正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Barry Sternlicht recently gave a VERY insightful interview about tariffs and what it means for real estate prices - what he said is troubling: "The promotion of American manufacturing is a great idea, but we are not a manufacturing nation... We only have 13 million jobs of 160 million... in manufacturing, and we're running a 4% unemployment rate. So I'm not sure who's going to work in all these factories. We're going to need some really quick efforts from Musk and Zuckerberg in robotics to actually build, have people work in these factories. Americans don't want to do that. That's not the jobs that they're interested in taking today... I think the tariffs are super complicated... I do think the focus should be on China. We run a $250 billion trade deficit with China... China is [the] second largest economy in the world with a fixed currency. And that alone is not right. That currency should go up and down with trade flows like every other major currency. So you start there. And I don't think the tariffs are tactical. And the if you put them in place, as [Trump] just did with steel tariffs, American companies will raise prices. So it is very inflationary. And for real estate, it's really bad. [For example] we need [Canada's] lumber. Or we can chop down our own trees but it's a bad thing. We run an equal trade deficit with Canada other than oil but we use their oil... if we don't buy it, they're going to ship it to Asia. For existing owners [of real estate], it's good because to build a new building will be more expensive. So the existing office stock, the existing apartment stock is going to be worth more. But it's bad because the numbers won't work to create new [buildings]. You won't be able to build anything. We already have a four to five million unit housing shortage... And you're seeing it in the sentiment of the builders that they're nervous. Everyone's a little nervous."show more

Triple Net Investor

119,116 subscribers

177,868 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

财经新闻政治教育

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 条评论

boz 的头像

boz1 年前

And, a 4-5 million housing shortage? That again?? He’s just parroting stuff and has an agenda. It’s not really very rare when talking to CEOs and the like.

The Washington Post 的头像

The Washington Post1 年前

Here’s what could get more expensive with Trump’s new tariffs.

Russ 的头像

Russ1 年前

Same people who shipped our jobs overseas now say Americans don’t want to do those jobs. Only say that because they don’t want to pay the labor of Americans and instead would rather pay cheap labor for higher profits!

Triple Net Investor 的头像

Triple Net Investor1 年前

don't disagree but this impacts US consumers as well - do you want to pay more for everything?

苦人不哭的头像

苦人不哭1 年前

America has 10% kids choose STEM in colleges, then only half of that are actually able to graduate. While China kids have 60% choose STEM

boz 的头像

boz1 年前

Manufacturing output as a % of gdp hasn’t changed much for decades. The jobs are not going to be line jobs. It’s not about the number of jobs, it’s about making stuff here that helps our national security.

Triple Net Investor 的头像

Triple Net Investor1 年前

I think this is key: "We only have 13 million jobs of 160 million in manufacturing, and we're running a 4% unemployment rate. So I'm not sure who's going to work in all these factories."

more grease 的头像

more grease1 年前

The entire grub hub and uber nonsense can be cannibalized so those people can get good paying jobs. Also adults can finally rotate back out of fast food and relinquish those jobs again to teenagers. We have no problem with labor. What we need is supply chains and plants to build

Paris Nesva📚✨🪷 的头像

Paris Nesva📚✨🪷1 年前

Not clear making assumption (all) Americans are not interested in manufacturing jobs — Gen Z and Y have not been given a chance to explore the possibilities. Plus factories and manufacturing of today are different than 30/20 years ago

Triple Net Investor 的头像

Triple Net Investor1 年前

If we were to bring back manufacturing jobs back to the US it will take a long time - this is not done something that's done overnight. Building factories/plants, and training will take years. And by that time, you'd think tech/AI/robotics will have advanced substantially.

相关视频

Trump: So, we are going to have a phenomenal ballroom. It's going to be one of the best anywhere in the world. There won't be anything like it, actually. It's four sides of beautiful glass. A new thing is you build a super modern building next to an old-fashioned building and I think that's good but I don't have the courage to do that with the white house. It's good for a lot of places. It's not good for here. We will be able to have state dinners. We would literally not even have state dinners because it is not set up.

Trump: So, we are going to have a phenomenal ballroom. It's going to be one of the best anywhere in the world. There won't be anything like it, actually. It's four sides of beautiful glass. A new thing is you build a super modern building next to an old-fashioned building and I think that's good but I don't have the courage to do that with the white house. It's good for a lot of places. It's not good for here. We will be able to have state dinners. We would literally not even have state dinners because it is not set up.

Acyn

233,072 次观看 • 8 个月前

🚨NEW: Peter Thiel with Joe Lonsdale on tariffs, trade policy, and China. "You need a very drastic reset with China. In theory, you need to reset with other people, but what we really need to get them to do is also reset things with China." Full episode drops next week! JOE: We've been talking about China on and off for over 20 years, and their imbalances. This week the President declared trade war on them, effectively, with 125% tariffs as of now; it'll probably change in the next few days. What do you think of the trade and tariff policy? What's gonna happen? Bond yields sold off more than I expected. The yields went higher than I expected so far. What's going on? PETER: I'm hesitant to comment since obviously it's a very, very fluid situation, but something like the sort of reset that they're talking about now seems where we're going, where you need a very drastic reset with China. In theory you need to reset with other people, but what we really need to get them to do is also reset things with China. I think the rough numbers are that about a quarter of the US trade deficit is bilaterally with China, but another quarter is indirectly with China. So China is sort of half the problem... And then China is the geopolitical rival. So there's a way in which people in Mercedes in Germany are selling cars to the US. We might want to have those pretty well paying jobs in the US and, and not in Germany. And there are all kinds of sort of mercantilist policies that at the margins Germany engages in. But, you know, it's probably not gonna repurpose the Mercedes factory to build tanks to invade the US or something like this. Whereas this sort of dual use problem is the problem with China. ...There are ways the economic relationship with China is fairly efficient.... if people are working for a dollar and a half an hour in a Foxconn factory, we don't really want to get those jobs in Wisconsin. But it is this geopolitical rivalry where... you have to somehow factor in that the economists never are able to factor in properly with China. I'm not sure I would call this the optimistic plan, but the reset in trade that seems desirable to me would be that we radically changed the relationship with China and we sort of induce a lot of other countries to radically change their relationship with China. And that's how we, you know, maybe that's how we build a stronger western alliance of the free world. JOE: Well there's going to be some interesting negotiations in the next few months. Did you think that we could bring, maybe using AI, some more advanced manufacturing here that was in China? Is that a real thing the next decade to do a bunch more here, thanks to our more efficiencies and productivity? PETER: There's probably always a decent amount of things like that. You have to always be extremely granular on how expensive the robots are, how expensive the equipment is, because in some sense, manufacturing has been getting steadily more automated for 250 years. And you've had the machines that make the machines. The machines that make the machines are getting sort of smarter and more complicated. And there are ways in which AI is a quantum leap. There's a way in which it's just, you know, a natural continuation of this, you know, two century long process. I think there are some parts that can be moved to the US with AI. Maybe also if you change some of the environmental rules and some of the other anti-industrial policies we have in the US. But then if parts of this are moved to other emerging market countries. Vietnam is a communist country. It has bad mercantilist policies, but it's not planning to take over the world. And so at the margins, if we can move things from China to Vietnam, that's a big win.

🚨NEW: Peter Thiel with Joe Lonsdale on tariffs, trade policy, and China. "You need a very drastic reset with China. In theory, you need to reset with other people, but what we really need to get them to do is also reset things with China." Full episode drops next week! JOE: We've been talking about China on and off for over 20 years, and their imbalances. This week the President declared trade war on them, effectively, with 125% tariffs as of now; it'll probably change in the next few days. What do you think of the trade and tariff policy? What's gonna happen? Bond yields sold off more than I expected. The yields went higher than I expected so far. What's going on? PETER: I'm hesitant to comment since obviously it's a very, very fluid situation, but something like the sort of reset that they're talking about now seems where we're going, where you need a very drastic reset with China. In theory you need to reset with other people, but what we really need to get them to do is also reset things with China. I think the rough numbers are that about a quarter of the US trade deficit is bilaterally with China, but another quarter is indirectly with China. So China is sort of half the problem... And then China is the geopolitical rival. So there's a way in which people in Mercedes in Germany are selling cars to the US. We might want to have those pretty well paying jobs in the US and, and not in Germany. And there are all kinds of sort of mercantilist policies that at the margins Germany engages in. But, you know, it's probably not gonna repurpose the Mercedes factory to build tanks to invade the US or something like this. Whereas this sort of dual use problem is the problem with China. ...There are ways the economic relationship with China is fairly efficient.... if people are working for a dollar and a half an hour in a Foxconn factory, we don't really want to get those jobs in Wisconsin. But it is this geopolitical rivalry where... you have to somehow factor in that the economists never are able to factor in properly with China. I'm not sure I would call this the optimistic plan, but the reset in trade that seems desirable to me would be that we radically changed the relationship with China and we sort of induce a lot of other countries to radically change their relationship with China. And that's how we, you know, maybe that's how we build a stronger western alliance of the free world. JOE: Well there's going to be some interesting negotiations in the next few months. Did you think that we could bring, maybe using AI, some more advanced manufacturing here that was in China? Is that a real thing the next decade to do a bunch more here, thanks to our more efficiencies and productivity? PETER: There's probably always a decent amount of things like that. You have to always be extremely granular on how expensive the robots are, how expensive the equipment is, because in some sense, manufacturing has been getting steadily more automated for 250 years. And you've had the machines that make the machines. The machines that make the machines are getting sort of smarter and more complicated. And there are ways in which AI is a quantum leap. There's a way in which it's just, you know, a natural continuation of this, you know, two century long process. I think there are some parts that can be moved to the US with AI. Maybe also if you change some of the environmental rules and some of the other anti-industrial policies we have in the US. But then if parts of this are moved to other emerging market countries. Vietnam is a communist country. It has bad mercantilist policies, but it's not planning to take over the world. And so at the margins, if we can move things from China to Vietnam, that's a big win.

American Optimist

316,973 次观看 • 1 年前

NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez: “One on Iran and one on Cuba. Is Iran now bigger foreign policy priority for you than China and on Cuba — the Cuban government —” President Trump: “Iran is just a military operation. To me, Iran is something that was essentially largely over in two or three days because the Navy was wiped out almost immediately. The air force came next, the anti-aircraft came next. I mean, we're flying over Iran. We could take out their electric capacity in one hour. We have all the there's nothing they can do right now because everything is knocked out. They have no — again, no radar, no anti-aircraft. They have nothing, and we don't — and it was a decision I made. We discussed it. Pete, Marco, JD all of us, Chris. We discussed it. We can knock out their electricity in a matter of minutes if we wanted to. There's nothing they can do about it. We can knock out their oil in Kharg Island. The only thing we didn't take down was the oil. Because if we knock out, I call them the pipes. Very complex. But if you do that, it will take them forever to rebuild, meaning whoever — and hopefully it's a sane group of people, but whoever it is, it's going to be running that, and we're going to try to get people that are going to run it well. And you know, it's going to be a prosperous, wonderful place. It used to be, you know, if you go back, it used to be a very — the people are great. The people are smart and energetic and it used to be very successful. Now, it's a country run by fear. It's a country where they tell protesters, don't go outside, because if you do, we're going to kill you....Well, Cuba right now is in very bad shape. They're talking to Marco, and we'll be doing something with Cuba very soon. We're really focused on this, but we're dealing with Cuba. Marco, do you want to say a couple of words about it?” Secretary of State Rubio: “Yeah. I mean, Cuba has an economy that doesn't work and a political and governmental system. They can't fix it. It's not dramatic enough. It's not going to fix it, so they've got some big decisions to make over there.” Gutierrez: “But Secretary — Secretary Rubio, do you support and I know this is up to Congress, but do you support easing the Cuban trade embargo if you get more cooperation from Havana?” Rubio: “Well, I'm not going to discuss what we would talk about or not. Suffice it to say that the embargo is tied to political change on the island. The law has been the embargo is codified. And — but the bottom line is their economy doesn't work. It's a nonfunctional economy. It's an economy that has survived. It's for 40 — that revolution — it's not even a revolution, that thing they have — has survived on subsidies from the Soviet Union and now from Venezuela. They don't get subsidies anymore, so they're in a lot of trouble. And the people in charge are — they don't know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge. That's what happened.” Trump: “And the relationship we have with Venezuela has been, I think you could almost say, incredible. It's been really good. It's been good for Venezuela and it's been good for us. And I congratulate the Venezuelan baseball team because that was a big — that was a big win. And I guess they play another game tonight in the finals.” Rubio: “Against the U.S.” Trump: “And I said a lot of good things have happened to Venezuela lately. This is the first time they've ever been in the finals, and it was pretty exciting.

NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez: “One on Iran and one on Cuba. Is Iran now bigger foreign policy priority for you than China and on Cuba — the Cuban government —” President Trump: “Iran is just a military operation. To me, Iran is something that was essentially largely over in two or three days because the Navy was wiped out almost immediately. The air force came next, the anti-aircraft came next. I mean, we're flying over Iran. We could take out their electric capacity in one hour. We have all the there's nothing they can do right now because everything is knocked out. They have no — again, no radar, no anti-aircraft. They have nothing, and we don't — and it was a decision I made. We discussed it. Pete, Marco, JD all of us, Chris. We discussed it. We can knock out their electricity in a matter of minutes if we wanted to. There's nothing they can do about it. We can knock out their oil in Kharg Island. The only thing we didn't take down was the oil. Because if we knock out, I call them the pipes. Very complex. But if you do that, it will take them forever to rebuild, meaning whoever — and hopefully it's a sane group of people, but whoever it is, it's going to be running that, and we're going to try to get people that are going to run it well. And you know, it's going to be a prosperous, wonderful place. It used to be, you know, if you go back, it used to be a very — the people are great. The people are smart and energetic and it used to be very successful. Now, it's a country run by fear. It's a country where they tell protesters, don't go outside, because if you do, we're going to kill you....Well, Cuba right now is in very bad shape. They're talking to Marco, and we'll be doing something with Cuba very soon. We're really focused on this, but we're dealing with Cuba. Marco, do you want to say a couple of words about it?” Secretary of State Rubio: “Yeah. I mean, Cuba has an economy that doesn't work and a political and governmental system. They can't fix it. It's not dramatic enough. It's not going to fix it, so they've got some big decisions to make over there.” Gutierrez: “But Secretary — Secretary Rubio, do you support and I know this is up to Congress, but do you support easing the Cuban trade embargo if you get more cooperation from Havana?” Rubio: “Well, I'm not going to discuss what we would talk about or not. Suffice it to say that the embargo is tied to political change on the island. The law has been the embargo is codified. And — but the bottom line is their economy doesn't work. It's a nonfunctional economy. It's an economy that has survived. It's for 40 — that revolution — it's not even a revolution, that thing they have — has survived on subsidies from the Soviet Union and now from Venezuela. They don't get subsidies anymore, so they're in a lot of trouble. And the people in charge are — they don't know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge. That's what happened.” Trump: “And the relationship we have with Venezuela has been, I think you could almost say, incredible. It's been really good. It's been good for Venezuela and it's been good for us. And I congratulate the Venezuelan baseball team because that was a big — that was a big win. And I guess they play another game tonight in the finals.” Rubio: “Against the U.S.” Trump: “And I said a lot of good things have happened to Venezuela lately. This is the first time they've ever been in the finals, and it was pretty exciting.

Curtis Houck

175,437 次观看 • 3 个月前

Elon Musk gave a VERY thoughtful response when asked about tariffs and why the US needs to be extremely careful - here was his warning: "I think you need to be careful with tariffs. I deal a lot with supply chain issues, like the global automotive supply chain for Tesla, for example, is incredibly complex... We've got a factory somewhere else that's making a part that goes into the car. Now, if that part's suddenly twice as expensive, it messes everything up. So you want to have tariffs be predictable so that companies can adjust their supply chain. I think companies are more than happy to increase manufacturing in America. It's just that you can't do it instantly. So if you put up giant tariffs immediately. And don't give companies a chance to, build factories in America, you've got to build a building, you've got to install equipment, you've got to train people... that doesn't happen instantly... You want to have a ramp so that people companies can adjust and build the factories and train the people and get the equipment in place. Otherwise, you basically just shock the system and it breaks or bad things happen. So I'm against sudden giant tariffs because it's an impossible response if you've got to move 1,000 tons of equipment. In some cases, collectively, millions of tons of equipment. You just can't do that overnight. It's literally impossible. So I think we want to be thoughtful about tariffs."

Elon Musk gave a VERY thoughtful response when asked about tariffs and why the US needs to be extremely careful - here was his warning: "I think you need to be careful with tariffs. I deal a lot with supply chain issues, like the global automotive supply chain for Tesla, for example, is incredibly complex... We've got a factory somewhere else that's making a part that goes into the car. Now, if that part's suddenly twice as expensive, it messes everything up. So you want to have tariffs be predictable so that companies can adjust their supply chain. I think companies are more than happy to increase manufacturing in America. It's just that you can't do it instantly. So if you put up giant tariffs immediately. And don't give companies a chance to, build factories in America, you've got to build a building, you've got to install equipment, you've got to train people... that doesn't happen instantly... You want to have a ramp so that people companies can adjust and build the factories and train the people and get the equipment in place. Otherwise, you basically just shock the system and it breaks or bad things happen. So I'm against sudden giant tariffs because it's an impossible response if you've got to move 1,000 tons of equipment. In some cases, collectively, millions of tons of equipment. You just can't do that overnight. It's literally impossible. So I think we want to be thoughtful about tariffs."

Triple Net Investor

447,741 次观看 • 1 年前

WATCH: Trump just gave the Canadian Prime Minister a BRUTAL reality check in front of the world. "We don't really want cars from Canada, and we put tariffs on cars from Canada, and at a certain point, it won't make economic sense for Canada to build those cars. And we don't want steel from Canada because we're making our own steel, and we're having massive steel plants being built right now as we speak. We really don't want Canadian steel and we don't want Canadian aluminum and various other things because we want to be able to do it ourselves." "We have a tremendous deficit with Canada. In other words, they have a surplus with us, and there's no reason for us to be subsidizing Canada. Canada is a place that will have to be able to take care of itself economically."

WATCH: Trump just gave the Canadian Prime Minister a BRUTAL reality check in front of the world. "We don't really want cars from Canada, and we put tariffs on cars from Canada, and at a certain point, it won't make economic sense for Canada to build those cars. And we don't want steel from Canada because we're making our own steel, and we're having massive steel plants being built right now as we speak. We really don't want Canadian steel and we don't want Canadian aluminum and various other things because we want to be able to do it ourselves." "We have a tremendous deficit with Canada. In other words, they have a surplus with us, and there's no reason for us to be subsidizing Canada. Canada is a place that will have to be able to take care of itself economically."

George

2,061,959 次观看 • 1 年前

This is the first stage. We are now in a situation where it's 10 and 10 plus 20 for fentanyl, so 30% tariffs in the US of China goods coming in, and they can get rid of 20% of it if they solve the fentanyl problem. That they will do with certainty. But we’re not finished there and neither are millions of small entrepreneurs in America that I represent. We need IP law to be finally put into place so that our products and services are protected in their markets the way we protect theirs and ours. So, reciprocal playing field is where we need to go. This is a great first step but it's only the beginning. I want to sell to the Chinese people. I have no problem with them. I have a big problem with their government. They don't abide by the rules. We've known that for a long time and no admin has dealt with China, even after they came into the World Trade Organization in 2000. They've breached every covenant of that agreement so it's important for us to set the tone in terms of how we're going to go forward with China.

This is the first stage. We are now in a situation where it's 10 and 10 plus 20 for fentanyl, so 30% tariffs in the US of China goods coming in, and they can get rid of 20% of it if they solve the fentanyl problem. That they will do with certainty. But we’re not finished there and neither are millions of small entrepreneurs in America that I represent. We need IP law to be finally put into place so that our products and services are protected in their markets the way we protect theirs and ours. So, reciprocal playing field is where we need to go. This is a great first step but it's only the beginning. I want to sell to the Chinese people. I have no problem with them. I have a big problem with their government. They don't abide by the rules. We've known that for a long time and no admin has dealt with China, even after they came into the World Trade Organization in 2000. They've breached every covenant of that agreement so it's important for us to set the tone in terms of how we're going to go forward with China.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

50,194 次观看 • 1 年前

Kinzinger: He has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of tariffs. He really believes that the US is going to get very rich from tariffs. And this is going to close the budget deficit. That's not the reality. Tariffs should be used if you're fighting real unfair trade practices, but not against your friends, and not because you think you can raise money with it

Kinzinger: He has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of tariffs. He really believes that the US is going to get very rich from tariffs. And this is going to close the budget deficit. That's not the reality. Tariffs should be used if you're fighting real unfair trade practices, but not against your friends, and not because you think you can raise money with it

Acyn

143,497 次观看 • 1 年前

Arteta: “We need everything. We need the first of all, we need everybody fit and available. So the ones that are not involved, the ones that are not with us, that are really big, important players, we need them immediately with us because then we're going to be much stronger. “And then, the other ones, they need to stand up me, the first one and embrace this challenge and go for it. So today we have to suffer. It's painful. It's a terrible feeling. But tomorrow is a different day and if somebody would have said to me in August, 'You are in this position right now in April,' I'm sure we would all take it.”

Arteta: “We need everything. We need the first of all, we need everybody fit and available. So the ones that are not involved, the ones that are not with us, that are really big, important players, we need them immediately with us because then we're going to be much stronger. “And then, the other ones, they need to stand up me, the first one and embrace this challenge and go for it. So today we have to suffer. It's painful. It's a terrible feeling. But tomorrow is a different day and if somebody would have said to me in August, 'You are in this position right now in April,' I'm sure we would all take it.”

Connor Humm

59,679 次观看 • 2 个月前

"It's not ten years ago. The economy is not strong and our prospects for trade with the United States diminish and dim as the day goes by." "And that hurts real people. Real people around the country are going to start losing their jobs and we are going to need a source of revenue in this country. "And the best source of revenue we have in this country, like it or not folks, is an oil pipeline or a gas pipeline in order to bring in the royalties and to create the economies that we're going to need to get through a very difficult time." — Hon. Lisa MacCormack Raitt P.C.

"It's not ten years ago. The economy is not strong and our prospects for trade with the United States diminish and dim as the day goes by." "And that hurts real people. Real people around the country are going to start losing their jobs and we are going to need a source of revenue in this country. "And the best source of revenue we have in this country, like it or not folks, is an oil pipeline or a gas pipeline in order to bring in the royalties and to create the economies that we're going to need to get through a very difficult time." — Hon. Lisa MacCormack Raitt P.C.

Canada Action

33,073 次观看 • 7 个月前

"You mentioned at the top of your show that people think it's about the oil, some people think it's about this, some people that, the true answer is, you're kind of all right, you're just not putting it all together. Because yes, it is about oil, but not in the fact that we want to take the oil. We don't want our adversaries getting their hands on the #1—303 billion in oil reserves. They're #1 in the world, and that's not the Saudis, it's not the Iranians, it's the Venezuelans. And we do not want our adversaries to get a hold of that...and China was their largest purchaser of oil exports. China was. I don't think that's going to continue any longer." -Jason Buttrill, Head Writer and Chief Researcher for The Glenn Beck Program

"You mentioned at the top of your show that people think it's about the oil, some people think it's about this, some people that, the true answer is, you're kind of all right, you're just not putting it all together. Because yes, it is about oil, but not in the fact that we want to take the oil. We don't want our adversaries getting their hands on the #1—303 billion in oil reserves. They're #1 in the world, and that's not the Saudis, it's not the Iranians, it's the Venezuelans. And we do not want our adversaries to get a hold of that...and China was their largest purchaser of oil exports. China was. I don't think that's going to continue any longer." -Jason Buttrill, Head Writer and Chief Researcher for The Glenn Beck Program

Liz Wheeler

15,551 次观看 • 6 个月前

VP VANCE PREDICTED: PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET ANGRY, AND RIGHTFULLY SO "This stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice. People are going to get angry, and rightfully so." If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so. If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so.

VP VANCE PREDICTED: PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET ANGRY, AND RIGHTFULLY SO "This stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice. People are going to get angry, and rightfully so." If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so. If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so.

Svetlana Lokhova

254,268 次观看 • 5 个月前

Trump on USMCA renegotiation "I don't really care about it, so it might go away. No real advantage to us. It's irrelevant to me. Canada would love it. Canada wants it. They need it." "Because we don't need Canada product. That's the thing. You know, I want to be a nice person, but we don't need." "I want to build the cars here, not in Canada. We used to build cars in Canada." "Now the Canada cars, the Canadians are moving here to build cars. Same thing with Mexico." Q " What about the raw materials coming in from countries like Canada?" Trump "Well, we get it, but we have a lot of our own raw materials. And, you know, the word raw and rare are a little bit of a misnomer They're not very rare." "You have a lot of places that want to sell us material, and we get it from a lot of different countries, and we have a lot of rare earth and raw materials." Donald J. Trump

Trump on USMCA renegotiation "I don't really care about it, so it might go away. No real advantage to us. It's irrelevant to me. Canada would love it. Canada wants it. They need it." "Because we don't need Canada product. That's the thing. You know, I want to be a nice person, but we don't need." "I want to build the cars here, not in Canada. We used to build cars in Canada." "Now the Canada cars, the Canadians are moving here to build cars. Same thing with Mexico." Q " What about the raw materials coming in from countries like Canada?" Trump "Well, we get it, but we have a lot of our own raw materials. And, you know, the word raw and rare are a little bit of a misnomer They're not very rare." "You have a lot of places that want to sell us material, and we get it from a lot of different countries, and we have a lot of rare earth and raw materials." Donald J. Trump

cbcwatcher

197,741 次观看 • 5 个月前

Tomorrow, we publish a new The Edge Podcast with Robinhood GM of Crypto, Johann Kerbrat. This clip might be the clearest articulation I’ve ever heard on why Ethereum's roadmap is working, and why Robinhood chose to build its own L2 using Arbitrum. + Ethereum offers security, with proven decentralization + New L1s = centralized databases + EVM liquidity is essential for tokenized stocks & RWAs + Arbitrum’s tech stack wins on engineering merit No edits. No spin. Just a major U.S. fintech explaining why they’re building the future of finance on Ethereum. Real validation for those of us who are long term Ethereum/ETH investors. Here is the clip and transcript for Johann answering why Robinhood chose to build its own Ethereum L2: "You see a lot of companies right now building their own L1. And for us, we felt excited about this idea where we can control anything that we want to build and we don't have to deal with any other chain to talk to or anything like that. But at the same time, creating the security of a real proper decentralized chain is extremely difficult, as you know. And we basically get that for free with Ethereum. The network has been going on for a very long time now and the security is stable and it's decentralized. And I think that's really the key two points that we wanted to have. When you look at some of these new L1s that are being created, it's not really decentralized and it's not really secure. So at the end of the day, you're basically having like a... fancy database that is probably a bit slower to use than an actual database. And so we didn't really see the value in that. With Ethereum, we get the security by default. The second thing that we get by having an L2 is that you get all this liquidity that is already part of all the EVM compatible chains. And that was also a very important decision factor for us. If we really want to bring the stock market onto the chain, we need to have this liquidity. It's not going to be possible if it's in a closed loop or in a closed chain that nobody can access and you need to have like 20 different hoops before you can bridge to that chain. So for us, that was kind of the two elements that we really wanted to focus on and that's why we decided on building on Ethereum. And then we decided on Arbitrum mostly because we love the technology. There's a few things that we are excited about. For example, Stylus. It's a way that we can basically use different language into the chain and we can build on top of that. We also like the way that they prioritize transactions that is, we think, a better way than some of the competition. And so basically we'll use the Arbitrum stack and we'll create our own L2, which will make us also compatible with all the Arbitrum chains. And so we think it's kind of the best of all the worlds. But for us, the idea is like we will start with public stock, and then we think that we can tokenize anything really, not just stocks. It can be private stock, it can be art, it can be real estate, whatever you want to think of. And so we really wanted to have a platform that is kind of easy to build on and we can keep adding on it. At the same time, we know that regulation are going to be hard on some of these products, especially when it comes to financial products. You always have different regulators. You have different rules depending on the region. If you're in the EU versus the US versus LATAM. And so we felt like we wanted to have our own layer that we could customize for these needs. And then anyone that is building on the chain will also be able to benefit from what we are building, versus just putting everything in a contract that will be just good for the people that are using the Robinhood contracts. But so at this point, we announced the chain in June. We are in private test right now, and then we'll do more announcements in the future." Subscribe for the full episode tomorrow! ► Newsletter: ► Spotify: ► Apple: ► Youtube: ► Pods:

Tomorrow, we publish a new The Edge Podcast with Robinhood GM of Crypto, Johann Kerbrat. This clip might be the clearest articulation I’ve ever heard on why Ethereum's roadmap is working, and why Robinhood chose to build its own L2 using Arbitrum. + Ethereum offers security, with proven decentralization + New L1s = centralized databases + EVM liquidity is essential for tokenized stocks & RWAs + Arbitrum’s tech stack wins on engineering merit No edits. No spin. Just a major U.S. fintech explaining why they’re building the future of finance on Ethereum. Real validation for those of us who are long term Ethereum/ETH investors. Here is the clip and transcript for Johann answering why Robinhood chose to build its own Ethereum L2: "You see a lot of companies right now building their own L1. And for us, we felt excited about this idea where we can control anything that we want to build and we don't have to deal with any other chain to talk to or anything like that. But at the same time, creating the security of a real proper decentralized chain is extremely difficult, as you know. And we basically get that for free with Ethereum. The network has been going on for a very long time now and the security is stable and it's decentralized. And I think that's really the key two points that we wanted to have. When you look at some of these new L1s that are being created, it's not really decentralized and it's not really secure. So at the end of the day, you're basically having like a... fancy database that is probably a bit slower to use than an actual database. And so we didn't really see the value in that. With Ethereum, we get the security by default. The second thing that we get by having an L2 is that you get all this liquidity that is already part of all the EVM compatible chains. And that was also a very important decision factor for us. If we really want to bring the stock market onto the chain, we need to have this liquidity. It's not going to be possible if it's in a closed loop or in a closed chain that nobody can access and you need to have like 20 different hoops before you can bridge to that chain. So for us, that was kind of the two elements that we really wanted to focus on and that's why we decided on building on Ethereum. And then we decided on Arbitrum mostly because we love the technology. There's a few things that we are excited about. For example, Stylus. It's a way that we can basically use different language into the chain and we can build on top of that. We also like the way that they prioritize transactions that is, we think, a better way than some of the competition. And so basically we'll use the Arbitrum stack and we'll create our own L2, which will make us also compatible with all the Arbitrum chains. And so we think it's kind of the best of all the worlds. But for us, the idea is like we will start with public stock, and then we think that we can tokenize anything really, not just stocks. It can be private stock, it can be art, it can be real estate, whatever you want to think of. And so we really wanted to have a platform that is kind of easy to build on and we can keep adding on it. At the same time, we know that regulation are going to be hard on some of these products, especially when it comes to financial products. You always have different regulators. You have different rules depending on the region. If you're in the EU versus the US versus LATAM. And so we felt like we wanted to have our own layer that we could customize for these needs. And then anyone that is building on the chain will also be able to benefit from what we are building, versus just putting everything in a contract that will be just good for the people that are using the Robinhood contracts. But so at this point, we announced the chain in June. We are in private test right now, and then we'll do more announcements in the future." Subscribe for the full episode tomorrow! ► Newsletter: ► Spotify: ► Apple: ► Youtube: ► Pods:

DeFi Dad ⟠ defidad.eth

62,600 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨 “Utah is planning on taking water away from farmers and ranchers right now” “They are currently writing new legislation that is going to put new regulations on farmers and ranchers water use — We need your help. We need to save the farmers and ranchers” “The verbiage in the bill is that they are going to require them to use less water, water that has been already granted to them from generations past, or they're going to require them to use more water saving technologies. But who is going to pay for that? It sure as hell isn't going to be the legislators, it's not going to be the senators, it's not going to be the governor. It's going to be the taxpayers and the farmers and ranchers who are going to have to equip for this. So right now we need your help. We need you to call all of the state senators, we need to call all the city offices, we need to send as many emails as we possibly can. Leave the farmers out of this bill. There should be no reason that they're included in this whatsoever —- So if you guys can please make the calls, please send the emails. We need your help.” ‘The Utah farmers and ranchers truly need your help. We barely have enough water as it is to raise our crops to feed and grow our animals. If there is any more regulation, we will lose more and more and more of our family farms and ranches. They will not be able to survive this. This is just a stepping stone and if it happens in one place, it will continue to happen all across the nation please if you can share with your family and friends please leave your comments below. We need your help.”

🚨 “Utah is planning on taking water away from farmers and ranchers right now” “They are currently writing new legislation that is going to put new regulations on farmers and ranchers water use — We need your help. We need to save the farmers and ranchers” “The verbiage in the bill is that they are going to require them to use less water, water that has been already granted to them from generations past, or they're going to require them to use more water saving technologies. But who is going to pay for that? It sure as hell isn't going to be the legislators, it's not going to be the senators, it's not going to be the governor. It's going to be the taxpayers and the farmers and ranchers who are going to have to equip for this. So right now we need your help. We need you to call all of the state senators, we need to call all the city offices, we need to send as many emails as we possibly can. Leave the farmers out of this bill. There should be no reason that they're included in this whatsoever —- So if you guys can please make the calls, please send the emails. We need your help.” ‘The Utah farmers and ranchers truly need your help. We barely have enough water as it is to raise our crops to feed and grow our animals. If there is any more regulation, we will lose more and more and more of our family farms and ranches. They will not be able to survive this. This is just a stepping stone and if it happens in one place, it will continue to happen all across the nation please if you can share with your family and friends please leave your comments below. We need your help.”

Wall Street Apes

107,102 次观看 • 11 个月前

.Scott Nolan to Shawn Ryan: Energy Will Decide U.S.-China Race for AI and Economic Dominance "I think the next decade's going to be all about energy. Even Sam Altman from OpenAI had some recent hearing or talk where he talked about just the evolution of AI. You've got algorithms. Algorithms run on chips, but ultimately the chips need electricity. And what he said, if thinking back to this interview, the algorithms are going to get better and better and better and cheaper, and the chips will get cheaper and cheaper, but at the end of the day, you have to get the electrons, and the electrons have a fundamental price, and ultimately it's going to come down to that. I think even the AI, the AI competition between different companies in the U.S., between different countries, it's ultimately going to come back to the electricity production. Next decade, it's going to be all about power production. AI, military, if you think you need kinetics and military, that comes back to manufacturing. If you think economics, we have to have the biggest economy so that we can just have the most productive capacity, energy. Next decade is going to be all about energy, and we've stayed flat for a decade, for 15 years, we haven't done anything, more like 20 years, our grid's been pretty stagnant, and if we want U.S. leadership, it's going to have to grow. I think that's going to be the story we see, and it's going to be about solving different supply chain needs, whether it's fuel, maybe it's transformers, maybe it's transmission, all these things are going to come up. It's going to be chips. We'd have to go back to that chart and see exactly where is China today, where were they before in terms of per capita, but I think a lot of that production, the doubling of their grid relative to our grid, a lot of that's gone into manufacturing. We've shifted manufacturing from the U.S. to overseas. A lot of that's in China now, we've let them do it. A big part of that, people thought was, well, Chinese labor is much cheaper, but a lot of these processes can be automated. And so once you automate it, it just comes back to energy cost. And so China said, let's double our grid. Let's keep going. Let's work on tripling our grid, and we'll do it in the cheapest way possible because we want to win on manufacturing and get all this economic activity over here. Meanwhile, the U.S. has said, we have a bunch of regulations, which are good, and probably some that are unnecessary and have slowed us down, and so we haven't done the growth, and we've been very thoughtful about emissions, environmental impact, carbon. Meanwhile, China's doubling, tripling their grid and has done a lot of that with coal. And so we've shifted manufacturing here that would have been cleaner over there and just probably ended up net producing more carbon than we would have, more pollutants than we would have, and just kind of outsourced that. But as we know, carbon flows everywhere. If you're really worried about carbon emissions, letting China double their grid with coal and move energy-intensive manufacturing there is not actually the answer. The answer is the U.S. has to unblock building here, doing industrial activity, do it cleanly, do it with nuclear or other sources, even natural gas, half the carbon emissions of coal, and the world would be way better off. Their grid doubling hasn't just meant that everyone there has a better quality of life. I think it just means that we've taken a lot of manufacturing from here and done it over there."

.Scott Nolan to Shawn Ryan: Energy Will Decide U.S.-China Race for AI and Economic Dominance "I think the next decade's going to be all about energy. Even Sam Altman from OpenAI had some recent hearing or talk where he talked about just the evolution of AI. You've got algorithms. Algorithms run on chips, but ultimately the chips need electricity. And what he said, if thinking back to this interview, the algorithms are going to get better and better and better and cheaper, and the chips will get cheaper and cheaper, but at the end of the day, you have to get the electrons, and the electrons have a fundamental price, and ultimately it's going to come down to that. I think even the AI, the AI competition between different companies in the U.S., between different countries, it's ultimately going to come back to the electricity production. Next decade, it's going to be all about power production. AI, military, if you think you need kinetics and military, that comes back to manufacturing. If you think economics, we have to have the biggest economy so that we can just have the most productive capacity, energy. Next decade is going to be all about energy, and we've stayed flat for a decade, for 15 years, we haven't done anything, more like 20 years, our grid's been pretty stagnant, and if we want U.S. leadership, it's going to have to grow. I think that's going to be the story we see, and it's going to be about solving different supply chain needs, whether it's fuel, maybe it's transformers, maybe it's transmission, all these things are going to come up. It's going to be chips. We'd have to go back to that chart and see exactly where is China today, where were they before in terms of per capita, but I think a lot of that production, the doubling of their grid relative to our grid, a lot of that's gone into manufacturing. We've shifted manufacturing from the U.S. to overseas. A lot of that's in China now, we've let them do it. A big part of that, people thought was, well, Chinese labor is much cheaper, but a lot of these processes can be automated. And so once you automate it, it just comes back to energy cost. And so China said, let's double our grid. Let's keep going. Let's work on tripling our grid, and we'll do it in the cheapest way possible because we want to win on manufacturing and get all this economic activity over here. Meanwhile, the U.S. has said, we have a bunch of regulations, which are good, and probably some that are unnecessary and have slowed us down, and so we haven't done the growth, and we've been very thoughtful about emissions, environmental impact, carbon. Meanwhile, China's doubling, tripling their grid and has done a lot of that with coal. And so we've shifted manufacturing here that would have been cleaner over there and just probably ended up net producing more carbon than we would have, more pollutants than we would have, and just kind of outsourced that. But as we know, carbon flows everywhere. If you're really worried about carbon emissions, letting China double their grid with coal and move energy-intensive manufacturing there is not actually the answer. The answer is the U.S. has to unblock building here, doing industrial activity, do it cleanly, do it with nuclear or other sources, even natural gas, half the carbon emissions of coal, and the world would be way better off. Their grid doubling hasn't just meant that everyone there has a better quality of life. I think it just means that we've taken a lot of manufacturing from here and done it over there."

Josh Caplan

28,340 次观看 • 1 年前

#WATCH | North Goa | At the India Energy Week, Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of Canada, says, "... I don't need to tell India what it means when people use their economic integration with your country for coercion. I don't need to tell you what it means when hegemons use tariffs as leverage. We live in a changing world, and energy is at the centre of it. I'm here because like you, the way to resist that change is to build multilateral relationships and to double down on diversification of supplies. You just did, with the EU signing the mother of all deals, was a perfect example of saying, no, we're not going to live in a world where might makes right. We're not going to live in a world where the strongest put tariffs on everyone else. We're going to live in a world where we believe in free trade and trusted relationships... Canada is a great supplier of those critical minerals and will be talking about that and a number of our companies are here at this conference to both help you develop your own critical minerals but where we have ones to share to help you with energy transition, we will be doing that... We need to diversify our supply. Canada used to provide 98 % of its energy to one customer. We are committed to diversifying our supply. We see the opportunity to work with India as was said to the fastest growing demand for energy in the world will be in India, whether it's LNG, LPG, uranium, or oil..."

#WATCH | North Goa | At the India Energy Week, Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of Canada, says, "... I don't need to tell India what it means when people use their economic integration with your country for coercion. I don't need to tell you what it means when hegemons use tariffs as leverage. We live in a changing world, and energy is at the centre of it. I'm here because like you, the way to resist that change is to build multilateral relationships and to double down on diversification of supplies. You just did, with the EU signing the mother of all deals, was a perfect example of saying, no, we're not going to live in a world where might makes right. We're not going to live in a world where the strongest put tariffs on everyone else. We're going to live in a world where we believe in free trade and trusted relationships... Canada is a great supplier of those critical minerals and will be talking about that and a number of our companies are here at this conference to both help you develop your own critical minerals but where we have ones to share to help you with energy transition, we will be doing that... We need to diversify our supply. Canada used to provide 98 % of its energy to one customer. We are committed to diversifying our supply. We see the opportunity to work with India as was said to the fastest growing demand for energy in the world will be in India, whether it's LNG, LPG, uranium, or oil..."

ANI

81,642 次观看 • 5 个月前