July 8, 2023 - Bannon's War Room
48:53
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Pray for our enemies, because we're going medieval on these people. | |
| I got a free shot at all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big lie? | ||
|
unidentified
|
MAGA Media. | |
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | |
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| I stood up to China like no administration has ever done before. | ||
| Bringing hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into our treasury from China and when no other president had gotten 10 cents from China, that not one other president before me got anything from China except ripped off. | ||
| Our country was being ripped off. | ||
| And when China targeted our farmers, you know about this very well because you were targeted at a level that nobody had ever seen before. | ||
| I gave those same farmers $28 billion straight out of the tariffs that I was taking from China. | ||
| I went to our Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue. | ||
| I said, Sonny, how much damage has China done to our farmers? | ||
| I said, you got to come back with a number. | ||
| He came back. He said, it's about $28 billion. | ||
| I said, well, we're going to give the farmers $28 billion. | ||
| Right out of the pockets of China. | ||
| You haven't heard those things, you know, because the fake news doesn't like talking about them. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Look at all those. They don't like talking. | |
| We will bring down interest rates and appoint a special team to attack the high price of fertilizer and other farm products, which is happening again because of energy. | ||
| Drill baby drill. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's what we're going to do. We're going to drill baby drill. | |
| Grill, baby, grill. | ||
| We have more than any other liquid gold. | ||
| We have more than any other country in the world. | ||
| Nobody has even close. | ||
| We have more than Saudi Arabia, more than Russia. | ||
| Hey, Peter K. Navarro in for the Admiral Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| It's a great pleasure to be with you, Posse. | ||
| We had a barn burner out in Iowa today. | ||
| As you may know, Iowa is literally the first on the calendar. | ||
| It's not a primary, it's a caucus. | ||
| You don't have a vote in Iowa of all the people. | ||
| It's a really strange little beast out there, the way it works. | ||
| And in my judgments, it's a little too subject to manipulation. | ||
| But I think Donald Trump certainly laid down his marker as to how in his first four years, that first term, he basically had the backs of farmers. | ||
| And the story he was telling was really interesting. | ||
| The bigger story there was when the Trump tariffs came into play to offset the Chinese economic aggression, what the communist Chinese did strategically to get us to back down was to target some of the things we exported to them with agriculture being really important, particularly because Iowa is such an important state in presidential elections. | ||
| And what we immediately did because we had anticipated this step is create a program that would compensate farmers for any lost revenues from exports to China. | ||
| And the funny part is, like Sonny Perdue, the secretary of agriculture, which the boss mentioned, he wasn't exactly wild about doing that. | ||
| He kind of grumbled and moaned, and he and the ambassador to China, who was also from Iowa, kind of fought this rearguard action against the Trump tariffs to begin with. | ||
| He never was quite on the program. | ||
| And the boss and I had to drag him kicking and screaming to do what he did. | ||
| But Trump was there, had the backs of the Iowa farmers, and they were some of the staunchest supporters of the tariffs themselves because they had been at the front lines of this communist Chinese aggression. | ||
| The other thing I like in that cold open is the connection between That President Trump draws very clearly between rising agricultural and food prices because of the cost of fertilizer and the price of energy, which is a key component of said fertilizer. | ||
| And this is something that the Biden administration simply won't understand or doesn't understand that when you lose strategic energy dominance, you not only drive up the price of gasoline and home heating oil, you also drive up the price of grain and beef and pork and chicken and all of that. | ||
| Trump gets it and he gets it better than anybody out there running for president right now, which is I think the reason why he's gonna run the table in the Republican primary and give a thumping to Joe Biden. | ||
| But Biden, a lot of what we're going to talk about in this whole hour is to dig deep into what Biden is now touting as so-called Bidenomics and contrast that with the Trumpian approach that we actually took. | ||
| And the way we're going to do this, and it's a beautiful thing, is I've got a very special guest. | ||
| I'm not sure he's been on the show before, but he was one of my brothers in arms in the White House. | ||
| He was the last of three chairs for the Council of Economic Advisers, and he assumed that role at a critical time in 2020 during the height of the pandemic. | ||
| And he and I worked a lot on how to make sure everybody had their ventilators and PPE and all of that stuff. | ||
| But more importantly, even at that early stage, we understood that there was a stagflation crisis that may be coming because of how the pandemic was affecting our supply chains and how we were We had a whole set of actions developed that would have brought a lot of our manufacturing home to cure that. | ||
| We couldn't get it through the Mark Meadows gauntlet. | ||
| We fought the good fight. | ||
| Some of it got in, but we left some of that on the table. | ||
| But Tyler Goodspeed is this gentleman's name. | ||
| He's out at the Hoover Institute. | ||
| In my judgment, he's one of the I'm going to welcome Tyler in the program. | ||
| I want to just kind of begin to explore Bidenomics, what Biden is trying to sell that as, but what it really means and how we contrast that with what we did in the Trump administration, what Trump's going to do in 2025. | ||
| So Tyler, my buddy, welcome to the Royal Room, sir. | ||
| How are you today? Doing pretty well, thanks. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I liked that intro. | |
| We still bear some of the scars. | ||
| Yeah, it was an interesting environment there within the White House. | ||
| A lot of cross-currents. | ||
| But what I loved about working with you is you got it. | ||
| You got it not just at the macro level, the kind of talking Keynesian tax policy and all that, but you understood that. | ||
| Better than just about anybody else in that White House, the importance of bringing our supply chains and manufacturing home. | ||
| So let's get right into it. | ||
| Bidenomics, when you see that term and you hear the White House talk about it, what kind of cognitive dissonance do you get from what they're telling us and what you're actually seeing? | ||
|
unidentified
|
So I think there are two... | |
| Sources of cognitive dissonance here. | ||
| One is more conceptual, and then the other is the facts on the ground. | ||
| So the way the Biden White House talk about Bidenomics, I mean, you'd think that this was some sort of transformational presidency, some sort of transformational economic administration, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who like FDR, dislike FDR, like his policies, dislike his policies. | ||
| That was a transformational presidency. | ||
| You had new programs created, you had Social Security, you had deposit insurance, you had new securities regulation. | ||
| That was a real economic agenda. | ||
| Like it, dislike it. | ||
| As far as I can discern, the essence of Bidenomics is just spend a lot. | ||
| Spend a lot. So they did a $1.9 trillion Just transfer payment in March of 2021. | ||
| They did a $300 billion so-called Chips and Science Act of a bunch of subsidies for favored industries. | ||
| They did a $1.2 trillion so-called infrastructure bill, the majority of which wasn't actually about infrastructure. | ||
| And then they do the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which It has some tax cuts, some tax increases that are scheduled to kick in later in the decade, but a lot of uncapped spending up front, which the latest estimates suggest could be as much as $1.2 trillion over 10 years. | ||
| So that's the conceptual disconnect, is that this isn't some sort of transformational thing. | ||
| It's just a lot of deficit finance spending. | ||
| And then on the ground, Look, we have low potential output right now. | ||
| We have growth on its way below 2%. | ||
| There is a non-trivial probability that we get a couple quarters of negative growth. | ||
| We actually saw that already in early 2022. | ||
| And we have inflation sort of settling out at a level of about 4%. | ||
| That's double the Fed's target. | ||
| I don't think that doesn't strike me as an economic record of which I would be proud and touting this new thing as Bidenomics. | ||
| Why in your judgment, Tyler, is inflation now so persistent? | ||
| I talk about its two components and the way I see it. | ||
| You got the demand pull, which is too much Bidenomics chasing too few goods. | ||
| But then you also have the cost push element. | ||
| The loss of our strategic energy dominance and the very significant secular rise in the price of petroleum products. | ||
| In your judgment, that 4% inflation rate now is important because the Fed's target is 2%, and they're not going to lower interest rates until that gets there. | ||
| Why is it so persistent now, and when do you think... | ||
| It might get there, and will they have to break the backs of American workers to get there? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I think you're right, Peter, that energy was a big part of the initial surge in inflation. | |
| There were two big components to the early surge in inflation. | ||
| One is you get a deficit-financed fiscal stimulus in March of 2021 equal to 10% of the annual output of the entire United States economy. | ||
| That is a ton of stimulus. | ||
| At a time when the supply side of the economy was still recovering, we had 1.5 million people had taken early retirement. | ||
| So this was a lot of gasoline to throw in the US economy. | ||
| And then at the same time, they say, no more domestic energy production, no more drilling, no more oil and gas exploration. | ||
| And you can't put that cap back in the bag. | ||
| Once you said, look, this is a real risk, a regulatory risk, For domestic energy producers, it's tough to say, oh, yeah, but down the road, maybe we'll ease up, or you'll get a Republican administration. | ||
| Donald Trump will be president again, and he'll reverse this stuff. | ||
| Well, there's still a possibility that another Democratic administration comes in and does the same stuff again. | ||
| So I think that's the initial shock, was the demand and the destruction of domestic energy supply. | ||
| But in terms of the persistence, I actually have a paper I've been working on that looks at who does a better job predicting inflation over the long run. | ||
| And it turns out consumers do a really good job predicting inflation once inflation gets above about 3.5% because they start paying attention to it. | ||
| And so once those expectations of inflation get embedded in price setting, in wage negotiations, in household expectations, Inflation can be really sticky, and I think that's what we're seeing now is inflation expectations of 4%, 4.5% have become pretty entrenched in a lot of folks' outlooks. | ||
| So this is a really important point. | ||
| We're going to come right back to it after the break, which is now just about upon us. | ||
| But Posse, the idea here now is that once inflation genie is out of the bottle... | ||
| People expect high inflation. | ||
| Therefore, when they go to negotiate things like wages, they're going to demand higher wages, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. | ||
| And ergo, we get the wage-price spiral, which triggered this picture in my background. | ||
| Can't see it on the podcast, but it's what makes things so persistent. | ||
| All right, Peter K. Navarro talking with the great Tyler Goodspeed from my White House days. | ||
| We'll be back. We're breaking down Bidenomics for the posse today on Steve Bannon's War Room. | ||
| We'll be right back. | ||
| Great to be with you here in the posse. | ||
| We have as our very special guest my old colleague in the Trump White House, the chairman of the economic advisors within the White House. | ||
| And just so you know, that's probably one of the three most important jobs In the White House, you got the National Security Advisor, which is key, the National Economic Council Director, and then the Council of Economic Advisors. | ||
| That's kind of like the triumvirate. | ||
| And the CEA, as they call it, is responsible for doing all of the hard analytics to support the president. | ||
| So President Trump would, you know, call Tyler, get Tyler to go over there. | ||
| He needs this. Tyler and his shop gets it done. | ||
| And he always got it done. All right. | ||
| So, Tyler, the conundrum here that Bidenomics has got us into is a world of not just inflation, but stagflation, because we're performing at a growth rate lower than we should be. | ||
| And that's classic stagflation. | ||
| And you described the process of in the initial thrust of the Biden regime, we were having these massive spending bills and a collapse of our strategic energy dominance and a spike in oil prices. | ||
| which raises the inflation rate and now has built in what economists call inflationary expectations among consumers and workers. | ||
| And the question, I guess, is How do you break that inflationary expectations cycle, and to break it in the Biden way, who's it going to hurt, and how would you do it alternatively in a Trump world that would be more favorable to, for example, black, brown, and blue-collar workers? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, and just to underscore The magnitude of the shock that hit inflation expectations in 2021 with this massive demand stimulus, there have been only a few instances in US history when you get an inflation surprise that's more than three standard deviations, | |
| to speak in wonky terms, more than three standard deviations above sort of a rolling five-year average of past inflation. | ||
| The first quarter of 1966, the second quarter of 1973, the fourth quarter of 1973, the first quarter of 1974. | ||
| So remember, this is the Arab oil embargo during the 1973 war. | ||
| And then 2021 Q2. That was... | ||
| The shock that hit in the first half of 2021 because of Bidenomics. | ||
| And that was both the overspending and the oil price? | ||
| The energy shock, yeah. | ||
|
unidentified
|
In terms of getting out of it, yeah, this is the problem. | |
| So if workers' expectations are that prices are going to keep rising at sort of 4% to 4.5%, they're going to want- At least that much in wage increases, because otherwise, they're losing ground in real inflation-adjusted terms. | ||
| And actually, over the past two years, that is what has happened, that in inflation-adjusted terms, wages have not been keeping up with inflation. | ||
| So if you have expectations in wage inflation at 4%, 4.5%, and you want to get down to 2%, either Businesses, and that includes small businesses, medium-sized businesses, need to endure a protracted period of prices rising much more slowly than wages, or the Fed has to tighten even more to basically break demand, break the labor market, so that workers accept slower wage growth. | ||
| It's a tough trade. | ||
| And it's all the more difficult. | ||
| I mean, this looks a lot like the 1970s in a lot of ways because it's stagflation, inflation, slow growth. | ||
| What's different here is this really low unemployment rate, which would seem to give the workers the bargaining power they're going to need to make the wage demands to at least keep pace with inflation. | ||
| And they should be able to keep pace with inflation out of equity and fairness. | ||
| Am I wrong about that? | ||
| Does this low unemployment rate make the persistence all the more persistent? | ||
|
unidentified
|
So it is true that by almost any measure, this is a very tight labor market. | |
| And that is why we have seen wage growth stay above 4%. | ||
| And for those who are switching jobs, that's above 6%, even as inflation has come down. | ||
| So there is some labor strength here. | ||
| I think a key difference between now and the 1970s is that we have a much more atomized labor market today. | ||
| We don't have the same strength of collective bargaining that prevailed in the 1970s. | ||
| So we're starting to see a little bit of this, that UPS threatening strike action. | ||
| We saw with railroad workers last year, threatening strike action before the Biden administration basically You know, toss them to the wolves. | ||
| And other areas where there is still private unionization, you're starting to see some labor exercise of muscle, but we just don't have the same strength in labor bargaining that I think prevailed in the 1970s. | ||
| All right, let's switch gears now to one other topic I think is worth going over. | ||
| You mentioned all these different spending bills, infrastructure, green, whatever. | ||
| And we have, as you've observed, a very low unemployment rate. | ||
| So when you're throwing a bunch of money at chips, at infrastructure, and everything like that, as Bidenomics is doing... | ||
| Does this look like somewhere where they're going to create a lot more jobs, or is this more of a zero-sum game where workers will shift out of whatever they're doing now, which presumably is the best, given the market signals, into something else that's run by government subsidies? | ||
| How does that game play out over time? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, it's a really good point, and I think there are two There are two ways it plays out. | |
| Because as you say, when you have unemployment at 3.5%, 3.6%, when you have mortgage rates at 6.5%, other interest rates at multi-decade highs, that to me says scarcity. | ||
| We have a tight labor market. | ||
| We have companies competing for capital. | ||
| We have Secretary Janet Yellen Is trying to fill the Treasury General account with over a trillion dollars in new borrowing. | ||
| So you've got a Treasury Department that's competing with private sector borrowers for savings. | ||
| So that's sort of a scarcity world. | ||
| So either you're going to get the federal government projects just... | ||
| Pulling people from one activity to another, or you're going to get more price pressure. | ||
| And I think this is a key difference between sort of a Trump administration approach and a Biden administration approach is, you know, the Biden administration is just throwing a lot of cash at a supply constrained economy. | ||
| All right, finish this off then. | ||
| You've got about three minutes here. | ||
| What would you be telling Donald Trump to do and what would he be doing now to deal with this chessboard that we have? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's start with the low-hanging fruit. | |
| Domestic energy production. | ||
| There's no such thing as a free lunch, but there are some cheaper lunches. | ||
| And I think just resetting the clock to where domestic energy regulation was I think? | ||
| Two would be to work to make permanent the tax provisions, most of the tax provisions in the 2017 tax law. | ||
| A lot of those, for budgetary reasons, were scheduled to sunset in 2025. | ||
| So I think making those permanent would help to incentivize a lot of older workers to maybe come back into the workforce, at least part-time. | ||
| Some of the investment provisions. | ||
| So we had Full expensing of new equipment investment. | ||
| So if you bought a tractor, if you bought a drill in the United States, you could immediately deduct the cost of that investment from your tax liability. | ||
| That started phasing out on January 1st of this year. | ||
| So I think restoring provisions like that would be the three off the top of my head. | ||
| And Trump gets in January of 2025. | ||
| This isn't an easy ship to turn around, is it? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, I mean, that's why, as I said, it's a relatively cheap lunch to reverse the Biden executive orders on energy production, but that regulatory risk is now out there, because there's always the probability that a future Democratic president will, once again, implement all these executive orders. | |
| So I think you look historically... | ||
| And historically, rig counts in the United States would very closely track the price of West Texas Intermediate Crude. | ||
| That relationship broke down in 2021, and it hasn't quite recovered. | ||
| Were you disappointed that the House Republicans weren't able to get more clawbacks on the Biden spending in the debt limit negotiations? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I was, in part because this would be a fourth piece of advice for President Trump term two is, of course, the number one thing we need to do is get inflation back to target, ideally without breaking the labor market. | |
| And the things that I just mentioned, the labor force participation with extending the tax cuts, incentivizing domestic investment in equipment and machinery, those would help on the inflation front. | ||
| But also clawing back some of this deficit finance blowout that the Biden administration has engaged in for the past two and a half years. | ||
| That would help on the inflation front. | ||
| Tyler Goodspeed, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers at the Trump White House. | ||
| Tyler, thanks for taking the time out. | ||
| If anybody needs to get in touch with him, he's not a social media guy. | ||
| Good for him. But you can go to the Hoover Institute website.com. | ||
| And send a little note. | ||
| Peter Navarro in for Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| When we come back, we're going to have a nice little cold open for you and continuing this theme on Bidenomics. | ||
| We'll be right back. | ||
| Stay there, posse. Peter K. Navarro in for the Admiral Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Hey, look, this morning's show was really cool. | ||
| If you were watching it as opposed to listening on the podcast, you could have seen the heat-seeking missile Mike Lindell and his native element doing like a real-time tour of the MyPillow factory, including the original place where it all began and kind of, I guess, the museum they have within it. | ||
| And if there's a truly American story of manufacturing that rivals some of the GMs and others of this world, it really is Mike Lindell and MyPillow. | ||
| And look, I buy a lot of Mike Lindell's products on MyPillow.com. | ||
| I've got the towels, I've got the sheets. | ||
| The pillows, the 2.0, I mean, how do you make a better pillow? | ||
| Well, he managed to do it. | ||
| I'd buy that stuff even if they were bad products because it's really important to support Lindell. | ||
| He's just under siege from the bad guys, to be honest. | ||
| But he makes great products, so just go check him out. | ||
| You can use the promo code WARROOM and get these incredible discounts. | ||
| But it's MyPillow.com. | ||
| Now, what I want to do for you next is, as you know, I have this substack, peternevar.substack.com, with a podcast. | ||
| And what I try to do, like, every Friday is do kind of, like, economics kind of themed thing. | ||
| And what I want to do is show you kind of the short video from that. | ||
| It's a cold, cold open. | ||
| You can see kind of what we're trying to do here is short hits, What I'm trying to do politically, to be very candid, is to counteract what is now a Biden offensive. | ||
| He's going out and touting Biden economics as if it were something good when polls show that a third of the country... | ||
| It's all that supports his economy right now. | ||
| So what we're going to do in this section is get to the bottom of Bidenomics. | ||
| And let's start off with Memorex here and see what we got. | ||
| Hey, Peter DeVar here with today's Substack and podcast with Joe Biden out on the campaign trail pitching Bidenomics as the best thing since sliced bread. | ||
| I want to give you a little dose of reality. | ||
| So here we go. | ||
| Bidenomics equals stagflation and a bleak American future. | ||
| Bidenomics equals stagflation. | ||
| That's America's sober economic reality after more than two and a half years of a Joe Biden presidency potmarked by profligate government spending, soaring interest and mortgage rates, a precipitous loss of strategic energy dominance, a southern border invasion, a new and expensive endless war, and a rapidly expanding trade deficit. | ||
| Stagflation is a tax crueler than inflation alone, which eats away at our purchasing power. | ||
| I'm going to walk you through this, what I'm trying to do here. | ||
| We start this off where Bidenomics equals stagflation. | ||
| That is the message, because that's what Bidenomics is. | ||
| What I try to do in succinct terms there is kind of explain what Bidenomics is in shorthand. | ||
| And what it is, is basically you've got this massive overspending fiscally. | ||
| So you've got expansionary Keynesian fiscal policy, which is excessive. | ||
| That's Bidenomics. You've got the tight... | ||
| Contractionary monetary policy to fight the inflation. | ||
| That's Bidenomics. | ||
| You have the loss of strategic energy dominance, which is the cost-push inflation that arises because, as Tyler Goodspeed said in the last segment, we're just not allowing our oil and gas sector to thrive as it once did. | ||
| We got the invasion on the southern border. | ||
| That's binomics. | ||
| And economically, what that does is it drives down the nominal and real wages of black, brown, and blue-collar Americans. | ||
| And we have this incipient new endless war after Afghanistan and Iraq. | ||
| We're starting up in Ukraine. | ||
| And what that's doing budget-wise is draining the The tax dollars from us over there instead of here and draining our arsenal at the Pentagon. | ||
| So that's all in the first paragraph of the thing. | ||
| And then I made it clear there's this thing that says inflation is the cruelest tax. | ||
| Well, actually, stagflation is crueler because you not only got the inflation part of it, but you also have the recession part of it. | ||
| All right. So let's Continue the clip now, Denver, if we can. | ||
| And I'll keep stopping and starting this thing a little bit. | ||
| Go ahead. As the 2024 presidential election approaches, Bidenomics is conjuring up the ghost of a 1970s stagflation past that ended in a landslide victory by the Republican Ronald Reagan over Democrat Jimmy Carter. | ||
| In the final 1980 presidential debate, with polls surprisingly close given the grim economy, candidate Reagan asked the American people, are you better off today than you were four years ago? | ||
| Bad question, and its obvious no answer triggered a decisive break in undecided voters to the Reagan camp. | ||
| Will this Reagan-Carter pass be prologue to a resounding Biden defeat? | ||
| The answer to this question must begin with this observation. | ||
| Biden's Democrat Party is supposed to be the party of America's working classes and wage earners. | ||
| Yet, American labor is now bearing the heaviest burden of Bidenomics. | ||
| This burden is most evident in the mostly downward trajectory of real wages, which measure actual or nominal wages adjusted for inflation. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Get ready. | ||
| Okay. Right now. | ||
| Okay, so let's unpack that. | ||
| So, what's very clear from Bidenomics is that workers are bearing the burden of this. | ||
| And I was actually astonished when I calculated that one statistic. | ||
| Use that, please. | ||
| You've got Biden in office for about 900 days, and almost 700 of those days, we've had real wages falling, okay, because the increase in what's called nominal wages, once you adjust them for inflation, becomes like a negative, okay? | ||
| And over this whole period of Biden being in office, we've had a 3% drop in real wages. | ||
| So people across this country are getting poorer. | ||
| So that's kind of like the big picture. | ||
| Now what I'm going to do next is break that down and show how even as the real wages have been going down, The cost of just about everything, particularly for low- and middle-income people, has been going up. So Denver, let's resume the clip here. | ||
| Against this backdrop of falling real wages, energy prices have skyrocketed. | ||
| From truckers and Uber drivers to commuters and flyover country ranchers and farmers, the pain of a nearly 50 percent rise in gasoline prices has spread far and wide. | ||
| Meanwhile, it's bundle-up time in people's own homes as home heating oil has jumped 36%. | ||
| In the Marie Antoinette Let Them Eat Cake category, Bidenomics has also delivered a 16% increase in milk prices, a 25% increase in beef prices, and a whopping 82% increase in egg prices. | ||
| As for gimme shelter, home prices have risen 32%, while rents have risen 15%, and it now costs 21% more to keep the electricity on. | ||
| So how has capital fared compared to labor? | ||
| A bit better, but not exactly good. | ||
| Here, any lag in capital performance is important, not just to Wall Street. | ||
| America's Main Street pension systems need robust market returns to stay solvent over time. | ||
| Since Biden's inauguration, the S&P 500 index, the broadest measure of capital performance, has risen 16%. | ||
| While that may sound robust, this single-digit annual improvement lags behind the historical double-digit annual average of the last 20 years. | ||
| It's far worse for the tech-laden NASDAQ. Its return has been nearly flat in the Bidenomics era, about 2%. | ||
| So, okay, so I would love it if you folks in posse land could internalize all of those statistics, because in my judgment, I'd like to deputize you today, | ||
| just like Steve always does, is we've got to go out and explain the To the American people using the receipts, the statistics that we talk about to explain just how bad things are. | ||
| So remember, real wages have been going down three quarters of the time during Biden's term. | ||
| At the same time, we've got gasoline up. | ||
| We've got home heating oil up. | ||
| We've got gas. | ||
| Eggs, butter, cheese, beef, all of that stuff's going up. | ||
| And then, look, it's like, how do you cope with the kinds of increases in home prices and rents My gosh, it's like home prices are just... | ||
| I mean, who can afford their first home anymore? | ||
| I mean, how does that filter down to our millennials and household formation? | ||
| Will they have kids? Will they do that? | ||
| No, they'll stay and be in Mark Zuckerberg's metaverse the whole time because of bionomics. | ||
| So what's really... | ||
| What's essential here is the final point I'm going to make. | ||
| I'm not going to play it for it. I'm just going to talk about it. | ||
| It's like what's going on here as Biden throws more and more money for a political win in 2024. | ||
| I mean, he's trying to bribe you. | ||
| He's trying to do this stimulus will give us like a sugar high. | ||
| That's his whole strategy. | ||
| What that's doing is building up what we call the debt-to-GDP ratio, right? | ||
| And right now, that's about 120%. | ||
| It should be down to 50%, but the higher it gets, the more money, the more tax dollars have to go to pay off the debt, which is mostly to foreigners, and the less goes to you for education, transportation, health care, national defense, and all that stuff. | ||
| Guess what? The debt-to-GDP ratio under Bidenomics is forecast by the Congressional Budget Office to go to, take a guess, almost 200%. | ||
| That will crush this country. | ||
| So Biden economics is stagflation, but it's also really a Hobbesian existence, For the young and old alike as we move forward. | ||
| And we've got to be prepared to fight back politically. | ||
| All right, Peter K. Navarro in for Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| When we come back, we're going to go to the great state of Arizona and talk with a guy from Gateway Pundit who broke one of the most remarkable stories that comes out of that cesspool otherwise known as Arizona. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We'll be right back, stay here. | |
| you It felt good. You have been at this for 12 years. | ||
| My country tis of thee Why are you doing it? | ||
| Slave land of liberty Because God's children are not for sale The way I see It is the fastest-growing international crime network that the world has ever seen. | ||
| For Homeland Security, you know we can't go off rescuing Honduran kids in Colombia. | ||
| This job tears you to pieces. | ||
| And this is my one chance to put those pieces back together. | ||
| And yet, somehow, you have failed to bring me one real-world lead. | ||
| It's over ten. | ||
| Close up and come back home. | ||
| So you quit your job and you go and rescue those kids. | ||
| Let freedom ring. | ||
| Let freedom ring. | ||
| South of that river is all rebel territory. | ||
| No one goes in. | ||
| Don't shoot! | ||
| What if this was your daughter? | ||
| So, she's gone. | ||
| Hear that? | ||
| that. | ||
| you Oh, yeah! | ||
| That's the sound of freedom. | ||
| Sound of Freedom is one of those films that can legitimately change this world. | ||
| So we want to ignite a fire in audiences and open their eyes to the dark reality of millions of children that need our help. | ||
| Let's make this film a historic event and a start at the end of child trafficking. | ||
| Theatres across this country are already selling out. | ||
| Pre-order your tickets today and you can send the message that God's children are no longer for sale. | ||
| Peter and Kay Navarro in for the Admiral Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Look, July 4th in the afternoon, I watched The Sound of Freedom in a movie theater. | ||
| I took the call to action seriously from the war room. | ||
| And it was essential that I go and see that film and support that film. | ||
| And if you want to do that, you can go to angel.com forward slash... | ||
| Freedomangel.com forward slash freedom. | ||
| And the importance of this movie is that it focuses on one extremely human aspect of the border invasion that we are now undergoing. | ||
| We talk a lot about on the War Room how open borders import A lot of illiterate, cheap labor which drive down American wages. | ||
| We talk a lot on The War Room about how an open border has invited everything from Islamic terrorists to communist Chinese secret agents and military personnel into our country. | ||
| And we've talked, and I'm guilty of this, I suppose, Rather abstractly about how it's a sheer numbers game that when you have two million or more illegals come across the border, you know that there's going to be a certain percentage of burglars, | ||
| robberies, rapes, homicides, and other types of crimes committed by a small number of a large number, but that small number is a lot of crime. | ||
| What The Sound of Freedom does is take one just crushing aspect, child trafficking, and really amplifies that story for us. | ||
| Maybe I was not paying enough attention at the beginning. | ||
| But the fact of the matter that this was a true story, that the guy was actually, Jim Caviezel's character was actually based on real events, just blew my mind. | ||
| I mean, that guy, I think his name's Tim Ballard. | ||
| He's got to be an American hero. | ||
| So, Sound of Freedom, look, we're up against the Tom Cruise... | ||
| Latest and some of these other blockbusters. | ||
| I know when I wrote my two Trump books, I was denied being on the New York Times bestseller list despite outselling all the other books. | ||
| So they're going to try to suppress the sound of freedom for the same reason. | ||
| What kinds of reasons doesn't fit their narrative and their ideology, but go see it and go help other people see it because you can do that. | ||
| Okay, so look, you got to stay here for the next hour because Steve Bannon is going to interview Yale professor Harvey Risch who along with I think Peter McCullough and others submitted A paper to this thing called the Lancet, which internationally is... | ||
| At least it used to be the most important medical journal in the world until the pandemic rolled around. | ||
| And I know this journal well because there's a guy named Peter Horton who runs the damn thing. | ||
| He should have been canned long ago for some of the crimes he committed against science, including... | ||
| Taking the unprecedented step of an editorial in the Lancet, a scientific journal against Trump, number one, but mostly number two, he allowed a hit piece on hydroxychloroquine to be published, which falsely said that hydroxy caused death. | ||
| And Horton had to retract that article. | ||
| It was like a huge international scandal. | ||
| But by then, the CNNs and MSNBCs had run with the story, and it played a key role in killing hydroxychloroquine, which could have saved millions of lives worldwide. | ||
| I know I was there. | ||
| It's always a pleasure to sit in for Steve, Peter Navarro, For Stephen K. Bannon, you can follow me at peternavarro.substack.com, peternavarro.substack.com. | ||
| I'm trying to provide you the best in the economy, communist China, and, of course, all things Donald Trump 2024. | ||
| Stay tuned. Stay here. |
Export Selection