Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🚨David Friedberg predicts the path to “Comrade AOC,” national asset seizures, and data centers becoming the next target. “They enact policy starting in 2028 with Comrade AOC in charge… costs balloon, the bond market sells off… and now the 30-year yield spikes 7%, 8%, maybe more.” Higher rates make...

KanekoaTheGreat's profile picture

KanekoaTheGreat

1,100,122 subscribers

499,776 görüntüleme • 13 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

David Friedberg: California’s “Billionaire Tax” is a Trojan Horse to Go After the Middle Class's Private Assets david friedberg: “The reason they're calling it a billionaire tax is to make it easier for people to vote for it, and sign up to this entirely new tax system that they're proposing to put on all Americans at some point, and for the first time ever degrading our private property rights.” “Forget about how much wealth you have, forget about how rich you are, forget about the term billionaire, millionaire, whatever it is.” “We're creating, or proposing the creation, of a new tax system that allows the government for the first time ever to come in and audit everything you own.” “All the jewelry your grandma gave you, the value of all the couches in your house, the value of your car, the value of all your stocks and bonds, and the government can come in, and for the first time, look through the veil into your personal property.” “And say, ‘Here's how much all this stuff is worth. I'm charging you a percentage of that. That's what I need to get paid.’ And it doesn't matter that it starts with billionaires. What matters is that we're giving the government the right to look into our private property and take a percentage of it every year.” “The total net worth of billionaires in the US is $8 trillion.” “The net worth of the US, the middle class, and everyone else is $170 trillion, compared to $8 trillion of the billionaires.” Chamath Palihapitiya: “They need a way to open the door so that they can go after the real honey pot.” “The real honeypot is not 200 people.” david friedberg: “Just so everyone understands the real goal of this is not to tax billionaires, because there are other ways to tax billionaires.” “Charge them a capital gains tax if they borrow against their assets that they haven't paid capital gains tax on. Very simple, that can resolve this.” “Another thing you can do, you can raise the capital gains tax rate. Sounds unpopular. I don't agree with that, but that's another way to deal with this, which is to take the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 30%. You could do that.” “The real goal of this is to create, for the first time in American history, a private property asset seizure tax. Because they're going after the $170 trillion, not the $8 trillion that the billionaires have.”
1:51

David Friedberg: California’s “Billionaire Tax” is a Trojan Horse to Go After the Middle Class's Private Assets david friedberg: “The reason they're calling it a billionaire tax is to make it easier for people to vote for it, and sign up to this entirely new tax system that they're proposing to put on all Americans at some point, and for the first time ever degrading our private property rights.” “Forget about how much wealth you have, forget about how rich you are, forget about the term billionaire, millionaire, whatever it is.” “We're creating, or proposing the creation, of a new tax system that allows the government for the first time ever to come in and audit everything you own.” “All the jewelry your grandma gave you, the value of all the couches in your house, the value of your car, the value of all your stocks and bonds, and the government can come in, and for the first time, look through the veil into your personal property.” “And say, ‘Here's how much all this stuff is worth. I'm charging you a percentage of that. That's what I need to get paid.’ And it doesn't matter that it starts with billionaires. What matters is that we're giving the government the right to look into our private property and take a percentage of it every year.” “The total net worth of billionaires in the US is $8 trillion.” “The net worth of the US, the middle class, and everyone else is $170 trillion, compared to $8 trillion of the billionaires.” Chamath Palihapitiya: “They need a way to open the door so that they can go after the real honey pot.” “The real honeypot is not 200 people.” david friedberg: “Just so everyone understands the real goal of this is not to tax billionaires, because there are other ways to tax billionaires.” “Charge them a capital gains tax if they borrow against their assets that they haven't paid capital gains tax on. Very simple, that can resolve this.” “Another thing you can do, you can raise the capital gains tax rate. Sounds unpopular. I don't agree with that, but that's another way to deal with this, which is to take the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 30%. You could do that.” “The real goal of this is to create, for the first time in American history, a private property asset seizure tax. Because they're going after the $170 trillion, not the $8 trillion that the billionaires have.”

The All-In Podcast

1,808,541 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

David david friedberg says billionaires didn't cause the wealth inequality gap: "People think there's this small cabal of people that have everything in America." The reality: › $183 Trillion: Total net worth of Americans › $8 Trillion (4%): Net worth of billionaires › $4 Trillion (2%): Net worth of bottom 50% › $170 Trillion (93%): Net worth of middle class "So it is true that the billionaires have 2x as much as the bottom 50%." "But it's $170 trillion that the middle class of America has." " So the middle class is really where all of the net worth in America accumulated." "Yes, there's an ultra-rich group that has a lot of assets, but this is really what won in America in the last half century—that middle class. But the problem is the bottom 50% left behind." "That's I think, what is really driving and motivating this socialism today." "While there is wealth inequality, the statistics are a little bit different than what everyone groks."
3:49

David david friedberg says billionaires didn't cause the wealth inequality gap: "People think there's this small cabal of people that have everything in America." The reality: › $183 Trillion: Total net worth of Americans › $8 Trillion (4%): Net worth of billionaires › $4 Trillion (2%): Net worth of bottom 50% › $170 Trillion (93%): Net worth of middle class "So it is true that the billionaires have 2x as much as the bottom 50%." "But it's $170 trillion that the middle class of America has." " So the middle class is really where all of the net worth in America accumulated." "Yes, there's an ultra-rich group that has a lot of assets, but this is really what won in America in the last half century—that middle class. But the problem is the bottom 50% left behind." "That's I think, what is really driving and motivating this socialism today." "While there is wealth inequality, the statistics are a little bit different than what everyone groks."

Molly O’Shea

76,639 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

🚨David Sacks warns that government created the cost-of-living crisis — and socialist policies will only drive prices even higher. “If you look at where the most inflation has occurred, it’s always in those sectors of the economy that the government’s most involved.” Healthcare. College. Housing. “Where the government has massive amounts of subsidies and regulation. It only seems to make the problem worse.” Meanwhile, Sacks points out that prices have fallen in highly competitive technology markets with far less government involvement. TVs, software, and cell phones. “We know that you bring prices down through vigorous competition, not through more government interference in these markets.” “Socialism causes the problem, and then groups like the DSA argue that the way to solve the problem is through more socialism.” “It’s a disease that claims to be a cure.” Government spending, subsidies, and regulation drive costs higher, then socialists use those higher costs to justify even more government control. Full episode: The All-In Podcast
2:25

🚨David Sacks warns that government created the cost-of-living crisis — and socialist policies will only drive prices even higher. “If you look at where the most inflation has occurred, it’s always in those sectors of the economy that the government’s most involved.” Healthcare. College. Housing. “Where the government has massive amounts of subsidies and regulation. It only seems to make the problem worse.” Meanwhile, Sacks points out that prices have fallen in highly competitive technology markets with far less government involvement. TVs, software, and cell phones. “We know that you bring prices down through vigorous competition, not through more government interference in these markets.” “Socialism causes the problem, and then groups like the DSA argue that the way to solve the problem is through more socialism.” “It’s a disease that claims to be a cure.” Government spending, subsidies, and regulation drive costs higher, then socialists use those higher costs to justify even more government control. Full episode: The All-In Podcast

KanekoaTheGreat

63,466 görüntüleme • 13 gün önce

🔥 Will Cain just DESTROYED the Democrat Socialists' $200 TRILLION spending wish list with cold hard math, proving the MIDDLE CLASS would actually be on the hook Universal healthcare: $75 trillion. Reparations: $28 trillion. Federal jobs guarantee: $60 trillion. Housing for all: $17 trillion. But there's NO MONEY to pay for it ⬇️ Confiscate ALL billionaire wealth? That only brings in $6.6 trillion. Tax ALL corporate profits to ZERO? $35 trillion. Implement 90% tax rates like the 1950s? Still only $2 trillion over 10 years. You STILL don't even reach the LOW estimate of $71 trillion, let alone $200 trillion. "So where do you go for the money? They go where they always end up going for the money: to YOU, the middle class." "Government spending would be 92% of GDP. That is a LOT of government. That is actually a fundamental rewriting of the American economy and a fundamental rewriting of America."
2:50

🔥 Will Cain just DESTROYED the Democrat Socialists' $200 TRILLION spending wish list with cold hard math, proving the MIDDLE CLASS would actually be on the hook Universal healthcare: $75 trillion. Reparations: $28 trillion. Federal jobs guarantee: $60 trillion. Housing for all: $17 trillion. But there's NO MONEY to pay for it ⬇️ Confiscate ALL billionaire wealth? That only brings in $6.6 trillion. Tax ALL corporate profits to ZERO? $35 trillion. Implement 90% tax rates like the 1950s? Still only $2 trillion over 10 years. You STILL don't even reach the LOW estimate of $71 trillion, let alone $200 trillion. "So where do you go for the money? They go where they always end up going for the money: to YOU, the middle class." "Government spending would be 92% of GDP. That is a LOT of government. That is actually a fundamental rewriting of the American economy and a fundamental rewriting of America."

Nick Sortor

389,153 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce

🚨David Friedberg warns that America’s affordability crisis is pushing even young conservatives toward socialism. “53% of self-identified conservatives under 40 support government-run grocery stores. Not Democrats, conservatives. Take that in.” He points to polling showing Republican support for capitalism falling while more believe the system is rigged toward the wealthy. david friedberg argues the root problem is government spending: “The more government spends on education, healthcare, and housing, the more expensive those things get.” “When the government intervenes in those markets, those things get more expensive.” And he says neither party is seriously confronting it. “There’s very few principled conservatives… small government, free markets, etc.” Meanwhile, Americans who owned homes and stocks benefited enormously from asset inflation, while those without assets were left behind. “If you don’t own a house and you don’t own stocks, you were left behind.” His warning is that worsening affordability could trigger a major political shift: “I think there’s going to be some sort of big movement towards more socialist policies… between now and 2028.” “I think someone like an AOC becomes president.” “It’s the 63% of Americans that are living paycheck to paycheck… It doesn't matter what party it is. They’re just going to vote for it.” Government spending makes essentials less affordable, voters demand even more government intervention, and the country moves further toward socialism. Full episode: The All-In Podcast
4:49

🚨David Friedberg warns that America’s affordability crisis is pushing even young conservatives toward socialism. “53% of self-identified conservatives under 40 support government-run grocery stores. Not Democrats, conservatives. Take that in.” He points to polling showing Republican support for capitalism falling while more believe the system is rigged toward the wealthy. david friedberg argues the root problem is government spending: “The more government spends on education, healthcare, and housing, the more expensive those things get.” “When the government intervenes in those markets, those things get more expensive.” And he says neither party is seriously confronting it. “There’s very few principled conservatives… small government, free markets, etc.” Meanwhile, Americans who owned homes and stocks benefited enormously from asset inflation, while those without assets were left behind. “If you don’t own a house and you don’t own stocks, you were left behind.” His warning is that worsening affordability could trigger a major political shift: “I think there’s going to be some sort of big movement towards more socialist policies… between now and 2028.” “I think someone like an AOC becomes president.” “It’s the 63% of Americans that are living paycheck to paycheck… It doesn't matter what party it is. They’re just going to vote for it.” Government spending makes essentials less affordable, voters demand even more government intervention, and the country moves further toward socialism. Full episode: The All-In Podcast

KanekoaTheGreat

38,485 görüntüleme • 13 gün önce

David Friedberg: It’s totally reasonable to say billionaires aren’t paying their fair share — but the uncomfortable truth is why. Ultra-wealthy individuals don’t live on income, they live by borrowing against assets. No sale, no capital gains, no tax. That’s the loophole nobody wants to say out loud. The issue isn’t income tax — it’s asset-backed borrowing. When someone can live tax-free by borrowing against billions in untaxed assets, the system is broken. If policymakers were serious, the fix is simple: tax borrowed money tied to unrealized gains. California has ~200 billionaires worth $2 TRILLION combined. A 5% one-time tax raises $100B — sounds big until you realize the state is staring at a $1.5 TRILLION liability hole. Taxing billionaires doesn’t solve the problem. Spending does. Even if you confiscated billions from every billionaire, it wouldn’t fix government debt. This debate pretends revenue is the issue — it’s not. The real crisis is uncontrolled spending and liabilities already baked into the system.
2:01

David Friedberg: It’s totally reasonable to say billionaires aren’t paying their fair share — but the uncomfortable truth is why. Ultra-wealthy individuals don’t live on income, they live by borrowing against assets. No sale, no capital gains, no tax. That’s the loophole nobody wants to say out loud. The issue isn’t income tax — it’s asset-backed borrowing. When someone can live tax-free by borrowing against billions in untaxed assets, the system is broken. If policymakers were serious, the fix is simple: tax borrowed money tied to unrealized gains. California has ~200 billionaires worth $2 TRILLION combined. A 5% one-time tax raises $100B — sounds big until you realize the state is staring at a $1.5 TRILLION liability hole. Taxing billionaires doesn’t solve the problem. Spending does. Even if you confiscated billions from every billionaire, it wouldn’t fix government debt. This debate pretends revenue is the issue — it’s not. The real crisis is uncontrolled spending and liabilities already baked into the system.

Ian Miles

859,927 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

David Friedberg: Higher Interest Rates Are About to Make America’s $40 Trillion Debt Problem Much Worse “The federal government has a problem because over the next 12 months they have to refinance $10 trillion of debt. That debt is coming due. Those bonds are now due. They have to pay the principal back to the bond holders, and they have to go back to the treasury market and sell more treasuries to borrow more money to refinance. So the borrowing cost now is going to climb up, and when that borrowing cost climbs up, the federal government's burn goes up and the fiscal deficit goes up. So my theory and my argument on this is: There is no action that Bessent can take that's actually going to have a meaningful effect on the long end of the curve. We have a fundamental fiscal spending problem with the federal government right now. It is very expensive now to borrow money if you're the US federal government. And the reason is persistent inflation, I would argue because of excess government spending on social programs and other things. And the big problem at this point is the federal government is spending so much that if they were to cut spending aggressively, the argument and the concern is it would hit unemployment and it would cause a recession because the federal government is such an intricate part of the economy now. That's the argument. But it's causing inflation, and it's causing deficit spending. So this year the deficit will be roughly $2 trillion. And as a result, the market is saying, ‘We're worried about the US fiscal solvency over the long run, or there's a higher risk. As a result, we're going to charge you a higher interest, 5.2% on the 30 year.’ What does this mean for the federal government? Well, today, the federal government's average cost of debt is 3.4%. That's what we're paying on interest on average on the $40 trillion of debt that the federal government has outstanding. For every 1% change in the interest rate, the US government has to pay 1.25% of GDP in excess interest each year. 1.25% of GDP in interest each year for that 1% change in the interest rate.”
1:58

David Friedberg: Higher Interest Rates Are About to Make America’s $40 Trillion Debt Problem Much Worse “The federal government has a problem because over the next 12 months they have to refinance $10 trillion of debt. That debt is coming due. Those bonds are now due. They have to pay the principal back to the bond holders, and they have to go back to the treasury market and sell more treasuries to borrow more money to refinance. So the borrowing cost now is going to climb up, and when that borrowing cost climbs up, the federal government's burn goes up and the fiscal deficit goes up. So my theory and my argument on this is: There is no action that Bessent can take that's actually going to have a meaningful effect on the long end of the curve. We have a fundamental fiscal spending problem with the federal government right now. It is very expensive now to borrow money if you're the US federal government. And the reason is persistent inflation, I would argue because of excess government spending on social programs and other things. And the big problem at this point is the federal government is spending so much that if they were to cut spending aggressively, the argument and the concern is it would hit unemployment and it would cause a recession because the federal government is such an intricate part of the economy now. That's the argument. But it's causing inflation, and it's causing deficit spending. So this year the deficit will be roughly $2 trillion. And as a result, the market is saying, ‘We're worried about the US fiscal solvency over the long run, or there's a higher risk. As a result, we're going to charge you a higher interest, 5.2% on the 30 year.’ What does this mean for the federal government? Well, today, the federal government's average cost of debt is 3.4%. That's what we're paying on interest on average on the $40 trillion of debt that the federal government has outstanding. For every 1% change in the interest rate, the US government has to pay 1.25% of GDP in excess interest each year. 1.25% of GDP in interest each year for that 1% change in the interest rate.”

The All-In Podcast

321,602 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

This is absolutely insane… The global equities market, worth $127 trillion, is about to be tokenized. We’re about to witness the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, and most people don’t even realize it’s happening. Markets are moving toward 24/7 infrastructure, and it won’t just be equities - other asset classes will have to move alongside them. Does that mean crypto suddenly becomes a $127T market? Of course not. But it opens the floodgates for a massive source of institutional capital that previously had no direct access to this asset class. Many projects won’t benefit. Many will die. Some become the multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure that runs the global financial system of the future. Millionaires will be made overnight while 99.9% of the population won’t even realize it happened.
1:50

This is absolutely insane… The global equities market, worth $127 trillion, is about to be tokenized. We’re about to witness the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, and most people don’t even realize it’s happening. Markets are moving toward 24/7 infrastructure, and it won’t just be equities - other asset classes will have to move alongside them. Does that mean crypto suddenly becomes a $127T market? Of course not. But it opens the floodgates for a massive source of institutional capital that previously had no direct access to this asset class. Many projects won’t benefit. Many will die. Some become the multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure that runs the global financial system of the future. Millionaires will be made overnight while 99.9% of the population won’t even realize it happened.

Mark

10,545 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

David, Chamath, Jason, and Brad from the The All-In Podcast talk about the US and NATO's refusal to accept a peace agreement at the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine War, citing Naftali Bennet, Fiona Hill, and a Ukrainian article: David Sacks: "They chose to fight an optional proxy war of choice that was easily avoidable if they would just take NATO expansion off the table because they thought it would weaken Putin." Chamath Palihapitiya: "There were ample numbers of off-ramps that we chose, frankly, to not take so that we could engage our enemy in some long, drawn-out war on the hopes that it just depletes their resources. That's kind of rolling the dice, I think, in a very dangerous way." Brad Gerstner: "If we look at the wars since September 11. It's estimated 3 to 4 million people have died. In Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, we spent $8 trillion. Inflation-adjusted, we spent 4 trillion in WWII. 8 trillion represents 25% of our entire national debt. And I've yet to meet a single parent who has said to me, I care so much about this Ukraine situation, I would be willing to put my children in harm's way to fight... Those data points tell me we need more of this discussion, more of this debate, not less."
9:18

David, Chamath, Jason, and Brad from the The All-In Podcast talk about the US and NATO's refusal to accept a peace agreement at the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine War, citing Naftali Bennet, Fiona Hill, and a Ukrainian article: David Sacks: "They chose to fight an optional proxy war of choice that was easily avoidable if they would just take NATO expansion off the table because they thought it would weaken Putin." Chamath Palihapitiya: "There were ample numbers of off-ramps that we chose, frankly, to not take so that we could engage our enemy in some long, drawn-out war on the hopes that it just depletes their resources. That's kind of rolling the dice, I think, in a very dangerous way." Brad Gerstner: "If we look at the wars since September 11. It's estimated 3 to 4 million people have died. In Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, we spent $8 trillion. Inflation-adjusted, we spent 4 trillion in WWII. 8 trillion represents 25% of our entire national debt. And I've yet to meet a single parent who has said to me, I care so much about this Ukraine situation, I would be willing to put my children in harm's way to fight... Those data points tell me we need more of this discussion, more of this debate, not less."

KanekoaTheGreat

810,986 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

David Friedberg warns: Private property is ending in America. Governor JB Pritzker just signed a new 0.2% Digital Asset Tax into Illinois’ budget. It hits crypto transactions, transfers, and custody services starting 2027. This isn’t just about crypto. Friedberg says it’s the latest sign that private property rights are under direct assault in America. You pay income taxes, buy an asset with after-tax dollars, and now the government claims the right to take a recurring cut every year based on its spending needs. The Founders created a clear distinction between America and the monarchies, socialist states, and totalitarian regimes where a small elite controls everything. Friedberg argues we’re now on the brink of abandoning that protection. david friedberg "If the government can say, everything that you've already paid your income tax on and then you've bought it and you now own, the government can take a piece of it every year based on the vote and the budgetary needs of an irresponsible fiscal legislature. We've lost it all. And that's where we are. Anytime the government can take your private property after you've paid your taxes, bought something and put it in your garage, we are done for." This started with the ‘billionaire tax,’ then moved to crypto, and it won’t stop there. It always expands. Where do we draw the line on property rights?
1:28

David Friedberg warns: Private property is ending in America. Governor JB Pritzker just signed a new 0.2% Digital Asset Tax into Illinois’ budget. It hits crypto transactions, transfers, and custody services starting 2027. This isn’t just about crypto. Friedberg says it’s the latest sign that private property rights are under direct assault in America. You pay income taxes, buy an asset with after-tax dollars, and now the government claims the right to take a recurring cut every year based on its spending needs. The Founders created a clear distinction between America and the monarchies, socialist states, and totalitarian regimes where a small elite controls everything. Friedberg argues we’re now on the brink of abandoning that protection. david friedberg "If the government can say, everything that you've already paid your income tax on and then you've bought it and you now own, the government can take a piece of it every year based on the vote and the budgetary needs of an irresponsible fiscal legislature. We've lost it all. And that's where we are. Anytime the government can take your private property after you've paid your taxes, bought something and put it in your garage, we are done for." This started with the ‘billionaire tax,’ then moved to crypto, and it won’t stop there. It always expands. Where do we draw the line on property rights?

jay plemons

68,883 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

David Friedberg: Government Spending is Making Everything More Expensive… and Driving America Toward Socialism david friedberg: “California's got tens of billions of dollars it spent on this stupid f**king railway that goes nowhere, where there's no f**king tracks…” David Sacks: “And there's no political will to even stop that. It'd be the easiest cut in the world.” Friedberg: “Just think about the idiocy. Like, no one is saying we shouldn't do this. Why is no one saying we shouldn't do this? A quarter trillion dollars for a train from San Francisco to Fresno that costs more than an airline ticket is so idiotic. It's like the movie ‘Don't Look Up’. Like, look up. It tells you everything you need to know. Across the board, these government programs cause more harm than good. When the government intervenes in underwriting student loans, and gives everyone a loan, administrative costs went up by 6x and tuition skyrocketed 8% a year, compounding for 30 years, because the government said, ‘We'll underwrite any student loan.’ The same with housing, and now no young people can afford a house. The same with healthcare, where they said, ‘We'll pay people to stay home and not work to take care of people, and we won't check on whether or not they're actually taking care of people,’ and the cost of healthcare skyrocketed. You go across every one of these government programs, and every one of them has the adverse effect of driving up costs and inflating everything. And the core root of inflation in this country is government spending. And the reason we are going to end up becoming a socialist country is because we aren't reining in government spending and looking it in the mirror and saying, ‘Guys, this is idiotic. What are we doing?’”
1:29

David Friedberg: Government Spending is Making Everything More Expensive… and Driving America Toward Socialism david friedberg: “California's got tens of billions of dollars it spent on this stupid f**king railway that goes nowhere, where there's no f**king tracks…” David Sacks: “And there's no political will to even stop that. It'd be the easiest cut in the world.” Friedberg: “Just think about the idiocy. Like, no one is saying we shouldn't do this. Why is no one saying we shouldn't do this? A quarter trillion dollars for a train from San Francisco to Fresno that costs more than an airline ticket is so idiotic. It's like the movie ‘Don't Look Up’. Like, look up. It tells you everything you need to know. Across the board, these government programs cause more harm than good. When the government intervenes in underwriting student loans, and gives everyone a loan, administrative costs went up by 6x and tuition skyrocketed 8% a year, compounding for 30 years, because the government said, ‘We'll underwrite any student loan.’ The same with housing, and now no young people can afford a house. The same with healthcare, where they said, ‘We'll pay people to stay home and not work to take care of people, and we won't check on whether or not they're actually taking care of people,’ and the cost of healthcare skyrocketed. You go across every one of these government programs, and every one of them has the adverse effect of driving up costs and inflating everything. And the core root of inflation in this country is government spending. And the reason we are going to end up becoming a socialist country is because we aren't reining in government spending and looking it in the mirror and saying, ‘Guys, this is idiotic. What are we doing?’”

The All-In Podcast

95,610 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast
2:35

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

.david friedberg: “A wealth tax takes away private property. If you give the government the ability to do that on even 1% of net worth for billionaires, the next step is 5% of the billionaires, or maybe 2% of millionaires, and then maybe it’s 3% on people that have a net worth of 100 grand a year. And by the way, to figure out how much you have, what your assets are, you’ve got to send me a list every year of everything you own. So now the government gets to look into your house, not just see what’s in your bank account, what stocks you own, but what cars do you own? What’s the value of those cars? How much is that art worth? What’s everything here worth? Private property rights go out the window when you institute a wealth tax. Because now the government has the right to assess all your value and to take anything they want from you based on a vote where a bunch of people raise their hand and say, we’ll increase the tax rate to this—5%, 2%, 10%, whatever it is—and here’s the threshold, and we’ll take it every year. And when you do that, it eventually leads to 51% of people voting to take everything from 49%. That’s the worst case. That’s the end state of this. It eats itself, and that’s socialism. And so I think that a wealth tax—and look, it’s not going to affect me, this California tax. So don’t think that I’m trying to speak my book or whatever the comments or bullshit are. I think this is a fundamental, principled issue. By degrading private property rights, we are setting a precedent in the United States that is the foundation of why the United States was set up in the first place, which is for all of us that came to this country to get away from tyrannical governments outside the United States that took all our shit and controlled everything and told us what to do all the time. And we came here and we get to have private property. Sure, I’ll pay my tax. Here’s my 53%. Thank you very much, government, for all the great stuff you do, for all the services you provide. But now, f*ck off and leave me alone. And that’s not the case anymore when this passes. Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, all these national politicians, AOC, Elizabeth Warren—they’re all saying we need to have a national wealth tax now. So it’s not just in California. This is going to be the issue between 2026 and 2028. The elites are the billionaires and the tech people. They’re coming after them. And the manifestation of that is to create this wealth tax. And that gives the government the system by which private property rights are gone. And the United States has a very questionable future at that point. That’s the thing I worry about the most. And I juxtapose that with my optimism about the future and this amazing shit. I mean, think about it—this amazing shit that’s happening in the world. We’re going to have free f*cking energy. We’re going to live forever. We’re going to have all of this insane stuff that we never imagined. Abundance and resources that we could never contemplate. Happiness. Spending time with family. Working less hours. Robots that build shit for us. Everything is going to get better. Everything is getting better. Everything is getting more amazing. And then we’re like, let’s f*ck ourselves. Why not? Because we’ll just f*ck ourselves.”
2:54

.david friedberg: “A wealth tax takes away private property. If you give the government the ability to do that on even 1% of net worth for billionaires, the next step is 5% of the billionaires, or maybe 2% of millionaires, and then maybe it’s 3% on people that have a net worth of 100 grand a year. And by the way, to figure out how much you have, what your assets are, you’ve got to send me a list every year of everything you own. So now the government gets to look into your house, not just see what’s in your bank account, what stocks you own, but what cars do you own? What’s the value of those cars? How much is that art worth? What’s everything here worth? Private property rights go out the window when you institute a wealth tax. Because now the government has the right to assess all your value and to take anything they want from you based on a vote where a bunch of people raise their hand and say, we’ll increase the tax rate to this—5%, 2%, 10%, whatever it is—and here’s the threshold, and we’ll take it every year. And when you do that, it eventually leads to 51% of people voting to take everything from 49%. That’s the worst case. That’s the end state of this. It eats itself, and that’s socialism. And so I think that a wealth tax—and look, it’s not going to affect me, this California tax. So don’t think that I’m trying to speak my book or whatever the comments or bullshit are. I think this is a fundamental, principled issue. By degrading private property rights, we are setting a precedent in the United States that is the foundation of why the United States was set up in the first place, which is for all of us that came to this country to get away from tyrannical governments outside the United States that took all our shit and controlled everything and told us what to do all the time. And we came here and we get to have private property. Sure, I’ll pay my tax. Here’s my 53%. Thank you very much, government, for all the great stuff you do, for all the services you provide. But now, f*ck off and leave me alone. And that’s not the case anymore when this passes. Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, all these national politicians, AOC, Elizabeth Warren—they’re all saying we need to have a national wealth tax now. So it’s not just in California. This is going to be the issue between 2026 and 2028. The elites are the billionaires and the tech people. They’re coming after them. And the manifestation of that is to create this wealth tax. And that gives the government the system by which private property rights are gone. And the United States has a very questionable future at that point. That’s the thing I worry about the most. And I juxtapose that with my optimism about the future and this amazing shit. I mean, think about it—this amazing shit that’s happening in the world. We’re going to have free f*cking energy. We’re going to live forever. We’re going to have all of this insane stuff that we never imagined. Abundance and resources that we could never contemplate. Happiness. Spending time with family. Working less hours. Robots that build shit for us. Everything is going to get better. Everything is getting better. Everything is getting more amazing. And then we’re like, let’s f*ck ourselves. Why not? Because we’ll just f*ck ourselves.”

Arjun Khemani

49,324 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

🚨NEW: David Sacks on Tax Abuse in California: "This is not a tax. This is an asset seizure. This is saying that we're going to take 5% of everything you own, whether you're paid up on your taxes or not, whether your assets are realized or unrealized. Never anything like this before in American history. People are leaving and it is doing tremendous damage to the state. Roughly a trillion dollars of net worth has left the state that is going to put a huge hole in the tax collections of the state."
2:09

🚨NEW: David Sacks on Tax Abuse in California: "This is not a tax. This is an asset seizure. This is saying that we're going to take 5% of everything you own, whether you're paid up on your taxes or not, whether your assets are realized or unrealized. Never anything like this before in American history. People are leaving and it is doing tremendous damage to the state. Roughly a trillion dollars of net worth has left the state that is going to put a huge hole in the tax collections of the state."

DogeDesigner

56,424 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

RUNAWAY DEBT & WAR SPENDING 1981: Reagan implemented the largest tax cuts while prioritizing Defense spending. This marked the beginning of an era of massive spending & debt accumulation Currently, US debt increases by: - $1 Trillion every 100 days - $100B in debt every 10 days GOV SPENDING INCREASE Trump’s 2026 budget increases spending by $531 Billion (DOD’s budget increases from $852B to $1 Trillion) Meanwhile, DOGE has only cut spending by $161 Billion over multiple years. The savings in the 2026 budget are listed as only $4 Billion. TAX REVENUE DECREASE Trump’s Budget will extend the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) which is estimated to decrease federal tax revenue by $4.5 Trillion from 2025 through 2034 (over 10 years). There are other tax cuts listed such as no tax on tips etc Trump’s tariffs are estimated to raise $2.1 Trillion in government revenue over the next decade, if they are actually implemented permanently. Overall, the net effect of tax cuts plus the tariffs is projected to decrease tax revenue by $2.4 Trillion over 10 years. DEBT CEILING Trump and Congress have agreed to increase the debt limit by $5 Trillion. US national debt is currently at $36.8 Trillion & increasing by approximately $1 trillion every 100 days, meaning it's adding $100 billion in debt every 10 days. I don’t see any changes from prior administrations in terms of deficit spending and debt accumulation. Coupled with the tax cuts, it will only get worse. And I haven’t factored in inflation and decrease in purchasing power parity (PPP) etc as a result of the tariffs. Now, there are lots of narratives about weathering the storm to rebuild our economy but you cannot do that while waging wars and feeding the war machine to the tune of $1 Trillion per year. If Trump was serious, he would have slashed the DOD budget (4th largest gov spending account) in half and stopped all the war BS. But he’s not.
1:37

RUNAWAY DEBT & WAR SPENDING 1981: Reagan implemented the largest tax cuts while prioritizing Defense spending. This marked the beginning of an era of massive spending & debt accumulation Currently, US debt increases by: - $1 Trillion every 100 days - $100B in debt every 10 days GOV SPENDING INCREASE Trump’s 2026 budget increases spending by $531 Billion (DOD’s budget increases from $852B to $1 Trillion) Meanwhile, DOGE has only cut spending by $161 Billion over multiple years. The savings in the 2026 budget are listed as only $4 Billion. TAX REVENUE DECREASE Trump’s Budget will extend the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) which is estimated to decrease federal tax revenue by $4.5 Trillion from 2025 through 2034 (over 10 years). There are other tax cuts listed such as no tax on tips etc Trump’s tariffs are estimated to raise $2.1 Trillion in government revenue over the next decade, if they are actually implemented permanently. Overall, the net effect of tax cuts plus the tariffs is projected to decrease tax revenue by $2.4 Trillion over 10 years. DEBT CEILING Trump and Congress have agreed to increase the debt limit by $5 Trillion. US national debt is currently at $36.8 Trillion & increasing by approximately $1 trillion every 100 days, meaning it's adding $100 billion in debt every 10 days. I don’t see any changes from prior administrations in terms of deficit spending and debt accumulation. Coupled with the tax cuts, it will only get worse. And I haven’t factored in inflation and decrease in purchasing power parity (PPP) etc as a result of the tariffs. Now, there are lots of narratives about weathering the storm to rebuild our economy but you cannot do that while waging wars and feeding the war machine to the tune of $1 Trillion per year. If Trump was serious, he would have slashed the DOD budget (4th largest gov spending account) in half and stopped all the war BS. But he’s not.

GenXGirl

74,492 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

David Friedberg predicts AOC will be President and says red states might leave the U.S. if she wins "I do predict AOC will be president. I would say AOC would be my front runner based on the extraordinary cost of living and wealth disparity. Those two things are going to continue to drive the socialist movement over the next 24 months." "And if AOC comes in and they bail out California and they federalize California's liabilities, you're going to see parts of this union, the red states... say, why should we be part of this union anymore?" "We don't want to pay for all of these liabilities that these blue states have accrued and that we are now being asked to bail out. And that is where I think you face a crisis of the union in the years ahead."
0:53

David Friedberg predicts AOC will be President and says red states might leave the U.S. if she wins "I do predict AOC will be president. I would say AOC would be my front runner based on the extraordinary cost of living and wealth disparity. Those two things are going to continue to drive the socialist movement over the next 24 months." "And if AOC comes in and they bail out California and they federalize California's liabilities, you're going to see parts of this union, the red states... say, why should we be part of this union anymore?" "We don't want to pay for all of these liabilities that these blue states have accrued and that we are now being asked to bail out. And that is where I think you face a crisis of the union in the years ahead."

dnap

792,485 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

US national debt just hit $39.4 trillion. Nearly 75% of it has been accumulated since the 2008 financial crisis. We’re now paying over $1 trillion a year just to service the debt, more than we spend on national defense. Deficits are still running at $1.8–2 trillion annually, so both the principal and the interest tab keep exploding. And CBO projects interest costs will roughly double this decade. We’re going to be paying for it with higher taxes on working families and their kids, printing money that drives up the cost of living, or eventually slashing future benefits. And neither party wants to stop it.
0:32

US national debt just hit $39.4 trillion. Nearly 75% of it has been accumulated since the 2008 financial crisis. We’re now paying over $1 trillion a year just to service the debt, more than we spend on national defense. Deficits are still running at $1.8–2 trillion annually, so both the principal and the interest tab keep exploding. And CBO projects interest costs will roughly double this decade. We’re going to be paying for it with higher taxes on working families and their kids, printing money that drives up the cost of living, or eventually slashing future benefits. And neither party wants to stop it.

Rothmus 🏴

32,499 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

“There are two crypto assets worth more than $100 billion: BTC and ETH. In many ways, Ethereum is in a unique position. Ethereum has had a lot of success. The problem is, it had that success five years ago… so the market is saying “you won round one, but what’s round two?” So internally, our prompt has been “what does it take for ETH to become a trillion dollar asset?” There aren’t many individual trillion dollar assets on earth, so what does it take for ETH to be a trillion dollar asset? For Ethlabs, that will be one of our north stars. We’d be a bit full of ourselves if we came out and said that we had the answer today; it’s going to be a huge project for the entire community. But Ethlabs can act as the bridge. We can be the entity that goes and talks to the people that want to take on that mission. Then we can go and talk to the people that help steward Ethereum and work together to make that outcome happen.” — ansgar.eth talks Ethlabs and a trillion dollar Ethereum on Bankless.
1:29

“There are two crypto assets worth more than $100 billion: BTC and ETH. In many ways, Ethereum is in a unique position. Ethereum has had a lot of success. The problem is, it had that success five years ago… so the market is saying “you won round one, but what’s round two?” So internally, our prompt has been “what does it take for ETH to become a trillion dollar asset?” There aren’t many individual trillion dollar assets on earth, so what does it take for ETH to be a trillion dollar asset? For Ethlabs, that will be one of our north stars. We’d be a bit full of ourselves if we came out and said that we had the answer today; it’s going to be a huge project for the entire community. But Ethlabs can act as the bridge. We can be the entity that goes and talks to the people that want to take on that mission. Then we can go and talk to the people that help steward Ethereum and work together to make that outcome happen.” — ansgar.eth talks Ethlabs and a trillion dollar Ethereum on Bankless.

dreamsofdefi

38,401 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

"I used to be a bitcoiner. The transition to a new store of value only happens once every 3,000 years. That's the main prize -- just focus on that. But [security] is the criteria that ultimately convinced me to flip from Bitcoin to ETH." "I have a higher degree of certainty that Ethereum will be around longer [than Bitcoin]. The reason for that is because Bitcoin relies on proof-of-work, which is less efficient than proof-of-stake and doesn't scale with the value of the network. And as the block subsidy of Bitcoin halves every four years, it is increasingly becoming more and more reliant on transaction fees to fund the security budget paid to miners." "If you look at [Bitcoin's] security budget right now, about 0.6% of revenue to miners is transaction fees... The problem with that is if Bitcoin becomes 'digital gold', flips gold, and becomes a $30 trillion asset, but it only costs $10-20 billion to attack it, that's too asymmetric." "You want the security budget to scale with the market cap, similar to how countries spend a % of their GDP on defense. The more valuable something is, the more you need to spend to protect it." "Ethereum, with the Merge, migrated to proof-of-stake, which is fundamentally more secure because it's less reliant on transaction fees and it scales with the value of the network. If 1/3rd of ETH is staked and then you need 1/3rd of those ETH to censor the network, you're looking at roughly 10% of the total market cap as the cost to attack the network." "So if Ethereum flips Bitcoin and gold and becomes a $30 trillion asset, it'll cost ~$3 trillion to attack the Ethereum network versus Bitcoin at like $10 billion." "The other aspect here is that as AI hyperscalers invest more and more in AI, proof-of-work becomes increasingly vulnerable because the cost to attack the Bitcoin network is starting to look close to the quarterly CapEx these hyperscalers are spending on their data centers." Full interview on Bankless with Vivek Raman discussing the new Etherealize "Productive Money" report below.
2:34

"I used to be a bitcoiner. The transition to a new store of value only happens once every 3,000 years. That's the main prize -- just focus on that. But [security] is the criteria that ultimately convinced me to flip from Bitcoin to ETH." "I have a higher degree of certainty that Ethereum will be around longer [than Bitcoin]. The reason for that is because Bitcoin relies on proof-of-work, which is less efficient than proof-of-stake and doesn't scale with the value of the network. And as the block subsidy of Bitcoin halves every four years, it is increasingly becoming more and more reliant on transaction fees to fund the security budget paid to miners." "If you look at [Bitcoin's] security budget right now, about 0.6% of revenue to miners is transaction fees... The problem with that is if Bitcoin becomes 'digital gold', flips gold, and becomes a $30 trillion asset, but it only costs $10-20 billion to attack it, that's too asymmetric." "You want the security budget to scale with the market cap, similar to how countries spend a % of their GDP on defense. The more valuable something is, the more you need to spend to protect it." "Ethereum, with the Merge, migrated to proof-of-stake, which is fundamentally more secure because it's less reliant on transaction fees and it scales with the value of the network. If 1/3rd of ETH is staked and then you need 1/3rd of those ETH to censor the network, you're looking at roughly 10% of the total market cap as the cost to attack the network." "So if Ethereum flips Bitcoin and gold and becomes a $30 trillion asset, it'll cost ~$3 trillion to attack the Ethereum network versus Bitcoin at like $10 billion." "The other aspect here is that as AI hyperscalers invest more and more in AI, proof-of-work becomes increasingly vulnerable because the cost to attack the Bitcoin network is starting to look close to the quarterly CapEx these hyperscalers are spending on their data centers." Full interview on Bankless with Vivek Raman discussing the new Etherealize "Productive Money" report below.

Michael McGuiness

120,514 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce