Food Shortages and Stagflation

to cover a couple of things. We cover some information, some education so you can change the way that you see this, the way that you navigate this. I have to go through the latest breaking news and then I'd like to bring on some interesting people to talk to. And we're doing all of that. And right now we have some big news that's been happening all around the world, breaking stuff. I mean, it's been busy. I want to

talk about that now. You know, with this inflation, with food and energy spice prices spiking, Um, we got a serious problem on our hands. I saw just today, Um, I think it was the largest grain warehouse in the UK Ukraine just got hit. Now that now Russia and Ukraine are already responsible for like of the global wheat supply and the largest storehouse just got hit and that got taken out, so that means even less supply. It's

not good. And so we're going into a year where the un is expecting lots of people to die of hunger, which is just complete catastrophe in a world where we have so much technology and so much wealth and influence. It's it's crazy to think that that can still happen. But we have this from the AP News. World Bank says they have a dim outlook for the global economy, which, yeah,

of course anyone could have told you. That says the World Bank is sharply downgraded its outlook for the global economy the prospect of widespread food shortages and concerns about the potential return of stagflation, a toxic mix of high inflation and sluggish growth unseen for more than four decades. So the World Bank sees this. I've been talking about it, Everyone's been talking about it. If you haven't seen it,

I don't know where you've been watching. But you need to be paying attention to this stag place in the return of stagflation, something we haven't seen in four decades since the seventies. Again, it's a toxic a toxic mix of high inflation and no growth sluggish growth. So um, so far q Q one quarter one of two we posted negative growth, not just sluggist growth. Sluggist growth would be one or two percent. No, No, we saw negative one and a half percent. That's not good. And at

time we're seeing record high inflation. So not only is it it's not sluggish growth, it's negative growth. So that's extreme. Na's really just high inflation. It's the highest it's been in forty years. It's extreme. So we have extremes of both ends, which is not good, which, of course the prospect of widespread food shortages. That's what it leads to. Now, Like I said in today's day and age, I mean, this is just ridiculous that anybody should have this problem.

We know how to create electricity, we know how to get oil, we know how to grow food. But for some reason, the world leaders can't stop meddling. And uh. It says here for many countries recession will be hard to avoid, which is which is pretty difficult for the United States alone. It says the World Bank has slashed its growth forecast from two point five percent this year.

Uh oh, I'm sorry, slashed it to two point five percent from five point seven percent last year in one, so sluggish growth would be going from five point seven to the two point five they project. But we didn't have two point five. We had negative one point four, negative one point four UM, so quite the opposite. So

a good job on your forecast, your way off. That says that for the nineteen European countries that share their euro currency, it downgraded the growth outlook to two point five percent as well this year from five point four percent last year. So US was five point seven, the European unions five point four, and so they're downgrading both

of them to two point five. In China, the world's second biggest economy after the United States, the World Bank expects growth to slow to four point three from eight point one last year. The government's can't cause things to grow. The World Bank can't get things to grow. The central banks can't get things to grow. Central planners can't get the economies to grow. The Economies that grow when things become more efficient, when more goods and services are created.

I was reading an article yesterday and I was talking about UM. They were hoping that it would encourage more innovation. I was listening to some other economists talking, and they were talking about how um, if you had something like bitcoin that doesn't have inflation, so the monetary supply is not increasing, how um, then it would cause the purchasing power of that money, that money supply like bitcoin, to increase.

So if my right now, if I hold dollars, they're losing value, and so I don't want to hold onto dollars very long. I want to spend it as fast as possible because they're losing value. They're gonna buy me less tomorrow than they do today, So that makes me want to spend them. If we have something like bitcoin that goes up in value, it buys me more in the future than I don't want to spend them. And

they said, but isn't that a problem? Um, don't, don't the leaders, don't the central planners need to encourage people to spend. I thought, that's the most ridiculous thing in the world. People always want to spend. People always want to spend. People want to spend more than they make, people want to spend more than make. They want to live on credit cards. Right, we don't need to encourage anyone to spend. Why, Well, you need food. You need clothes, you need a car, you need a house, You want

some entertainment. That and those shiny, flashy things, the new purses, the new electronics, the new phones, the new watches. You want to buy those things. We want new things. We like to play with things. You don't need any encouragement, And entrepreneurs also don't need any encouragement to run a business to make profit, that's the whole point. And how do we get profits by being very efficient, by us consuming less resources than we can produce, by working to

gain efficiencies so I can make more profit. We don't need to encourage. What we need to do is take the boot off of their neck. And so back to this outlook for growth for the global economy, what we are seeing is more and more dragged being put on the economy by debt and by regulations. So for example, um the energy industry has not been growing well for the last decade and really the last four or five years.

The leaders, the powers that be, the Davos Group, the EU Group, even in the United States, even Biden coming into the White House was talking about putting energy providers out of business, making them go bankrupt. So when you put regulations in place, and you tell them that your is to make them go bankrupt. And what happens. They don't invest into their business, they don't grow their business. And when that happens, guess what happens with GDP growth?

It slows down, it goes negative. This is not rocket science here, right, This is isn't rocket science. Houses works. So, um, we think about inflation as far as price inflation, so the cost of goods and services going up, and per the Austrian lens of that, we would say that when we increase the money supply, then it increases the price of goods and services, which it does, but there's lots of other reasons why prices of goods and services can go up as well without increasing the money supply. So

we have cost push. So when the price of things go up, it pushes prices up. It goes without saying so when the government imposes a bunch of new regulations like E S G for example, and now I have to hire a six person consulting team to come into my business and charge me hundreds of thousands of dollars to give me an E S G score, and then I have to go spend all this money to meet all these E s G requirements. What does that do? That increases my costs cost push, which then means I

have to raise my prices, which is inflationary. So without increasing the money supply at all. Government regulations are inflationary. They caused price to go up, but they also cause growth to come down because that money that I could be spending to go into research and development to come up with new products, better prices, um past those savings onto consumers, come up with new products, more efficient ways

to make those products. That is, having that money to spend that way, Now I have to give it to the government. I have to use it to go for these regulations that are basically worthless. And so the World Bank is projecting uh stagflation, declined growth in the face of rising prices, a deadly combination we haven't seen since the seventies, when we had fuel rations, when we had wars, when we had things like that. And that's about where

we're headed. Back to um you listening to the Markets show, we're talking about the d centralized revolution, talking about the way that the world is changing from a centralized, centrally planned world to a decentralized world. Being led by bitcoin and decentralized technology, looking at through the lens of politics, finance, and technology. Hopefully that makes sense to you. UM, let me know what you think. Are you following me on Twitter? Hit me up at one Mark Moss at it's just

the number one Mark Moss. I'm on their way too often. I'd love to hear questions and comments on there. Let me know you hear me on this show. And I got more to come back to talking about some big, big topics human rights, elicit activity, um, some lawsuits against the Fed and more. Don't go away, all right, welcome back. You are listening to another episode of The Mark Moss Show talking about the decentralized revolution, navigating you as the

world changes. The pendulum swings from centralization to decentralization led by bitcoin and the decentralized revolution technology. Now we're talking about the way the world is changing, forecasting things to slow down because of the onerous, burdensome regulations that are be imposed on and but don't worry. Bitcoin can fix that. Now we say bitcoin can fix that. Bitcoin can fix pretty much anything. Um, which is a way to say that if we can fix the money, we can fix

the world. Um. I saw this article this week was pretty amazing. Now, if you've been listening to this show since I first started, the very first guests I had on this show was a friend Alex um Alex Gladstein, and I had him on the show because he is the head of the Human Rights Foundation. He's a human rights advocate, and I had him on the show because I said, look, I want to establish the show as something that's here to preserve human rights. I want to

champion human flourishment. I want a champion freedom and liberty, those types of things. We're not here to get rich. Is not to get rich quick scheme or get rich quick show. It's about human rights. And so I saw this article this week, I thought it was great, and it's a human rights advocates tell Congress that bitcoin is essential in countries with collapsing currencies. Now collapsing currencies. Currencies

have been collapsing from the beginning of time. If we look at the last hundred years, I believe out of the hundreds and hundred, I think maybe five hundred currencies in the last one hundred years. Out of all of those, only two are still around. Only two. That's the US dollar and the British pounds sterling. They're the only two. Now, the British pounds sterling has lost like eight percent of its value in the dollar has done much better, and it's only lost I think of its value. All the

other currencies have died. And we're seeing it happen all the time. So we're seeing in you know, Venezuela twenty five hundred percent inflation, which is insane. We're seeing Argentina their currency has failed four times. They in just the last you know, a couple of decades. I think they haven't seen any of their thirty year bonds ever pay out. Uh. And we're seeing it in Lebanon, We're seeing in Turkey. We're seeing it all over the world. These currencies are lapsing.

And so what they're saying is human rights advocates tell Congress that bitcoin is essential in these countries with collapsing currencies. Now, as I said, the US dollar in the British consterlier the only two that are left standing. But they're they're collapsing too. They've collapped. As a matter of fact, the US dollar collapsed against homes in the last two years. The US dollar collapsed against used cars in the last

two years, the US dollar is collapsing. It's just not collapsing nearest bad As, Venezuela, Argentina, Lebanon, Turkey, et cetera. But it says here that a week after prominent technologists publicly slammed crypto for being too risky and unproven in a letter to Congress, now human rights advocates from around the world have sent a rebuttal to US lawmakers, defending digital assets for the access they provide to people in countries where quote, local currencies are collapsing, broken, or cut

off from the outside world. All right now, um, Some twenty one human rights supporters from twenty different countries said in the letter that they've relied on bitcoin and stable coins, which allow the trading in and out of crypto without having to go through a bank, as quote, as have tens of millions of others living under authoritarian regimes or

unstable economies. A couple of things unpack here. So, first of all, a week after prominent technologists publicly slammed crypto, so we um, I like to be very clear about this. We like to say bitcoin, not crypto. So um, we'll talk about that in a minute. But if we look at bitcoins specifically, we can see that these human rights advocates to say that tens of millions are living under authority term regimes and unstable economies are using bitcoin. So

what what are they slamming it for? Right? What are they slamming it for? Like? What what's so wrong with it? What's so wrong with you being able to decide what you want to store your wealth in and how you want to transact? What's so wrong with that? Um, we're gonna look at with us here, but it says uh. Bitcoin has seen increased utility in recent months as people from numerous different countries sent tens of millions of dollars

to Ukraine via crypto payment raility. If I remember that all this support for Ukraine when when Russia invaded and they raised tens of millions of dollars through cryptocurrency donations, how else could you have got that money there? Right? With bitcoin? Instant nearly instant and free. You can just send it right there. You don't need a bank, you don't need Western Union, you don't have any of that,

especially in a world worn country that's fallen apart. You don't have the ability to get on a bus and go to a bank and get the cash out. Meanwhile, Ukrainians that were fleeing the country were able to take their money with them in the form of cryptocurrency stored on a USB drive. A similar narrative played out in Afghanistan in August when the Tally band took over the

country and all the banks were closed down. So, uh, these technologists that wrote Congress from their very privileged place sitting in the United States, who have never dealt with a crashing economy or I said, say currency although the dollars crashing um and have never had to run for their lives. I have no idea, and they don't even bother to think what other people could be going through. Now, I've traveled around the world and I've seen this firsthand.

I haven't had to live it, thank God, but I have seen it firsthand. Now in this Ukraine situation, Ukrainians fleeing the country able to take their money with them in the form of cryptocurrency. Now, I know people who fled Russia, and when they fled Russia, they were only allowed I forget, but I think it was like a hundred dollars or two dollars per person. So like a family of four could bring like four hundred bucks or a hundred bucks. That was it all. The rest of

their money had to stay in Russia. I had friends that have come from Afghanistan. I've had friends that came from South Africa, and when they came to America, they could not bring their money with them. They had to come broke. But with bitcoin, they're able to take all their money with them, all right, Um, And it says here and when in Afghanistan, when the Taliban took over the country and the banks were closed down, the banks

were closed, how could people get your money? Now? From these technologists standpoint, they're technologists who know nothing about economics or human rights apparently or freedom. Um. They're saying that it's it's it's a waste, but it's it's not valuable to them, but it's very valuable to the tens of millions of people that have been displaced in Ukraine. It says bitcoin provides financial inclusion and empowerment because it's open and permissionless. We are not they said, We're not industry

financiers or professional lobbyists. Were humanitarians and democracy advocates who use bitcoin to assist people at risk when other options have failed, when other options have failed. Um, so this is great. You know. One thing is these technologists, they say, is that it's too risky. It's too risky. Um, we we we need to we need to regulate it because

it's too risky. Well, too risky compared to what Because if if I'm gonna Afghanistan, I'm guaranteed to lose all of my purchasing power in six months, is it more risky than that if I'm in Lebanon, or if I'm in Turn I'm gonna lose seventy of my purchasing powers, it more risky than that? I mean a lot of the cryptocurrencies are down sixty in US dollar terms right now. They are, but they're gonna lose sixty in their own

currency anyway. So what's their alternative? What's their risk? It's very easy from your Ivory tower sitting in America going oh, as a technologist, Uh, you know, it's risky. But when you're facing certain death, when you're facing certain loss of all your wealth, you have to try something different. You can't get dollars. So what options do you have in in in Afghanistan after America pulled out, the Taliban overran the banks, took everyone's money. You couldn't send them money

through Western Union. What options do they have? And bitcoin is solving these humanitarian problems and this is what it's going to change the landscape of the world, from these centrally controlled entities into this decentralized world. You're listening to the Markmall Show. We're talking about, of course Bitcoin, the decentralized reveel lution. We are talking about the way that

the pendulum is swinging back and forth. We're discovering how it's solving human rights issues, and a lot of people just don't understand that, and they have some gripes which we're gonna come back and talk about in a minute, So do not go away. I'll be right back. All right, Welcome back. You are listening to the Mark ma Show.

We're talking about the decentralized revolution. Is the world changes as the pendulum shifts from a world of centrally planned, centrally controlled systems and back to a place of more freedom and liberty in a decentralized world. Of course, talking about bitcoin, talking about politics, finance, technology and all of that.

Now I was talking about before the break, how bitcoin is solving humanitarian crisis happening all over the world, and how a group of technologists got together and said that they shouldn't be using it because quote, it has problems, the technology isn't very good, and it's it's a culture of Slee's rug polls, n f T s in pond z s Okay. So they're throwing out every every every trick in the book, every excuse in the book why it's bad. It's it's not very good. So as a technologist,

that's that's how they describe it, not very good. Um. Of course we hear other things. Right, bitcoin is gonna boil the ocean. Bitcoin uses more energy than a small country. Um, Bitcoin is going to destroy the climate. Right, Bitcoin at its at its current rate, will take all the energy of the entire world. You hear all kinds of things

like this. Um. One of the things that we've heard from Christine Leguard from the I m F. She says that it will it's a threat to our financial stability supposedly, which I guess it is, because it is disrupting that industry. That's what that's what new technologies do. New technologies disrupt old technologies. It's something called creative destruction. When you create something new, it destroys the old way. Digital cameras destroyed the need for film cameras. Now that was really bad.

If you were Kodak, you're around for over a hundred years and now you're out of business. It was really bad for Kodak, but it was really good for all of us. It was bad for photographers because when you had film, it really took skill. It really took a lot to be good photographer. Today you have digital cameras and they're way easier. So it was bad for some people, but it was net gain for other people. So that's what that's what new technologies do. And so the big

point is disrupting the existing financial system. So to Christine Leguard from the I m F point, where I'm sorry she's previously i MF now she's with the ECB. But to her point, it is disrupting the financial system financial stability as it disrupts that. But that's a good thing. It wouldn't be disrupting if it disrupting it. If it was worse, people wouldn't have gone to digital cameras instead of film cameras if they were worse. They went because

they were better. Now, typically a new idea needs to be you know, not one percent to five percent, not even increase in tempts better. It needs to be like a hundred needs to be a thousand times better. And digital cameras, of course were, and bitcoins a thousand times better. Now they can talk about these things. They can talk about how it's gonna boil the oceans, usual the energy of the world. They can talk about One of their favorite things is they like to talk about it's used

for illicit activities. It's only it's only used by by drug dealers and criminals. That's it. Okay, So a couple of things on that. So first of all, I would say, okay, well that kind of proves the use case a little bit. There's a lot of use cases to bitcoin. One of them is that their permission lists, so you don't need to fill out an application to use it. Anyone could use it as permission list. But the other thing is that it's censorship resistant. Nobody can seize my money and

nobody can stop or block of transaction. Now that's great for criminals because they don't want their money sees and they don't want someone to stop her block of transaction. That's great for criminals. So by saying that, you're just kind of proving the use case. But there's other reasons why you want to do that maybe aren't criminal. So for example, if you live in Afghanistan when the United States just bailed on you, and now the Taliband is trying to seize your money, wouldn't you like to have

money that couldn't be seized by the Taliband? And if I wanted to send somebody money from the United States to Afghanistan to help them out because they're starving to death and I wanted to send them money, wouldn't I want to be able to get the money that couldn't be seized. So one man is a criminal, another man is saving his life. It's a tool, right tools can be used for good and bad. Screw driver in the

right hands, could you know, fix a car. In the wrong hands, they could do some serious harm to somebody. And so it's a tool. But how much of this tool is really being used to harm people? That's the question because they love to throw the stat out. Now there's a company called Chain Analysis, and what she Analysis does is they have the software you know, artificial intelligence,

and they look at all the on Chaine data. So one of the things with bitcoin is an open source network, and so we can see all the on Chaine data. We can see when bitcoin moves from crypto, moves from one wallet to the next, and then through AI they kind of put all these wallets together and they can kind of monitor all this. It's not perfect, but but

it works okay. And so they monitor this and they've been measuring bitcoins at legal activity and uh what they've said now they just put out this new report, which I have the report, and a lot of people are going to try to twist this around because the illegal activity with bitcoin has gone up. Sounds really bad, right. I could write that headline, Um, bitcoin's use of illicit activity goes higher, more people are using bitcoin for elicit

activity than ever before. We could write the headlines that way, because that's somewhat true, factually true, but it's misleading a matter of fact. If I read this here, it says a legal activity in cybergrime are a shrinking part of the crypto economy. According to research from blockchain and analytics firm Chain Analysis, the percentage of a legal activity fell to just zero point one point five percent of the total transaction volume in two thousand one, even as the

total value rose to a new high. So the amount of activity that was used for a list of activities actually did rise to a new high, but as a percentage of all activity, it actually dropped to a new load. Does that make sense? So if if if there was only one use case of bitcoin, only only one transaction ever, and it was used for something to listed, then a hundred percent of the transactions, were you right? So it's a very small sample size. So what we're seeing is

that more volumes being used, more transactions are being done. Um, so of course the percentage I'm sorry, the number of illegal transactions would also go up. However, as a as a whole, the percentage has actually gone down, And I think that's a big important part. And so now you know when they started trying to twist this around. You have to look through this because I could easily write this headline to tell you whatever story I want. But the fact is the amount of legal activity is an

increasingly smaller part of the crypto economy. Although the popularity of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies increased sharply in the proportion of transactions to address related to legal activity increased significantly. All right, so it's going down. Now that's uh, that's bitcoin. They want to tell you that it's only used to do wrong, that it's only used by criminals, um, et cetera. Now do fiet. What about the banking system? Right, so

the banking system is heavily regulated. Obviously they can control that. And the banking system. They have something called a m L it's anti money laundering. They have something called k y C no your customer, and so banks have to adhere to these a m L Anti money laundering UM regulations. There's a lot of things they do so, like if you go to the bank and try to withdraw you know, more than ten thousand dollars, you have to fill out

forms that's a star's reports, Suspicious Activity Report. There's lots of things they have to do. Well, if we look at that, we can see that financial institutions that lack compliance and due diligence, who were already find a staggering two point seven billion dollars in two thousand twenty one according to an a mL fins one report. Who were some of these big people that paid out big fines

will Capital One. Capital One paid out almost four hundred million dollars in fines because the U. S. Department of Treasuries, FINS and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network carried out actions against them for violating the Bank Secrecy Act. Check Cashier's failed to report suspicious activity despite knowing of criminal charges against specific customers, including organized crime syndicate. So they paid out almost four hundred million dollars in fines for helping what

they already knew as an organized crime syndicate. But it's all bitcoin that's bad, right or deut Deutsche Bank hundred thirty million the Internet turned into a three year deferred prosecution agreement with US Attorney's Office find A hundred thirty millions for violations UM involved in commodities fraud scheme. The scheme to conceal bribes and manipulate commodities trading involving publicly traded precious metals included senior executives who knowingly and willingly

conspired in falsifying payments to the balance books. So the banking system is complicit. They know what they're doing. Bitcoin is just a protocol. Nobody knows it's a tool, right. These are banks that are actively helping people. It's insane. You listen to the Mark Moa show. We're talking about the Decentralized Revolution, talking about how bitcoin is changing the world and how they're throwing a lot of food at it like it's used for list activities, but it's really

the banks. I'll be back with that and more in a minute, So do not go away, all right, welcome back. You are listening to the Mark mo Show talking about the Decentralized Revolution. Of course we're talking about bitcoin, and we're looking at politics, finance, and technologies to see as the world is changing right before our very eyes. And of course this is a it's a transition, and it's

not a smooth transition. As we go from the essentially planned economies to more free, fair, liberty focused, freedom loving, decentralized world. The old system doesn't want to give up power, and of course it's fighting a new system, and so

we see this all over the place. We are talking about how they're trying to say that bitcoin is used for illicit transactions, but really it's the banking system that's used for ellicit transactions, knowingly and willingly um enabling organized crime and fraud and these banks have paid out big finds. A matter of fact, Bank of America has paid out

seven since the great financial crash. Bank of America has paid out seventy six billion, the b seventy six billion dollars in fines, seventy six billion, JP Morgan's forty three billion dollars in fines. I mean, that's just in sane now. Actually this is an old article, so it's probably paid out even way more since then. But it goes even deeper than this. There's an article that just broke this week. Bitcoin Bank Custody Custodia sued the Federal Reserve, the central

banking the United States. They sue the Follower Reserve demanding decision on a master account. So all the banks of the world have to have a charter with the Federal Reserve. So I was at a conference UM in the beginning this year in January, and I was on a panel

with UM. One of the leading professor, Richard Werner, one of the leading voices, talking about central banks, and he was saying how there's a big problem of all the centralization of banks, and what we need is we need to keep the banks decentralized, which of course I agree with And I said great, you know, um, so how do we achieve that? I asked him that question and they said, well, easy, just more people need to go

open up banks. If only it was that easy. And this is a story to tell you that it's not that easy, be because you have to get permission from the Federal Reserve to open a bank. And that's exactly what's happening. So we see Bitcoin Bank Custodia today sued the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, charging they have unlawfully broken the law.

They're saying they broke the law unlawfully delayed for nineteen months acting on its application for a master account with the Federal Reserve. So the bank, let's follow all the paperwork. They've done everything proper and they're supposed to get a response from the Foedo Reserve about their application for this master account to have a bank. Now they're charging they've

been unlawfully delayed for nineteen months. The Bank Custodia is charted in Wyoming under a crypto friendly statute passed in twenty nineteen allowing for quote special purpose depository institutions, and they say, the master account would reduce its costs and it's vital to its core mission of providing a bridge

between digital assets in the US dollar. Now, according to the suit, the Federal Reserve has a legal obligation to act within a year and states on its own paperwork that ordinarily takes just five to seven days to act on a master account application. So there it says in their own words, it typically takes a couple of days, but legally they have an obligation to act within a year. But they've been sitting on this for over nineteen months.

It's a big problem. So, uh, this old system does not want to go willingly, and they're going to continue to throw up roadblocks every chance they get. But of course Custodia is not going to sit back and take this, so they filed the lawsuit. They led to the Kansas citys FED. Processing of its application was moving along until the spring of when the main Federal Reserve got involved.

So Kansas City feder was actually processing that things were going along good, but then the main Federal Reserve got involved and then something happened. What was that, Well, the seat The suit seeks to force the Federal Reserve and the Kansas City Branch to act on its applic cation and ultimately to approve it. Should Custodia win, which I'm rooting for them. I think you are too right. We're all rooting for them against the small guy, against the

big guy, the United States. We love the we love the underdog, we love the David and Glass story here, and ultimately we want to stick it to the central banks. Uh. Should Custodia win a suit or otherwise we granted a master account, it would be the first bitcoin bank to gain one. Custodia Bank was founded by Morgan Stanley, veteran Caton, and Caitlin long In under the name Avante Financial Group. Um and uh, she is a beast. She came onto the bitcoin scene. She's you know, been in the financial

space for a really long time. Really started talking about something that really brought a front and center, at least to me and a lot of other people, which was something called re hypothecation. Is something that these financial institutions do. And so what is rehypothecation? So what does that mean is that let me, let me, let me make it simple. If I had, if I had, if I had a candy bar, and I gave it to this person. Now he would give me an IOU that he owed me

that andy bar. So he's got one candy bar. I have an isoue that I'm owed a candy bar. But let's say that now he gives that candy bar to person number two and gets an ioue. So now there's still one candy bar. But now one person has a candy bar, and then there's an iou for person one, and I have an isue. So now there's basically three

candy bars, but really only one candy bar. And then person number two gives it the person number three and then gives the person number four, Person number five, person number six. So now person number six has the candy bar, and five four three to one and myself only have an IOU. That means there's seven candy bars in the system, but there's only one physical candy bar. Now what's the problem with that. Well, all of us think we're wealthy, all of us think we have a candy bar. The

reality is there's only one candy bar. Now what happens if person number six eats that candy bar, Well, now seven candy bars disappear. Seven candy bars are gone. Because one person ate a candy bar. That's rehypothecation. That's a big problem. It sounds like a problem, doesn't it. That's what they do with your financial assets. And so you put your money in the bank and then they give it to someone else, or your stock in your account.

You don't own that stock. What you have is an IOU and then that's a rehypothecated to the next person, to the next person, the next person, the next person. So these assets grow exponentially through this debt process. The problem is the system gets over levered, so we don't really know exactly. It's it's a rumored to have about somewhere between three too maybe up to five hundred paper ounces of gold claims on announce of gold for everyone

real physical ounce. So a lot of people, maybe five people or four d nine think they own ann ounce of gold, but they don't because it's really only one. That's a big process. That's re hypothication. She she kind of had really brought that front center to me, and it's a big problem in the system. Because stoo page suit lists eight claims for relief, so there's eight different way is that they would like to have relief here um or ways the FED could potentially resolve the case.

The first claim raises they broader issue regarding the function of the individual federals or banks and whether they are subject to rules for federal agencies. So, um, what I love about this is it's taking it to the entire Federal Reserve banking system and changing the way it works. Everybody's watching to see what's going to happen. Of course, the Kansas City branch of the Fedower Reserve declined to comment. They don't even want to know anything about it, um,

and they just don't really want to get involved. But kudos to Caitlin for taking this to taking this fight to them. I wouldn't want to be on the other side of it. And now this is coming from Wyoming, which is interesting because at the same time we saw Senator Cynthia loomas Um from Wyoming submitted bill just this week into the Senate for more clarity on bitcoin and cryptocurrency, which was pretty cool. So she introduced this bill um that basically would put some things into law that would

prohibit the government from from encroaching on this. One of them would be to repeal some of the taxes that are levied against it. So she had a bill that would take away capital gains tax up to two hundred dollars, and that really help us get to a point where we could spend bitcoin more as a medium of exchange without having to pay tax and everything. So if you want to use it to get a cup of coffee,

I think I talked about last week. You can go to Chipotle now and you could spend your bitcoin, but you don't want to do that because that's a taxable event. But if they could get reduced below two d threshold, you can go to Chippotle, you can buy your coffee, you can buy a burger, things like that. Um, And so we'll see. Wyoming is kind of at the forefront of this freedom movement, freedom to transact. Without the freedom

to transact, there is no freedom at all. And so they're pioneering this ability to transact with whatever currency want and to store our wealth in whatever they want at the same time. So let's go Caitlin, and let's go Cynthia Loomis and Wyoming. With that, you listen to the Mark Ball Show, we're talking about the decentralized revolution, talking about the way the world UH is seeing the pendulum

shift from centralization to decentralization. Of course, we're talking about bitcoin and we're looking at through the lens of politics, finance, and technology. Hopefully you got some value out of these breaking news stories. That's what I got for you today. Thanks for listening.