind of coming and saying, look, you know, you guys got to figure this out and legislate it. Like, quit coming to us with all this stuff.
[00:11:10] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:11:10] Speaker B: So I think it's like you're saying it's sad that it's just. It's an example of this is what it looks like with a broken branch out of those. Yeah.
[00:11:17] Speaker A: One of the branches just not working anymore. Yeah. Because. And yeah, It's. It's unfortunate for all of us. And what it is, I mean, what I would say to kind of piggyback on what you're saying, is that this is why we would need people in Congress that are there actually to legislate. Like right now, it seems like. And I know we're going to do something on this here coming up pretty soon, but just it seems like a lot of people go to Congress to be on tv, and it's really unfortunate. You know, people hire press people before they hire legislative aides because they're there, you know, to make a name for themselves. More than anything, being on TV is the end goal, not necessarily being in the halls of government and legislating. So while we have that. Yeah, with a broken branch, we're kind of trying to wing it. And, you know, like, I would say.
[00:11:59] Speaker B: This, I think you're telling me I didn't have to do all these years of acting school and trying to hire an agent to be on tv?
[00:12:05] Speaker A: No, all you gotta do, I've just.
[00:12:07] Speaker B: Gone run for Congress, run for office.
[00:12:09] Speaker A: And, you know, they got the cable news already set up.
[00:12:12] Speaker B: Met you like 20 years ago, man, this would have been a whole different journey for me.
[00:12:15] Speaker A: But I'll say this, though. I look at this as much different than Afghanistan in this sense.
The. When you look at Afghanistan, that's kind of a uncontrollable situation where, you know, like, we're not the only actors there.
There are a lot of different interests there. Some people playing by certain rules, other people playing by other rules. Like that is, so to speak, the wild. Wild.
[00:12:38] Speaker B: I agree on that for sure.
[00:12:40] Speaker A: So here, like, we started in September and like, we did a moratorium, and then, you know, in January they start setting aside money for this. And, and now to, to the, to the peoples to not just slam everybody involved. It's hard to get a lot of people on the same page across all these states and everything to, to actually get this thing moving and going. And then, like I said, the application process seems fairly onerous. And so that's a lot.
But nonetheless, it's one of those things that you would expect more. But honestly, and here's why this is why I'm not here to slam it is honestly, getting rid of the eviction moratorium is probably supposed to be something that kind of forces this other program to start working. Because what was happening, if you just know how people think and how people work, all types of people, you know, the landlords, the tenants, everybody, is that as long as the Moratorium's in place, there's just less motivation for, to get to the next step. Everybody's like, ah, you know, what are we going to like, whatever, we'll deal with that when we deal with it. But now that the eviction moratorium's out, that seems like it'll light a fire under everybody to say, okay, well, if we can get assistance, let's get assistance. And so we want to remove crutches as much as possible. The crutch, the biggest crutch was the moratorium.
The next crutch is the assistance. And so hopefully after that we'll be able to wean off of that and get to where we can at least get to a semblance of an economic engine that is running without a constant influx of some type of government aid or whatever. But that's at least moving in that direction. But how do you think this is going to play out in the short term?
[00:14:10] Speaker B: I think it's going to be sloppy and messy in the short term. I mean, kind of like we said, that's why it's the Afghanistan pull out. Right. Like. Like long term, I'm sure everything, you know, kind of works out, but short term, I think it's going to be messy. I think, you know, we get to be prepared to have the headlines in the media. You know, you'll see that the single moms with the kids getting evicted and, you know, people are going to have the crocodile tears and all that and then, you know. But I just think that it'll be messy in the short run, but in the long run it'll work out. I also think we need to be prepared because I realize just over this last year, people wondering why the stock market goes up when you got a pandemic and all this. And I think not to get into all that, but one of the things that it made me realize is that people that haven't been paying rent for almost a year, millions of them, this is almost an economic stimulus because there's.
[00:15:03] Speaker A: No almost about it.
[00:15:04] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:15:04] Speaker A: Well, if you have, I mean, that takes away. Yeah, yeah.
[00:15:07] Speaker B: And that's because the, you know, you and I know this, but for the listeners, you know, most of the people that fall into rental demographics in terms of financially, usually spend almost 100% of their paycheck.
[00:15:20] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:15:20] Speaker B: So my concern is just that this is why I think in the short run it'll be sloppy and probably messier than it is now because also the, that demographic tends not to save.
So there's a high probability that you have People now that have had not paid rent for five, six, seven months or even longer. But it's not like they sat there saving their rent every month to make sure that they had enough of a nest egg to go, you know, be able to, you know, smoothly transition when this did end. And that's where I think about your joke from the beginning about eating your broccoli. I think a lot of people are going to wake up and realize that, you know, this, this wasn't just a honeymoon that you just got free, pays to live, you know, at some point, you know, you got to pay the piper type.
[00:16:02] Speaker A: But that's one perspective. There's another perspective of that as well, which is the industries that were hit hardest, and this is part of the logic behind the moratorium, the industries that were hit hardest in the economy due to the pandemic and the ones that haven't already all the way come back either you talk about hospitality and so forth. Those are also disproportionately people that rent, you know, at least in terms of the. Like, if you look at how it's distributed throughout society and so forth. So those are people oftentimes that took the largest hit to income. So, yeah, you can look and say, oh, well, maybe some people were irresponsible with money in the meantime. But then there's also a lot of people that incomes never recovered, you know, took a. Fell off a cliff and then haven't all the way recovered. And so it's one of those things that it's difficult.
[00:16:46] Speaker B: That's why it's going to be messy.
[00:16:48] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah.
[00:16:49] Speaker B: And that's what I mean. There's going to be a lot of good people that get hurt. That's why I make the Afghanistan complaints comparison.
[00:16:54] Speaker A: But what I'll say is this. I think that the messiness and this is. I mean, this is kind of the unfortunate thing. This is another one of the Toondayisms, like, the pain actually is what is going to be needed for our society to kind of deal with this. Because the eviction moratorium was never something that was just going to be in place forever. Like that was. It was never the idea that we're just never going to have an eviction anymore. And so the ERA program, the Emergency Rental Assistance Program came after that and was supposed to help. And then there'll probably be other things that are going to have to be done in order to help us as a society deal with this, to help people get back on their feet or help people replace this income or find housing that they can afford and so forth, like, but unfortunately the pain, like that pain is going to have to become acute to spur enough people into action. We're going to have to see some of these stories as, you know, for people to then jump to say, hey, this is unacceptable. We can't have this. So therefore this, you know, whoever has the idea, they're going to get more traction when the pain comes. Because while we, while we're deferring the pain, a lot of times we are putting off the solution, so to speak. We're saying we'll worry about that later. We'll worry about that later. And so that's kind of the, like, from a big picture standpoint. That's why I feel like if this was never supposed to be in place anyway, then you're going to end it at some point and no matter when you end it, it's going to be painful. And so we just need to try to get to the next piece as soon as possible to try to lessen how long the pain is going to be felt.
[00:18:29] Speaker B: Yeah, and it's interesting, man, because, you know, as you, as you say that, I think of other things like our national debt and deficit. Right. Like, at this point it's astronomical. I mean, we're probably, I don't know the exact number today, but it's getting close to 30 trillion.
[00:18:42] Speaker A: Yeah, it's like on the actual 30, man. Yeah.
[00:18:45] Speaker B: And then, and then a budget deficit of, you know, now going to be 2 trillion plus potentially after all this stimulus. So when you, and so my point is, is like, it's like that, right? Like at some point, I don't know what eating your broccoli at that level looks like, but I don't, I mean, maybe it is sustainable, who knows? But, but at this point, I think just that's what I mean, these things probably aren't sustainable for the long run under the economic system that we understand that we're under, you know, with supply and demand and all that. And that's why I think on a, on a, I'd say the deficit for this conversation at the federal level, and both budget and fiscal deficits, I would say are the macro issue. I'd say the, this rental thing could be a micro issue in, relates to that conversation. So I think at the micro level, you know, I wanted to read some stats I just saw from the Pew Research Center. You know, the Census Bureau in their most recent Census counted nearly 20 million rental properties.
Of those, 14.3 million are owned by individual investors. So people like you and I that just work hard and bought an extra duplex or an extra house to rent out, which I'm sure many people know people like that.
And then.
But most buildings that have 25 units or more, they're majority owned by corporations.
So I think sometimes people get this idea that, oh, all these landlords are big bad people and all that, but a lot of them are just, you know, people like your aunts and uncles and people that are just, you know, they worked hard, saved money and did what we all thought was the American dream, which is you buy a rental property or two and, you know, you get some cash flow and you can retire and you pass it on to your kids. And so these are also people who. I know several who are just regular folks that just haven't gotten. Been able to get rental income for months, but the bank still got their hand out, needing to get the mortgages paid on those properties. And they still have to pay for repair, insurance and property taxes and maintenance. When something breaks, you know, they're still legally bound to make sure that the place stays nice. As a landlord, so that's what I'm just saying is that it's not like they're the victims and the renters are the big aggressor. I'm not saying that. I'm just making the point that this is. That's why I say, like, Afghanistan, there's. There's no. Nobody is winning in any of this. You know, and that's a good way.
[00:21:01] Speaker A: To put it because, like, the way I was looking at it is we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. You know, it's like, literally, we are saying, okay, landlords, we feel you're better equipped to deal with this. In some cases that may be true, and some cases it may not be true, but we're definitely putting it on them now.
I find it interesting, oftentimes in our society, the decision making is to short the little guy. And so this was an instance where the little guy actually didn't get shorted, you know, where the little guy was protected and everybody else was forced to fend for themselves. Like. And those numbers you gave, because I saw you had shared that with me, and that was very interesting because the numbers of it, it really does show how the pain from this was distributed over a large number of people. Because one thing I noted from those numbers was that the number of landlords, it's a much higher number of landlords that own one or two that are, like you said, not big institutions, but the number of units that are rented. It's a much higher number of units that are rented by big institutions because the big institutions, like you said, own the multi, you know, 25, more, 100, you know, whatever.
Like that many, if there's that many units in one building. And so that's how you get that dispute. So but either way, everybody's feeling it, you know. And so in this instance, you don't have a situation like there's, this is one of those people economics, there's no free lunch or whatever. Like there is no free lunch here because part of the eviction moratorium also was that, and we insinuated this earlier, but I want to say it outright, people still owe back rent when the moratorium ends. Yeah. And so like that's, that doesn't seem like it's going to work out well from a, like for how this is going to play out either. So there are a lot of pressures on us and this is why I framed it earlier as, you know, like we're concerned about the humanitarian aspect of it. We can't have 10 million people go to the streets. We don't want any people to go to the streets. But at the same time, we also can't have some of the setup of our economic system just start. We're just not doing that anymore. You just don't have to pay rent anymore. And so ultimately, like I said, I do think that bringing this to an end now will bring that to a head.
And I'm actually, I think that what's going to end up happening may end up help helping people over the long term once people see how serious this is and what's going to happen here, like it'll, it'll maybe, maybe that rental assistance, all that money that's been set aside, maybe that's something that'll cover people's back rent. Maybe that's not like there are going to be solutions that can be had. And I do think that at this moment, because we're about to feel it tight, I think it will get to those solutions much more quickly than we otherwise would have.
[00:23:38] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's interesting too, because I'm looking here at one of those stats here that says renters headed about 36% of the nation's 122 million households.
So that's a lot. And my point is, is that in various articles and things that I read in preparing today, there seems to be a range of between three to three and a half million people that this would affect.
[00:24:01] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:24:02] Speaker B: But if I look at, you know, 36% of 122.8 million. That's 44 million renters we have in the United States, households that are. That are renting. So realistically, this is less than 10% of rent.
[00:24:15] Speaker A: Well, hold on. You can't go by population and then household, though.
[00:24:18] Speaker B: No, no, I said households. We have 122 million households in the United States. 36% of those households are rented renters. So then that means that's 44 million renters, households that rent. What I'm saying is we're looking at 3.8 million. Well, yeah, I don't know if they're saying households or individuals, but I think they're saying individuals. So it might actually be, you know, because you got more than one individual in a house that rents, so it could be actually a less percentage of the rest rental. The bottom line, what I'm getting at is you're looking at a small percentage of the overall rental people that rent their. Their residences in the United States.
So I'm not saying that it doesn't matter. I'm just saying that it's not like every single person who's renting is going to be affected by this. And so that hopefully means that it won't disrupt the economy too much as this happens. But I do think that's why I think it'll be messy in the short run.
But I also feel like, again, this is another one of these moments, and you know me with my critiques of general kind of the media ecosystem that we're kind of having. It was like the $7 an hour thing. We're having a hysteria over something that really affects a very small percentage of Americans. Now, that doesn't mean they should be ignored. I think it should be discussed. But, you know, if this ends up being on the news over the next month, every night on every channel, it'll be overkill as well. So I hope that, you know, I.
[00:25:39] Speaker A: Would disagree with you on that. I think this is a really big deal. I mean, you're talking about a lot of people potentially going to the street. Like, if you frame everything in terms of how many out of how Many percent of 330 million people does it affect, then you can minimize anything, you know.
[00:25:53] Speaker B: Well, but I think anything that affects like 1%. Think about it. Three to three and a half million people is 1% of the population.
[00:25:59] Speaker A: That's a lot of people.
[00:26:00] Speaker B: I know it's a lot of people. I'm just saying that, do we stop the whole country dialogue and conversation over a small percentage? That's all. And I think those are when you're, when you're dealing with making decisions for a large group. Right. A large country. You sometimes have to look at it like that. Like we got Covid that's affecting, you know, half the country. That's a pretty big deal. Or some other things that affect, you know, largest climate change, all these other things that are big deals. And we seem to continually get caught into these arguments that are kind of people, I would say it's at the margins who are highly affected. And again, I don't mean to sound mean or callous. I recognize that every individual has a right to be respected. I'm just saying that as a nation, though, I just hope this doesn't stop our whole narrative for the next month. Like usually these topics do, that's all, and become the political football and all that stuff.
[00:26:53] Speaker A: Well, but I mean, I think this is one of those. That's worth it, though. This isn't Dr. Seuss.
This is something in terms of what to do when a pandemic, well, we set up an economy that has 70% of the people living on the brink already anyway, then something happens and what do we do then? You know, and that like, this is the kind of things we have a government for. If you put it in comparison to global warming, climate change and all that stuff, then yeah, it affects less people than that. But this is the type of thing that I would want more debate on, more discussion on. And I think that's actually going to be helpful because there are hard decisions that are going to have to be made, but I don't want those decisions given a short shaft. You know, I'd like people to discuss those for a month and just say, okay, you see this pain? Is this how we want to live? Is this what we are?
[00:27:41] Speaker B: I guess what I'm saying is, you know, it's not really a disagreement with that. It's peeling the onion back a little bit further and going to 30,000ft with it. Because what you said is actually to me more relevant than this event eviction discussion, which is prior to the pandemic, we had an economy that 70% of the US population was kind of on the edge.
That's kind of my point. Like, why don't we deal with those? Like you're saying this is the job of our elected officials and this is the heavy lifting stuff that's important. So why don't we start dealing with some of those bigger issues instead of. This is like a band aid to me. You know, let's Say we figured out.
[00:28:15] Speaker A: How to make precisely a band.
[00:28:16] Speaker B: No, I mean, yeah, make life easier for these 3 million people is not going to change. If, if this happens again in five or 10 years, we'll be in the same boat.
[00:28:24] Speaker A: Well, that's actually what I wanted to ask you next because that this is kind of. We're plugging holes in the dam with our fingers. We're trying to. And the dam is clearly overwhelmed, but we're trying to hold it back as long as possible.
Now, I will say I don't think now is the time really to have these overall discussions simply because we don't even know what our economy and what our world, so to speak, is going to look like post pandemic at this point. Like, I get during the, in the heat of this pandemic that we're just trying to make it to the next month or the next week or the next year because everything is up in the air right now. Now, we do want to try to keep things in a certain. We want to keep, don't lose grip, so to speak. You know, don't let go of the rope. But it's difficult to chart out the next five or ten years right now for on a macro and a micro level. But what do you think as far as looking forward? Does this. Does the issue we're seeing now kind of. Is it instructive at all in terms of the kind of problems we should be, that we should see on the horizon, that we should try to try to address in our next rounds of discussions and so forth? Like when we stop looking at just this one issue.
[00:29:41] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, obviously we should address a lot of stuff. I mean, I think this will be.
[00:29:45] Speaker A: Like, is there anything that this shows you, like this kind of debate that we're having or this issue, how this exposed? You know, like, we get this, this, this disruption in these certain industries.
[00:29:54] Speaker B: And then it's like, not as much, though, because. And that's a good question. I mean, the way I look at. And you know, I'm gonna bring you back to a word I haven't used in a while.
This is the entropy of the situation.
I think that.
Because this is also new, right? The global pandemic, we had a global shutdown. I mean, this is the first time literally the whole world shut down at the same time. I mean, you think about. I used to joke about people that said we don't want globalism and global trade. I say, in 1492, a guy was sailing around the world looking for quicker routes for spices and all that to India and landed here.
So we've had global commerce for a very long time in human history, but never a time where it shut down all at once.
So I do think we're just living still a year and a half later with the offshoot, with the backup and supply chains that the higher cost for containers coming off ships, and that creates inflation. We got the microchip processor shortage because different countries are dealing with COVID in different ways. So some countries still have lockdowns, some are still having outbreaks where they're having their factories shut down, others aren't. And we're all kind of dealing with this. It's like whack a mole. Like, who's got a problem and who doesn't? So that's why I just think this is just another.
Let's see.
Symptom and result of what happened 18 months ago.
My concern is, honestly, is what we talked about a little bit earlier.
The Supreme Court seems okay, but the dysfunction in our Congress is so acute that I'm not sure that we have the ability to get out of this in a certain way. We might just have to have a massive recession or something and feel the pain. But then the way we see it.
[00:31:32] Speaker A: I wouldn't be confident that Congress could get its act together.
[00:31:34] Speaker B: Then I agree, because what I was going to go at is it seems like over the last 12 years, our solution to economic pain is just print more money.
[00:31:43] Speaker A: Correct.
[00:31:44] Speaker B: Which, I mean, I've lived through it and I've done okay. And it's been less painful than if we had a Great Depression, 1930s style. So I guess I can't be too upset about that. But it's like, I recognize at some point we got to eat our broccoli. Like, this can't last forever.
[00:31:57] Speaker A: And so.
[00:31:58] Speaker B: And my concern is too, like, we've talked about on some other topics.
[00:32:01] Speaker A: Well, hold on, let me jump in real quick, because you really said something there that I think we should kind of. And this is kind of where I was gonna go with this. Is that kind of like, you know, And I'm gonna pull it back to when you said it's kind of like Afghanistan kind of like that with our economy, what we've been doing is kicking the can down the road, you know, like, that's when we keep borrowing all this money.
[00:32:23] Speaker B: That was such a good comparison.
[00:32:25] Speaker A: When we borrow all this money, we borrow all this money just to sustain. Sustain the economy.
Then when we have an event like this, then our answer is just to borrow more money. But we've already been borrowing so much, you know. And so ultimately, the way our system is supposed to work here is during the times when there's. It's prosperous, we should be doing things, you know, to kind of build up ourselves so that when the lean time comes, then we can borrow money and so forth. And it's not like we're just digging further into the hole. Like, we're like, oh, no, no, we've been paying off this money or we've been doing things with the mud, with this surplus and with the excess to make us better equipped for this. I think that's the disconnect that we have here. And I'm not confident that it will happen, but I hope that because we're going through something now, then the generation that's in charge now and the generation that's coming even more so will understand that everything can't be yolo from a governmental standpoint, like, yo, we're just going to do this. As long as we make it through the year, let's just have a good year. And then who cares after that? Like, we need to have. From a governmental standpoint, just like from a family standpoint, it can't just be, you get it, you spend it, or you have fun or, hey, just put it on the credit card, let's just do it. Like, you can't just do that indefinitely. You know, like, there has to be times when you get. When you try to pull it back a little bit. And so right now we're eating our broccoli, in the words of Tunde Ogonlana, in Afghanistan and in, you know. In Afghanistan.
[00:33:52] Speaker B: Afghanistan, yeah.
[00:33:53] Speaker A: And then at a certain point, though, that's going to happen with what we're doing here right now. Obviously, this is the time that we want to pull as much rope out as we can and try to, you know, all the stops we can to try to keep it going in the middle of the crisis. But after the crisis, how we respond after that will say a lot as far as how prepared we'll be for the next one.
[00:34:11] Speaker B: Well, there was a very wise man who once had a whole theory about this, and almost 100 years ago, his name was John Maynard Keynes.
[00:34:19] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:34:20] Speaker B: If anyone wants to look up Keynesian economics, that's the whole thought process behind it. Is that correct? In lean times, the government is the only one with kind of the real deep pockets to be able to spend to spur economic growth again. But during the great times, the government should not be spending like that and should do things like collect taxes and all that. So that when the lean times come, just like a squirrel, you know, putting its nuts in the tree for the winter. Right. Like lean times come.
[00:34:51] Speaker A: Keynes came out of the Depression with this stuff. That was when he.
[00:34:56] Speaker B: That's what I said almost a hundred years ago.
[00:34:57] Speaker A: Yeah, that's when he was so. But that's kind of my point is that that lesson was learned then. Keynes puts out a lot of literature on it. Our country lives by it for a while to some degree and we like basically that.
Go ahead.
[00:35:10] Speaker B: We live by it. I mean Eisenhower balanced the budget and up until 1980s we were doing okay. And then you had this massive deficit spending starting under the Reagan administration that never stopped. I mean George H.W. bush actually reversed it and he only had one term because he did the right thing when it came to the US Treasury. So that's why I just feel like we're probably going to have this, I mean this could go on for a while. We could go on another 20 years and have 100 trillion in debt for, for all we know, you know what I mean? But at some point it will end. And I think, you know, at that point what, what I think Americans don't appreciate and we've talked about this on other topics that most people don't pay attention to stuff.
So while this is brewing, you and I are paying attention to our debt levels and all that. But at some point when the tipping point happens, it's going to be painful because what I think will happen is at some point the international and the domestic community of real investors, you know, the investment banks that buy the U.S. treasury bonds are going to demand much higher rates of return and yields than let's say the 1.3% that right now the US treasury is offering on a 10 year bond. They're, they're going to sit on their hands while the auction's going and say, and then make the rates go 5, 6, 7, 8%. And that'll be painful for all of us because that'll affect mortgage rates, auto loans, everything else. And so, you know, who knows, the Federal Reserve has been fighting that by buying bonds themselves because you know, they have the deep pockets because they can just print money and you can't compete with that. But you know, I don't know if they'll keep that up forever or not. So there's a lot of unknowns and you know, I'm starting to scare myself here, so I'll just shut up.
We'll go to topic too.
[00:36:51] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Well, I think we can move. I Mean, there's.
[00:36:55] Speaker B: I started crying. Let me go get a bottle of whiskey, man.
[00:36:58] Speaker A: Well, no, there's no Go Sing the blues. There's no clear path to a way out, so to speak, of what we're dealing with. But again, we're seeing right now how the choices that we make affect people that we care about, people that we know and so forth in many different ways. The eviction moratorium, like I said, there were two sides here, and as you pointed out, there were. No. Nobody was winning, so to speak. You know, it was just trying to limit how many people are losing domestic Afghanistan.
[00:37:31] Speaker B: It's a quagmire.
[00:37:32] Speaker A: It's a quagmire. So we'll have to figure out a way out, though, because, you know, like, this. The whole free money thing can't go forever. But.
But now I do want to move to the second topic, which something that, you know, this actually got a lot of, you know, a lot of coverage around just in entertainment media and so forth, because I think for people of a certain age, everybody remembers seeing this album cover. It was the Nirvana Nevermind. And the album cover is a baby in a pool. Like, the baby that was thrown in a pool and looks like. Has his arms out and so forth, and the baby's penis is out. And, you know, and so, like. And it's just. It's a. It's been termed an iconic photo, an iconic album cover. So a few weeks ago, the baby, who's a grown man now, sues all the parties involved, you know, like the. The. The. The record company, the. The artists, you.
The estate of Kurt Cobain, because Kurt Cobain is deceased.
And so sues everybody involved and says he's been, you know, he's been exploited. This is child pornography, you know, all this other stuff. And, you know, people. People were surprised by this, obviously, because he had.
It wasn't like, this is the first anybody's ever heard of him. Like, he had done recreations of it, you know, as an older person with trunks on, you know, and so forth. So. But what was your reaction to seeing this, man? You know, like, it's just. It really. This is one of those out of the blue things, man.
[00:38:51] Speaker B: No, I know. So it's funny because that actually, believe it or not, that's one of my favorite albums. That album's awesome.
It's one of the few, you know, especially back when you would have CDs, you'd be upset you bought a CD to all the kids under 30. You know, back in the day, we actually had to Go to a store to buy music. And you'd be upset because I'd be upset when like, man, I just spent like money on this whole album with like 13 songs and there's only one I like, you know, or two I like. That's it.
But with that Nevermind album, man, there was a solid like 80% of the songs were on point. And, and you're right, I mean, I was in high school when this came out.
So this was part of my formative years. And you're right, an iconic photo we all recognize, at least those of us, let's say, I'd say anyone between, let's say 40 and 60 years old today was of the age they were between, let's say 15 and 30 bay, or you know, 35, whenever back then. So they were within the age where they probably knew of this.
And so it's interesting, man, when I read it, I felt sorry for this kid. Not out of sympathy for him, but more like it's also like I feel sorry that this kid has this chip on his shoulder that somehow his life was ruined by this photograph. I don't understand what his comments, you know, his thoughts are. I don't know the kids, so I can't get in his head. But I started thinking about things like his kid, you know, mental health stuff and all that. Like, I've never had a picture of me as a four month old shown to the whole world. So I don't know how I'd feel if that was me, but I feel like I wouldn't care. And number two, I thought maybe the biggest disservice in this kid's life is that his parents told him they did this, obviously he wouldn't remember it, but I found the. And we'll get into it. I found the.
When I see what was quoted as his actual, like as the plaintiff making these accusations, child sexual exploitation and things like that, I thought that to be totally asinine and just I hope a judge throws this out of court. And also got me thinking.
[00:40:52] Speaker A: Well, now tell me this though.
Do you think today that someone could do this kind of photo?
[00:40:58] Speaker B: Well, that's what I was getting at, right? I started thinking like, this kid is such a reflection of our society today that everyone's a snowflake and everyone is just because you're right. I don't know, like, and you're right, like babies being naked was never anything bad. I mean, you know what I mean? Like our whole lives I watch kids under three, you know, run around a house naked or Run, even run the streets.
[00:41:22] Speaker A: This isn't running around the house. This isn't on.
This is on an album cover that's available to this day. Anywhere you go, you can go spot it like it's everywhere.
[00:41:30] Speaker B: But I think it's a reflection on us if it wouldn't be doable today. Like I agree with you that a lot of people today would have problems, that the percentage would be a lot higher than it was 30 years ago. I think.
[00:41:44] Speaker A: Yes, but there are a lot of things that were okay 30 years ago that we agree that shouldn't be okay anymore.
[00:41:49] Speaker B: I'm saying this is one that I don't think should be not okay.
[00:41:52] Speaker A: I have a lot of sympathy for the kid.
For the kid. I think that this is. It's messed up that it was done.
Now from a legal standpoint, I look at it a little more skeptically, like just because it's been so long, anytime, something so long ago, you know, but ultimately this, it's not like they can say, they can't say that the photo was ever done.
He may still experience problems from it. Like I can't imagine anybody that would be okay with their, you know, like their penis out on an album as a four month old. That's everywhere for public consumption now. So I sympathize with.
[00:42:27] Speaker B: I might be okay with it. I mean, you might be. I've never been through it.
[00:42:31] Speaker A: That's.
[00:42:32] Speaker B: But what I'm saying is that I think part of it is how it. I mean, look, this is why we. We don't know the kid. Right. But I get the feeling that like the way that my mom raised me and was very.
Not only loving but also explained things to me and all that somewhere in my childhood, if it became an issue, if she even said that I was me and the foot. Like if. Because there's a lot of parents that may never tell their kid that they did this photo at 4 months old. But let's say I could see that just, you know, being brought up to accept that this was just something fun. And we did and it was like, I don't understand. I mean that's what I'm saying.
[00:43:05] Speaker A: Like maybe, but you're applying your sensibilities to it. You can't imagine a scenario where somebody would be offended by this.
[00:43:10] Speaker B: No, but what I'm saying is maybe he was shamed as a kid by his own family. Maybe certain things were said to him. I don't know. So that all plays into that.
[00:43:17] Speaker A: Maybe his friends made friends form from them. Maybe.
[00:43:20] Speaker B: Okay, so maybe so my point is, is that where. Like you said, between the statute of limitations, all that. Where does he have a right to now put Cobain's estate and his. And his widow and all this stuff into court? Well, everybody, hold on.
[00:43:32] Speaker A: Hold on. That's the wrong way to look at this, because anybody can sue anybody for anything. That doesn't mean you're going to win. So he has the right to sue. He may lose. He may win. I don't know. It depends on what he's able to prove, you know, what he's able to show. If he's able to show that he incurs emotional distress to this day, maybe he. Maybe he's able to do something. I don't know. So I don't. But I don't think we should get into the legal analysis of it unless we're going to sit here and study the claims, study the law and so forth. I don't think we should be out here saying legally whether he has a case.
[00:44:00] Speaker B: So let's not get.
[00:44:01] Speaker A: Hold on. From a societal standpoint, I think it's wrong to just dismiss this outright because he is like, it's not like they can't say they didn't take a picture of the guy naked and then publish it. That's what happened. Now you want to say his parents gave consent. That's fine. Like, yeah, that. Which. That changes everything. And so maybe everybody gets off here because the parents gave consent, they signed some form, and that's the end of it. But if he wants to raise an issue with it, it's him. It's him. And so I think that he should raise an issue with it. And so I'm not going to shame the guy for coming out and saying, look, I'm not okay with this anymore. Again, I look at it skeptically because I'm like, well, hold on. Why were you okay with it then 10 years ago? Like, you've been an adult for a while. But that being said, like, if somebody came out with an album like this right now, they would have a problem.
Kanye west on I Think It Was My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, did an album cover that was kind of explicit and got rejected. They wouldn't let him do it. And he cited this saying, hold on. How come somebody in a rock band can do, you know, a naked picture of a little boy, and I can't have two adults explicitly on my album cover? And so I think there's something there to be talked about, again, from a societal standpoint. And so I, like, again, I'm not I'm not kicking the guy to the curb saying he has no right to say what he's going to say. I don't know that he's going to win anything, but, I mean, it's an interesting question that he raises.
[00:45:21] Speaker B: Yeah, no, so I'll shame him. I'll be the bad guy today.
Yeah, no, I just, you know, I hope the judge throws it out and we never hear about it again. And I believe that, like his. He's got to deal with his parents. They were his legal guardian. He was four, four months old. He, you know, maybe they should have just never told him that they did this.
[00:45:40] Speaker A: I mean, he would find out, though. You understand that, right? Like, the photo has a credit. Well, no, I mean, he's still cool with the photographer, like. Or he knows the photographer well, that's what I'm saying.
[00:45:48] Speaker B: Like, it just. And you know, I took photographers.
[00:45:51] Speaker A: Like, he would find out if that was him. Like, he would eventually find out. Somebody would come up to him.
[00:45:55] Speaker B: But I do take what he told. He was 25 when he told the photographer. To your point, why didn't he do this at 18 or 25? Well, when he was 25, he told the photographer. Yeah, I think it was cool. And it's funny. I just wish I got paid from it or I feel like I should have got more money from it.
That's pretty telling right there that he's just bitter, he's just upset that he thinks all these people made all this money and that's why he just wants to now get a piece of the action.
[00:46:18] Speaker A: Toonday Tunde. If you had this photo on your phone, do you think Apple would turn you in?
Yes, I said it is.
This is a problematic photo.
[00:46:29] Speaker B: No, but it's yes and no. Because what I'm saying is. And you're right. I mean, look. That's right.
[00:46:34] Speaker A: For record, Apple has talked about this software they're releasing that scans everyone's photos on their phone and you know, in the icloud or whatever for child porn. Like, and so they're scanning it without you knowing, without you consenting, just, they're going to run this automatic scan on all your photos. So that's. That was the reference that I just did for someday, but go ahead.
[00:46:54] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. No, but that's what I'm saying is that.
Cause everything's in context. And I think that's my bigger bitch about our society today is there's no willingness to accept context. Right. Like you're saying, like, I don't know, a four Month old, fully naked on my phone. Well, if it's my freaking kid and I took a picture of them having a bath, No, I don't expect Apple to care. And if they do, they got a problem, right? But if, Obviously, I think we all can recognize kind of a sexually explicit, you know, kind of look versus something that's just a genuine. Of a parent took a picture.
And clearly, you know, I thought about it this way, too. Obviously, a very sick person could take a look at this picture of this baby and have their own fun with it, right? In terms of a nasty way of a pedophile. But one could say that about anything. I mean, you know, you could.
You know, should the Playboy models that did Playboy magazine shoots now sue every man that masturbated to them when they were teenagers? I mean, you know what I mean? Like, the fact that somebody.
[00:47:55] Speaker A: You definitely took us in a different direction than I thought you would.
[00:47:59] Speaker B: Hey, man, that's why we got a podcast.
[00:48:01] Speaker A: Now. I'll say this, though. I believe it's Potter Stewart, the Supreme Court justice, that said about obscenity. You know it when you see it, but that's a slippery slope. I mean, so I don't know that we can say context. Matt, now, I do agree with you. I think the best point is that context matters. And the question here, ultimately, again, from a societal standpoint, is this context? Is this something that's exploitative or pornographic or anything like that? And you can convince me it's not. But I just. I'll tell you this. I look at it in 2021, and I'm like, man, I can't believe they got away with doing that. And what put that in my head was when I heard Kanye west talking about it, and he was like, you know, yeah, how did they get away with that? And I can't do the album cover. I went. And I'm like, yeah, you know what? How did they get away with that? Like, that's it.
[00:48:46] Speaker B: The way. The reason why he didn't is because he was showing an interracial couple doing.
[00:48:51] Speaker A: That is true.
[00:48:52] Speaker B: He was violating a lot of. He violated a lot of American taboos.
[00:48:56] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, that is true.
[00:48:57] Speaker B: There was that.
[00:48:59] Speaker A: But I think on that note, we need to make our way for the exit.
[00:49:02] Speaker B: What do you mean? I can get you in more trouble. Jeez, Come on.
[00:49:06] Speaker A: But no, we appreciate everybody for joining us as we go back and forth on these couple of issues, but until next time, I'm James Keys. I'm too.
[00:49:13] Speaker B: Devin Lyon.
[00:49:14] Speaker A: All right. Subscribe. Rate Review and we'll talk to you. You.
