Why We Need a Different Form of Money

learn how to think through that. I like to bring to you some of the latest breaking news headlines so you know exactly what's going on, and some guests so you don't have to listen to me talk all the time. And I want to talk about some of the latest breaking news headlines that happened this week to keep you in the know. And you know, my favorite thing to talk about, as we talked about the decentralized revolution is of course the technology that's bringing the decentralized revolution, which

of course is bitcoin. And bitcoin has been all over the news the last two weeks because of course it's back from the dead again. Bitcoin has been dead I don't know four hundred times or six hundred times as long as I've been following it. It always dies, but yet somehow it always seems to come back from the dead. And that's kind of where we're at today, and that's part of why it's in the news. The price of bitcoin kind of woke up from a slumber. Since about November.

It's been down in this kind of like fifteen sixteen thousand dollars range, and it just kind of basically sat there. It was that it was about twenty one thousand, so kind of in November we kind of were sitting at twenty thousand range. Then it dropped down into that kind of fifteen sixteen thousand all range when the FTX fiasco happened, and it just sat there for a couple of months.

In November December. We saw in December it popped up to like seventeen thousand, back down to fifteen sixteen thousand, but finally it took off the first of the year and went up almost fifty percent, and so bitcoin's back from the dead. It's down a little bit right now, it's still up about thirty over thirty, with about thirty five sin since it really started making that move at the end of the year. But as it comes back from the dead again over and over and over, of

course it starts making news headlines. And one of the news headlines I saw this week I wanted to talk about because it was just I just have to say something about it. And it's a shame because maybe one of my most often quoted people is not Warren Buffett, but his partner, Charlie Munger. Charlie Munger, A lot of people don't know him. Of course, everybody knows Warren Buffett, but it's been his partner forever. What he does talk about all the time drives me crazyas he talks about bitcoin.

And the reason why it drives me crazy is because he's such a smart guy. He's done so much in his career. He he knows so much about things, more than I could ever even imagine. He's you know, he's written so many good things. He has, like I said, so many quotes I use all the time. But he's so wrong on his views on bitcoin for a couple of reasons. And nobody knows the future, so it's not like he's saying it's not going to say and I'm saying it's going to survive and I'm saying he's wrong.

We don't know the future. He's wrong for a couple of reasons. One, he's wrong because he's calling for the United States government to ban it. As a matter of fact, he's gone on to praise China, being a communist country and how they've dealt with this, and that's wrong. So he may be right. Maybe bitcoin doesn't succeed, maybe it all falls apart, Maybe we don't know. Time will tell.

But he's always going to be wrong. Anybody's always going to be wrong when they're calling for the government to come out and take away our free right to play with technology, to use technology, to do what we want technology or anything like. We're in America, We're the land of the Free. And for him to call out openly for the government to come in and make it illegal, that's wrong. He's also wrongs he hasn't really put any

time into it at all. As a matter of fact, he said as much, Right, why would I spend any time studying that scam thing? Right, So he has put zero time into it, and so trying to pretend like you know what you're talking about, or trying to pretend that you're somebody that should be talking about it when you haven't put any time into it is intellectually dishonest.

A better answer might be, you know what, if he was going to respond to the news is he might say, you know what, I haven't put any time into studying it, so I don't really have a comment. That could be a better one to say. Of course, that doesn't get

the news headlines that they want. So as this has been kind of coming backing up, everybody's favorite proponent of bitcoin, Michael Sailor, he had something to say, and he said that if Munger were a business leader in South America or Africa or Asia, and he spent one hundred hours studying the problem, he'd be more bullish on bitcoin than

I am. Now, this is Michael Sailor, who's put billions of dollars into bitcoin, and he's saying Munger would be even more bullish if he looked at it from the world, from a different world view, from being in a different country, and you'd put a little bit of time into studying it. What Sailor calls quote the plight of the common man is better illustrated by the recent events in Lebanon, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Venezuela, And what those countries all have

in common is those currencies have completely collapsed. When you live in a country like Lebanon, Argentina, Sri Lanka, where your currency just disappears and all your life savings disappear with it, in the market's all going to turmoil because of that, what do you do. You just lose all

your money and you're just okay with it. So what he's saying is that Charlie Munger has this very US centric viewpoint, and that's what I find all the time with bitcoin is a lot of people in the United States sitting at the bar in Manhattan drinking a twenty dollar cocktail, are like, why do we need a different form of money? But when you live in Nigeria or Sri Lanka, Argentina, or Lebanon or Venezuela, you know why we need a different form of money. It's not working

for you. It's failed. And so if he was a business owner, a business leader in one of those countries watching his money disappear, knowing that any time it could basically just all evaporate, then he would be looking for another solution. Monger has a lot of money he wouldn't want it to disappear. But he's coming from a US centric viewpoint. So one, his viewpoint is wrong. Two, he hasn't put the research in. Three, when you're openly calling for the land of the Free and a free country

to make things illegal, I'm sorry, you're just wrong. You're just wrong. Now, another big well known investor, Ray Dalio, of course, he has lots of things to say about bitcoins. He's come around a bitcoin. At first he was he didn't like bitcoin, that he was skeptical of bitcoin, that he was interested in bitcoin, then he liked bitcoin, and now this week he says that still doesn't like bitcoin, but thinks inflation beating coin could work. So he says, quote,

it's not going to be an effective money. It's not going to be an effective money. What I like about these guys is that they don't maybe even understand what that means. So he says, it's not an effective medium of exchange. Why not? In order for a collectible to become a store value, to eventually become a medium exchange, it must have certain attributes. It must be portable, it must be durable, it must be divisible, it must be recognizable, salable and it must be fungible. So does it fit

those Does it fit those attributes? Yes, And as a matter of fact, I would happily argue with him or anybody else that it actually matches all of those attributes better than anything else. Gold emerged as the best form of money because it had the best attributes. You can't use bananas because they're they're not durable. You can't use old car that's collectible because it's not it's not divisible, and it's not portable. And gold is not portable either.

Gold cannot be sent over to space and bitcoin can. So for Radali to say this, I mean again, maybe he should do a little bit of researchers or take a backseat and just say, hey, look I'm not the expert in this. I don't get it. But when he comes out and says things like this, it just shows that he just doesn't know what he's talking about. It's not an effective media exchange. Well, it has all the attributes. As a matter of fact, it has better attributes in

regards to media exchange than anything else does. You can't send ten cents across the internet, you can't do it. The dollar doesn't work gold doesn't work. You can't send gold over the internet, so it's more portable. Now, it's not as recognizable. More people take dollars across the world than they will bitcoin, but it's in the top five and that's only in twelve years. It's on its way,

so that's something to keep in mind. If you're just tuning in, you're listening to the Mark Moas Show, we're talking about some of the latest breaking news headlines that came out this week talking about bitcoin and what what some of these well known people like Charlie Munger and Ray dalily I had to say about it. I got a lot more to cover when I come back, some big stories on what's going on with China, the spy balloon, potential war, what's going on with FED, the economy, and more.

A lots of cover when I come back. You don't want to miss it, so don't go away. I'll be right back. All right, Welcome back. If you just tune in, you're listening to the Mark Moas Show. We're talking about the Decentralized Revolution, and we're going through some of the biggest news headlines this week, and there is plenty to go around now. The news story that seemed to dominate the news headlines this week were can you guess it? Putting the comments down below what you think it is?

Come on, it was the China spy balloon, right. It was all over the news. It was on every news website, on every news channel. Spy balloon, spy balloon, spy balloon. At Biden's State of the Union address this week, Rep. Marjorie from Florida was like carrying a balloon with her in there, just kind of mocking it. It's all over the place. A couple of things I want to talk about specifically in this that I don't think I haven't

seen anybody else talk about. But what I want to talk about is why why are we all talking about the spy balloon? Have you thought about that? Now? You may not realize this, but you think about whatever they want you to think about. You think about whatever the current thing is. So when they don't want you to talk about something, they don't talk about it. So, for example, the Twitter files. I talked about the Twitter files here. I think it was a massive piece of news and

everyone should have covered it, but yet nobody did. No news outlets except for Fox covered it at all. Because they don't want you to know about it. They don't want you to talk about it. So why do they decide to completely bury things that should be talked about, And then something trivial like a balloon and they talk about it all the time. Now, even more importantly, why are they talking about the balloon all the time right now? Now?

Is it because it was such a big threat? Is it because China was actually using this to spy on us and this was a threat to our national security and we have to crack down on China with this a balloon? So we let China spy on us, We let them bribe our professors in college, we let them steal our secrets out of the university, We let them steal all our companies ips over in China. We let them buy up all the farm land, we let them buy the strategic land next to all the military bases.

Listen to all of that, But the balloon is a big problem. And that's my point. There's way worse things that are being done every single day in the open that China is doing to damage the United States national security every single day, Massive things that never get one single mention. But you had a balloon harmless balloon. Now sure it's probably spine. Yeah, okay, so it's taking pictures and that's not good. I don't want that to happen. But they got da lights that do that. What's even

worse is the spies here. What about their own police that they're running inside the United States to police their own citizens in our country. There's way worse things that should be talked about. Now. The question that I will bring you back to is, so, why are we talking about the balloon? Why are we not talking about all these other things? Now? Big news this week I saw was that a town in North Dakota council unanimously votes

down Chinese company's local project. So City Council, North Dakota voted towards protecting national security and national sovereignty in just the latest move against taking a stand against the Chinese Communist Party the CCP attempting to purchase control of the United States. So Grand Forks, North Dakota got cheers from all the attendees that were chanting USA USA. They to prevent this Chinese company from moving ahead with plans to develop a corn mill on land that they had purchased

near Grand Forks. Air Force base. So the Chinese had already bought the land next to the Air Force base, a strategic military base. They spent two point three millions to take ownership of the three hundred acre plot twelve miles from the base, home to a top secret drone technology. This isn't just a base, this isn't one of our

strategic bases working on top secret drone technology. Now, the CCP was offering, you know, millions of dollars of tax revenue, two hundred jobs to the town, all these things, but the town said, no, we're going to shut that down. Okay, those are stories we should be talking about. Why are they acquiring strategic land next to our top secret drone technology, Why are they acquiring our best farm land, etc. But

we're not talking about that. You didn't hear about this story in Grand Forks, right, This is on small little news outlets. I had to dig this up under So why again are we talking about the balloon? Now? If you're asking me, I would say, well, they want us to think that China spying on us without really directing our attention to what's really going on. So then I would ask myself, well, why do they want us to get enraged about China spying on us. Well, so they

can get public sentiment to not like China. Well why would they want public sentiment to not like China. Well maybe if we want to continue to sanction China and potentially go to war with China, they're going to need the public to not like China. So would this be a way for them to build sentiment towards potentially going to war with China. You know, things are escalating pretty quick. Obviously, we have the whole Taiwan situation. President he wants to

take over Taiwan. You know, Biden and the US have said we will not let you take Taiwan. So we know that we're starting to build up a lot of tension right there. We have the Pentagon has announced now that we're moving military presence into the Philippines, trying to kind of get ready for this armed conflict in the Taiwan Straight. So there's lots of angling, There's lots of maneuvering that are being done with China between Taiwan, between

the Taiwan Straight things like that. We also see that as things between Russia and the US get more heated and more focused, China is also getting more heated and focused. And so we saw that Beijing, China is investing in more nuclear weapons. They're getting ready as well. It's not just the United States moving people over there. China is also now building up its nuclear weapons. So again, what's going on here? If China's investing in nuclear weapons, they're

investing in new long range missiles. They're not giving us any type of dialogue. There's no open communication, there's no transparent as to what they're doing. They know that NATO has been expanded in Europe and is looking to expand in the Indo Pacific region. So what's going on here? And like I said in my opinion, they're getting this ready for more war. Now, this should be a problem for everybody because, first of all, why are we continuing

to go into these wars? The fact that we have this potential nuclear war hanging over our heads already between US and Russia over Ukraine. The fact that we have one guy Biden or a group of people, however, you want to look out at the neo cons that have the right to drag us into a potential nuclear war that could put my kids lives in danger because of who controls CRIMEA. Do you even know where Crimea is on a map, and do you care who controls it?

Russia used to control it, now Ukraine controls it. Now Russia wants to control it again. What do you care? Do you care enough to put your kids and your grandkids and my grandkids lives in danger? But that's where we're app So this looks like more war rhetoric to me. I think that's why we're all hyped up on this balloon. Hopefully you have enough to see through that, But of course I'd love to hear your viewpoints on that. Hit me up on social media. I'd like to hear more

from some of you guys. Hit me up on social media at one Mark Moss. You can hit me up on Instagram or on Twitter, ask me a question, tag me in it, or let me know what you think about. This is the balloon being angled to get us ready to build sentiment against China, to get us ready for war. I'd like to hear what you think. If you're just tuning in, you're listening to the Mark mo Show, we're going through some of the biggest breaking news headlines. This

we can talk about the decentralized revolution. I had a lot more to cover when I come back. You don't want to miss it, all right, Welcome back. If you're just tune in, you're listening to the Mark Moa Show. We're talking about the decentralized revolution, talking about the way the world is changing right before our very eyes. We're talking about some of the latest breaking news headlines this

week to show us how this is going down. Of course, we look at it through the lens of politics, finance, and technology, because those are the three drivers, and we look at the where those three converge. Now, looking at the finance piece, we know that about every eighty years we have a financial revolution, the entire financial markets reset, and that's what we're witnessing. We're witnessing the end of a sovereign debt bubble. So all the big nations of

the world have taken on too much debt. They're in a massive bubble and they're all crashing right now. And that's where we're witnessing right now. And we can see, of course, the biggest central bank in the world, the US Federal Reserve, and the head of that, Jerome Powell, has been busy trying to talk down markets and all eyes that have been on the Fed, because the Feds have been hell bent on bringing the markets down. When I say the markets, I'm talking about the asset prices,

I'm talking about the asset prices. So you have to understand there's a big difference between the economy and the asset prices. So you saw in twenty twenty all the businesses were shut down, the whole world was shut down, but yet asset prices went to new all time highs. So we don't have to look at the asset prices and the economy together. And the FED has been hell bent on bringing asset prices down because they want you to feel broke, because if you feel broke, you don't

buy as many things. And if you don't buy as many things, their hope is that then prices or inflation comes back down. So the Fed's been hell bent on raising rates at the fastest rate in history to try to slow things down, and they've done a good job of bringing the markets down. The markets have come crashing down. The problem is that now we're at this point where the markets, the traders, the investors don't really believe the FED anymore. They don't believe the FED is capable of

doing what they're going to do. And I say capable because I think at least for me and I would think for most people, we believe that the FED and Jerome Powell means what he says. We believe that he's serious. We believe that he he believes it. So when he says that he's going to raise rates and keep them there for a long time, I think he believes it and he means that. But he also said that they were going to lower rates and they wouldn't raise them

for four years, and then they did after two. Now, when he said they wouldn't raise them for four years, I think he believed and meant that as well. But what happens is things change, conditions change, there's constraints, and they couldn't deal with this massive inflation, and so they were forced to raise rates. Inflation came on way faster, way harder, and ways way more sticky than they thought it was going to be. Remember, they kept saying its transitory, transitory, transitory,

which it wasn't. And so when it was found to be sticky and it wouldn't go away, they were forced to raise rates sooner than the four years they had predicted. And so now Jerome Pale's committed to it. He's committed to continuing to crush the markets, and he's content, and he's committed to taking rates high and leaving them for a long time. The problem is, even though we believe him, we understand that there's constraints that will keep him from

doing that. And so that's kind of where we're at, and we're already starting to see the signs of this being angled. There's a couple of signs to look at. I think one sign is that the government, the US government and the Treasury is at odds with the Federal Reserve,

and so those two have different interests. The Federal Reserve wants to protect the monetary system, that's the dollar and the banking system, while the government wants to of course, not go out of business, not go broken, not default on their debt. The US government wants to continue to buy votes through social spending and not go bankrupt. They don't care about the dollar, really, and they don't care about the monetary system. That's not that's not their viewpoint.

And so we have the Treasury being head by Janet Yellen, and we have the Fed head up by Jerome Powell, and they have different viewpoints, they have different goals and objectives. And throughout this interesting inflection point, and we've seen the government is starting to angle to force the Fed's hand. A couple things that happen. One, we saw the BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, went and change the calculation on CPI, which is the way that we measure inflation.

So if the FED is focused on bringing inflation down and they're going to commit to it until the inflation is backed down, well, the BLS the government just went and change the calculation, which just brings inflation down easy. We don't actually have to bring inflation down, let's just change the way we calculated. And that's exactly what they did, and that starts to push the Fed's hand. On top of that, Janet Yellen has been pivoting the treasury to

play with the treasury market without the FED involvement. Now this kind of leaves them stuck. And now we're starting to see the FED starting to come around this. And so what we saw is that the FED meeting just happened for January and they decided to raise interest rates only twenty five basis points, when they had originally been expecting a fifty point basis hike. So what does that mean. That means they're not pivoting, but they're slowing to a pause.

So as they're raising rates, a pivot would to me mean that they're now lowering rates. A pause means we're just gonna hold and we're gon we're gonna stay. We're wrapped. And so they decided to raise rates only twenty five basis points, and they said that there would be quote ongoing increases potentially, but because inflation has eased somewhat, they reserve the right to do more, but we'll see how it goes sort of thing. And so this is like

a softening. The FED really wants to get this two percent inflation target, but they're already well on their way. And I think we're a combination of the direction that we're already headed, which is heading down to two percent, in addition to the way that it's been recalculated now, I think it very clearly shows you that they're about to obtain their goal. And we can have that pivot if we look at some of the things that the

Fed said. A couple of things they talk about this thing called the terminal rate, and the terminal rate is how high do we need to raise the rates in order to get the markets or inflation to come down on its own. The problem is because inflation isn't like a light switch that can just be turned on and off. It takes a while, a long time for that inflation to come down. So how do they know that they

haven't already achieved the terminal rate? What if they've already achieved the terminal rate, meaning the rates high enough now to bring SPA inflation down. What if they've already achieved that rate, but they keep hiking anyway, Well, that could be bad. As a matter of fact, that's my base case. Most likely there will continue to go too far, just like they always go too far. Just like they lowered rates too low and they kept them too low for

too long. Now they probably raise them too high, and they probably keep them too high for too long, and they just go from breaking one thing to breaking the other, back and forth. And this is causing a lot of problems in the markets. It's also causing a lot of problems in the economy, and that's really where we want to look for things. A lot of people looking at the stock markets, but the stock markets are what we

call lagging indicators. They tell us what's already happened. What we want to look at is like the leading indicators, So we want to look at the debt markets. Then we want to look at like the Producers Index, how much the manufacturers are paying to produce things, and then eventually we can look at the CPI, and then we can look at the stock market. Right. But let's say,

for example, we're looking at the unemployment data. Right. Unemployment is also another lagging indicator because as an employer, the last thing I'm gonna want to do is let go of my employees. So my business is going to be bad for a long time. I can't get new debt, I can't expand I can't roll my debt over. My customer base is shrinking. I don't have enough money. I'm running out of money. Maybe I haven't paid my electricity

bill this month. I keep hoping things gonna get better, and they don't, and then finally I have to lay somebody off. But things have already been bad for a long time for me. And then I lay somebody off. Now that person might get thirty days, sixty days, ninety days of severance, so they don't even show up on the unemployment numbers for months after the business already started having a problem. And so when we start looking at

some of this economy data, it looks pretty bad. And it's one of the other reasons why I think the FED is going to continue to come off of this ease off of this and go into this pause reaction. If you're just tuning in and listening to the markmas Show, we're talking about the decentralized Revolution, talking about some of the latest breaking news headlines this week, and we got more. We have a big one. This story I'm super excited for because it's what free markets do. I'm gonna be

back with this story and more in a minute. Don't go away, all right, Welcome back. If you just tune in, you're listening to the Mark Moss Show, we're talking about the decentualized revolution and the way the world is changing and breaking some of the latest breaking news, some of the biggest news headlines this week, and one that is big and it's troublesome and it's worrisome and it bothers me.

But there's also another side to it that actually I'm happy about and it makes me hopeful and happy So what am I talking about. Well, I'm talking about the man Jordan Peterson, who is a very polarizing figure for a lot, meaning that people either love them or hate I'm like a magnet. One side attracts and one side pushes away. And that's sort of what Jordan Peterson is

in the news about this week. There's two big stories that are different, but they involve him, almost like if Jordan Peterson was the coin, and there's two sides to that.

The first one is something that's very troublesome, and it's also telling of where we are in the world today, and that is that basically, Jordan Peterson has had his medical license been threatened to be stripped away the practice of psychology, and Ontario regulates people basically their essential government organization with a managed to protect the public from this conduct,

all right, which is good, maybe they probably should. Now anyone anywhere in the world can levy a complaint to these regulatory bodies for any reason, regardless if they've ever had to direct contact with the person or anything doesn't matter, and the complaints can be deemed frivolous and dispensed with if they want. But if the college decides to move forward with it. They consider that a very serious move. As a matter of fact, it's so serious it's equivalent

to a lawsuit. And according to the Ontario College of Psychologists, they recommend actually that you get legal counsel if you actually get one of these, So it's as serious as a lawsuit, and the Ontario College of Psychologist recommends that you get legal counsel if you have that. Well, the Ontario College of Psychologists has levied multitude of lawsuits against Jordan Peterson since he started rising to a public figure

about six years ago. Now, he had zero in the twenty years that he was practicing as a psychologist, So when he was actually practicing as a psychologist seeing individual people patients, doing what his license provides for and being regulated by them, he had zero complaints. But now that he's not seen people anymore, now that he's just a public figure, now the levies are piling up, which is pretty weird, right, he hasn't seen any clients and his

treckerder has been good now. Jordan Peterson says that it's very difficult to communicate with as many people as he does and say anything of substance without rubbing at least a few of them the wrong way. So he's reaching I don't even know, tens of millions, potentially hundreds of millions of people on a regular basis. So when you're reaching hundreds of millions of people, and to his point, you're saying anything of substance, some people just aren't going

to like it. There's this meme. It's basically four pictures and it's like a quad, four different pictures, and the first picture is a man and a wife, a man and a man and a woman walking with a donkey, And then it's a man walking with a donkey and

the woman riding it. And then it's the woman riding it I'm sorry, walking with a man riding it, and then both of them riding And basically the gist of the meme is that both of them are walking next to the donkey and somebody, somebody's gonna go, what idiots, Why would they be walking when they have the donkey there? They should be riding the donkey. So somebody he has

a problem with that. I can't believe these idiots, right, So then there's a picture of the man walking with the donkey and letting the woman ride it, and somebody. When you read out of one hundred million people, someone is gonna go, what an idiot? Why would that man be walking when he has a donkey? He could be riding the donkey with the woman, or he should make

the woman walk. Someone's gonna say that. So then there's the opposite where the man's riding and the woman's walking, And then someone's gonna say why would that man be riding instead of letting the woman ride? And then finally they're both riding the donkey, and someone's like, how cruel these people are putting all this weight on a donkey. They should be walking. The point is is that no matter what they do in that situation, somebody is going

to criticize it. And when you reach one hundreds of millions of people to what he says, if you say anything of substance, you're gonna rub a couple of people the wrong way. It's just the way it is. And so what since when did people become so sensitive? Now? We know when? In this modern world that we live in. Now, I can tell you because I traveled a lot to Mexico, Central America and other third world countries. They don't care about these stupid social issues like we do here in

the US. These are like made up problems. When you've solved every other problem in society, then you have to invent new problems to be worried about. They don't care about that in those countries, I can tell you that. But for his crimes of rubbing a few people the wrong way, he's been sentenced to a course of mandatory social media communication training with the colleges quote unquote experts. Now, he says, this is not a scientific or a clinical

specialty of any standing. There's been no training at this. He's supposed to do it at his own expense for an undisclosed length of time. Just whenever they think that being his training has been good, then they'll let him out. And when those re educators, those experts have convinced themselves that he's learned his lesson, and we don't even know what that is. Now, if he agrees to this, then he has to admit that he's been unprofessional in his

conduct and he has said mean things. He retweeted a comment made by the Conservative leader Pierre Polivier about the unnecessary severity of COVID lockdowns. He retweeted a comment by a political leader in Canada. He criticized the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, he criticized other people in politics. How dare he do that? So that's where we're at today. They want him to either stand up and publicly admit that he made a mistake and apologize and subject himself

to go through re education to keep his license. Now, this is what they do in communist countries when there's times of change, right when there's a cultural revolution going on. They bring the people out and they make them public spectacles and they make them publicly apologize to everybody to basically set a precedent for everybody. And that's what they're trying to do. They want him to publicly humiliate himself and apologize for this. That's the state of the world.

Out On the flip side of the coin with Jordan Peterson is that we have the World that Economic Forum that's pushing these things, so equality for all and equity and all those fancy words, and the World Ecomic Forum, which is the an NGEO non government organization of non elected leaders who are somehow kind of controlling, not so

much controlling, but certainly influencing the world. Klaus Schwab brags about installing all these politicians across all these governments, and he has all these corporation and business leaders there and they're using this public private partnership and he's doing all these things to influence politics and policies. And now Jordan Peterson announced that he's going to open up another one

to counterbalance that. So he announced the formation of an international consortium that would serve as a kind of populist alternative to the elitist World Ecomic Forum. So a populist alternative, so it's one for the people instead of the elites. He wants to have the people have a voice and to provide a counter valian force against globalist aims and narratives.

He laid all this out on appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast, telling him if there's an inaugural event it's being planned for this year twenty twenty three, sometime in October or November in London. About two thousand businesses, cultural political figures will be invited to take part in the consortium, which puts it almost on the same scale as the WEF,

which is about twenty seven hundred leaders. He says they don't have an official name yet, but it's going to be to provide quote, an alternative vision of the future and an alternative to that kind of apocalyptic narrative. And what I love about this is this is what free markets do. If you don't like what the WEF is doing, if you don't like what they're trying to achieve and what they're teaching, then you have the right to go and create a competitor to that, a counterbalance. And that's

exactly what Jordan Peterson is doing now. Who gives him the right to do that. Nobody gives him the right. He gives himself the right. And if you want the right, you can do the same thing too. Nobody stood up and asked Cloud Schwab to do this, and nobody's standing up and asking Jordan Peterson to do it. You can take part of it, or you can abstain from it. But either way, this could have ramifications and you should know about it. I am, for one, happy about it.

Not that I'm saying this is gonna be the best thing in the world, but I'm happy to have a counter balance. If you're just tune in, you're listening to the Mark Mos show, we're talking about the decentralized revolution and as globalization is breaking apart now we have Jordan Peterson coming in to push it off the proverbial cliff. That's what I got for you today. Thanks so much for listening. Until next time,