They send out to other countries we’ve never really seen so much reliance. There’s always been international trade as far back as the days of the silk road. However, the reliance on it was not the same as what we see today. That theory that so long and I’m spacing on what exactly it’s called Chris. If it rings a bell in your head, like throw it in the chat real quick.
But please, oh, also throw up SES. To his second comment. He’s so right. And I, I’m gonna, I’m gonna call this out in a second too. Yes, all you white people who call yourself Caucasian, stole it from my people, by the way, because the caucus mountains are in Iran and being Caucasian means you are from that region of the world.
So Caucasian does not mean white skin. You Anglo acks in motherfuckers. Sorry. That was aggressive, but I, I love that. Thank you se for pointing that out there is an economic theory though, that as we become more reliant on one another, we are less likely to wage war because we stand to benefit by being in business with one another.
It was, that was one of the largest economic factors into why we continue to trade with China. Despite the fact that China militarized themself during this growth period. I think there’s a valid argument on both sides of it that should Iran enter the fray of international trade. They may decide to use this excess wealth to militarize themself, further expand their nuclear arms sort of division or however the west wants to depict it.
I do think at a certain point, people just are going to say like, if they have something we want and we have money that they’re willing to accept for it, we’ve reached a point of causing pain on ourself for what is the payout here ultimately. And I, I think that straw is gonna break. I truly feel as though what we’re going to see is I keep seeing these, these headlines of Russia and Saudi Arabia looking to make a deal.
I was banging the drums back in January and February that, Hey, ping and Putin are going to Iran. They’re sitting down with the Iranian president and you have to be a fool to think that the questions that they’re not that they’re asking aren’t in the lines of, or along the lines of how, how has Iran handled sanctions?
How have you guys grown and prospered during these last 50 years or being hamstrung by Western sanctions, your country still operates. You are independent. You’re able to be, self-sufficient like, how do you do that? And I think we’re seeing Russia take some cues from the Iranian playbook and then just flexing their strength a little bit more and taking it even further.
I think ultimately at a certain point, there’s a lot of religious history that. Is the root of animosity in that part of the world. And I will never say, or call someone who is religious or believes anything, any religion or any spiritual text as being foolish or stupid until you start to say that that person’s wrong for their beliefs.
And I think we’ve reached a point in our modern society where there’s too much of, I’m assuming Muslim, you’re a Shiite Muslim, like you’re wrong. And because you’re wrong, I must now take arm and offense to what you say no different than the way a lot of the animosity we see between Jewish people and Muslim people, which isn’t the case always.
But I just wanna also point that out. The last thing I will point out in highlight is I never and will never forget the day the nuclear deal was signed. When Obama was in office and I was watching CNN for the announcement and they cut to Yahoo who was giving his speech and within 10, 10 seconds, he cursed at Obama.
He swore that Iran was gonna use this to attack Israel, attack the Western world. And then all of a sudden the screen went and did the like multicolor, like, oh, we’re having technical difficulties. I’m like, no, we’re not, no, we’re not like I wanna understand what this man has to say and what saying to his people, because we’re just adding fuel to this fire.
We’ve left. Country siloed off from the rest of the world. And we act as though, well, they’re ju we’re justified to leave them off. Then in all honesty, they’re justified to get upset. They’re justified to look at the rest of the world and be like, alright, dude, if Russia can do that and still sell their oil, like we didn’t invade any countries.
We didn’t throw bombs in the us. We didn’t curse out anyone. And so that’s sort of where I’m like, you’re right. Iran has adversaries. So does Russia. So does the us, so does Saudi Arabia, so does Israel, so does Iraq at a certain point, we have to, I think, remove this idea of, well, they’re gonna create nuclear weapons.
What if they’re just trying to, I don’t know, expand their nuclear arsenal to better understand how to harness nuclear energy so they can iterate and move on. Because at a certain point I am in the camp that nuclear energy is the future of energy. and everyone is going to every country. Every region is going to have access to harness this.
I, I think we’re shooting ourselves in the foot, but I have such a heavy and strong bias and I’m not naive to that.
[00:42:00] Ansel Lindner: Yeah. Well, I, wasn’t trying to say that Iran is, is special in that they have all of these problems with exporting their energy or taking advantage of their energy resources. Yeah, you’re right.
Russia has the exact same problem. And that is why, you know, Russia was really, they really do. They would rather be peaceful with Europe and send them energy. They’ve they’ve always had kind of a leaning towards Europe then say central Asia Russians have always kind of had that tie to Europe instead of with central Asia.
But going back to. Iran, sorry, the Iran, I, I wanna talk really quickly about why Saudi versus Iran. Well, it’s obvious that Iran has better geographics. Like the geographic area of Iran lends itself to being a power base, a base of power. And that goes back thousands of years, right? There’s always been a very powerful, centralized state there that has influence that has spread their influence all the way to the Mediterranean and pretty much all the way to the indu river, you know, going to the east.
So, Iran has always been a power base. Saudi Arabia has not. Saudi Arabia is a complete manufactured entity just off the us security guarantee. So, the us knew that they could control the Saudi the Saudis much more than they could control the Iranians. And so to keep kind of a peaceful chess board over there for a long time, they had to humble Iran and build up Saudi Arabia.
That was, I mean, this is outside of a moral judgment. I, I think that obviously lots of people died and there’s lots of bad and ills that came from it. But at the same time, there’s a lot of good, I mean, people have been pulled outta poverty that so many people have been pulled outta poverty over the last 50 years.
Relatively on a global basis. There have been very few war. This has been pretty much the most peaceful era in human history ever. Okay. So there’s fewer wars globally, fewer people dying in wars. That era is. We’re going back to a normal base case of more violence in the world. So you said that there was you know, a lot of people had reliance on free trade or they had free trade, like silk road and all that stuff, but it wasn’t such a big part of their economy.
And that’s true. International trade was like maybe 5% of people’s economies until the last 75 years when it became up to 60% of China, right up to 50% of Germany. All these places now are heavily, heavily reliant on globalization. So I think globalization is the aberration. It is the manipulated state of affairs and people it’s not natural for countries to rely 50% on international trade.
It’s natural for them to rely five or 10. Okay. So we’re going back to that world. Now, if you look around who is the most reliant on international trade, those people are gonna be the most humbled in the coming decades. And the people like Iran that is more self-sufficient maybe they’ve been forced to be self-sufficient, but they’re more self-sufficient they’re probably gonna benefit over this time because yeah, the sanctions are gonna get less, severe or less able to be enforced and they’re already self-sufficient.
So everything else that they do with international trade now is like a, a bonus, a cream on top. So I think when you look at the world that way, and you think, okay, globalization is going away, people most relying on globalization are gonna get humbled where people that are less reliant on globalization are gonna thrive in that, in that time.
So, yeah, that’s, that’s kind of how I look at it. And also you said about the kind of sectarian divide over there in the middle east. Well, we see that in our politics here. Conservatives and liberals, they, they, the
[00:45:55] Q: south, the west coast. East coast.
[00:45:57] Ansel Lindner: Yeah. They get violent, man. It’s, it’s get, there is some similarities in, in that case.
[00:46:03] Q: And I think I, I wanna unpack one thing and then we will absolutely stop and move on. I really, to simplify this the best way possible. Okay. One of the reason I think if you can look at Iran and the way the relationship they have with just the us and the west in particular, and then Western allies as a byproduct is the result of a failed attempt at inserting a leader into power in Iran that aligns with the west.
And there was an uprising and citizens did not want this leader to have the power anymore. And as a result, Iran essentially has been put into this corner of, well, it was a, a failed attempt at putting a leader that aligns with us and their new leader. Like really doesn’t like us. So I guess you guys are just now deemed bad guys.
That’s in all honesty, the simplest way. I think of establishing how and why Iran has the relationship with the west. It does now. It was a failed attempt at creating and inserting, inserting a leader that would align with what the west wanted and needed. And there’s a whole backstory with the fact that BP British Petro petroleum used to actually be Iranian British Petro patrol.
Actually it was yeah, P BP. It was Persian. British petroleum was something, it was owned by the Iranian state and the UK government. And then when the Iranian state stopped being as compliant and stopped, sort of giving everything to the British that’s when the British asked the us to step in and intervene.
Let’s talk the merge. We’ve been reaching out and calling pee nonstop. No one has heard from pee and he owes us shoe leather in his mouth digested in his stomach. If U see on the streets, you arrest him.
[00:47:54] Ansel Lindner: Maybe he did that and he’s in the hospital. has anybody checked the hospitals call the emergency
[00:48:00] Q: rooms?
We got, I I’m on the phone with his local police department as well. They said no missing person report can be submitted until 24 hours. However, the caveat is I have not heard or seen him since yesterday afternoon. So we’re coming up on that 24 hours and the police will be looking. But what are your thoughts like it happened, I guess I don’t really know.
I’m not paying attention. I’m just taking it from the bird app and people talking about it. It having happened so right. Are you surprised
[00:48:31] Ansel Lindner: that it went through? Well, the last couple weeks on my newsletter, I’ve been saying that. I’m leaning towards it going off. Okay. Because we didn’t see a it, all the stuff with the price and what you would expect from a buy the rumor, sell the news, which it’s kind of turning into a, sell the news a little bit here, but I didn’t see a huge pump pre pump.
And so that means that there wouldn’t be a huge crash afterwards, which meant then you could deduct that. Okay. Well that means that it went off. Okay. So when I was looking at the charts and I was trying to decide, you know, what are, what are the kind of lack of a pre pump? What does that mean? Well, I thought that that meant it was gonna go off.
Okay. Now, when you look down two, three weeks, maybe a couple months down the road, I think there’s gonna be some bugs. So, this is like just the initial step. This doesn’t mean that it’s going to maintain. Consensus, right? Cause it it’s supposed to be this consensus mechanism and yes, they transferred over to it.
But look, there’s probably gonna be a consensus bug in the next few months I would, I would guess so. That’s what I think is gonna happen. It’s it’s gonna go, okay. It’s gonna seem okay. Maybe there’s a little bit of sell off right now, but overall it’s a non-event and then couple months down the road, maybe we’ll have some sort of consensus bug that you know, blows everything up.
They will be able to patch it. They they’ll be able to blow, you know, sweep everything under the rug. But overall, I think this is kind of a death nail, at least that’s as a Bitcoin, or I think that this is a death now for Ethereum and it’ll just kinda lose relevance over the next few years. So that’s what I think
[00:50:11] Q: I wanted to also just get your, your take or your sentiment on a, how does this affect Bitcoin in, in just this immediate moment in time?
We have this conversation now, almost too often defending proof of work. I, I saw a statistic where now Bitcoin has a market share of 94% of all of the proof of work, blockchains and existence. Now, as a result of this merge, but what are your expectations? How is this gonna impact Bitcoin?
[00:50:39] Ansel Lindner: Well, the, the big thing is it took a lot of uncertainty off the table.
So I think it, you know, going into this, there was a lot of risk people thought there might be a blow up right away. There might be some, some consensus bug that won’t even let them go to proof of stake in the first place. So there, there was uncertainty around this whole event now that it’s over with I think there is gonna be less uncertainty and what, when that happens, usually that’s bullish for price.
So I think the, the underlying kind of fundamentals of the space are less uncertain. And so that’s gonna be bullish for Bitcoin. It’s not bearish. Let me put it that way. It’s not, definitely not bearish. And I lean towards this being bullish. Now, when it does blow up eventually, which I, I am kind of predicting sometime in the next six months or something, there will be some sort of bug then That could be bearish in that moment for Bitcoin, but it’s Ethereum has always followed Bitcoin.
And what they did by this event is they, they tried to decouple Ethereum from Bitcoin, or is that’s the effect of this whole thing is gonna be decoupling Ethereum from Bitcoin. So it’s gonna be less and less relevant for Bitcoin over the next year or so.
[00:52:01] Q: I wanna get a sense too, of just, you know, we’re, we’re witnessing in real time. I think Ethereum validate itself as a security. You spend some time in your most recent Bitcoin and markets newsletter discussing just how the ripple case is going to be setting precedent for how the SCC wants to handle these things going forward.
We’re seeing the jokes online of, oh, the fed in Ethereum, just merge together like this now is, is more state owned and control. Shout out and congratulations to Jeff Bezos for completing the successful Ethereum merge. Did we lose Ansel? Can
[00:52:42] Ansel Lindner: you hear me? We can hear you. All right. I might, I just, I tried to switch up some, a setting with my camera and I think I goofed it up.
Let me see if I can make, fix it again.
[00:52:52] Q: It’s okay. We’re talking about too much high brow stuff, so I’m sure restream was contacted by the state and said to, to stop any disparaging remarks against our newest Chico Ethereum, 2.0 another couple funny, a couple more funny things that I noticed online.
a cost of $58,000 USD, or I believe roughly. I don’t, I don’t honestly don’t I’m not gonna try to say how much in Ethereum, cuz I don’t know. I don’t. I don’t own any Ethereum. But that is the fee that is going, that is being charged to mint a new NFT on this new Ethereum merged blockchain. So how about those cheaper fees on a proof of stake network guys working out well for the 58 K gang?
I mean, this is wild to say the least I’m very, very interested to see how this plays out, how any, how, and if any minors decided to opt and stay and refuse the emergence, stay on the old Ethereum network and continue the proof of work. Blockchain will be interesting to see how I think all of those old NFTs that were minted on the proof of work blockchain how their value is derived with proof of stake.
Minted NFC. I don’t fucking know if I’m even saying it right, because I just, I don’t care to be in that Bitcoin casino. If you do best of luck, my friends your money and time is much more well spent understanding and helping to build the Bitcoin ecosystem and network. But that’s just one man’s opinion.
An there, there, ah, he’s there.
[00:54:27] Ansel Lindner: Yeah, my camera’s working now. Sorry
[00:54:28] Q: about that. No, you’re good. I don’t know if you have any thoughts on just some of the things I threw out, like for example, this, this cost of minting an NFT on, on the new blockchain or, or what, but
[00:54:40] Ansel Lindner: please. Well, no, I don’t have any thoughts on that because I haven’t really looked into what the, the new fundamentals for Ethereum are gonna be.
So that’s, that’s gonna become in probably the next month or so we’re gonna be able to digest all of that. But I wanted to talk a little bit about the ripple case that you said I wrote about on my newsletter and. I think this is very interesting. Okay. Because a lot of people are like, well, why doesn’t, you know, the S sec, well, first off Bitcoiners don’t want the S E C to go after anybody, but we realize that they exist.
Right. We realize the bad guys exist. And so you need to plan and just realize go forward and invest as if the bad guys exist. And people don’t seem to get that. But anyway, so the S E C, isn’t going after these alt coins really hard. Because it’s kind of tricky that they might lose in court. And that’s what they’re seeing here with ripple and they don’t wanna go through and set bad precedent.
They wanna set good precedent. So they’re, they’re using Howie. Howie was a court case decision from, I don’t know, I don’t know how many years ago it was maybe 75 years ago or something to talk about what makes a security. But how he doesn’t, it’s not really perfect for describing what alt coins are.
So I think what they’re trying to do is expand on the, how he precedent and make a ripple precedent. And so when ripple, when that court case that they’re putting a lot of time and effort into to form good precedent, When that comes down, then they’ll be able to apply that everywhere else. And in the same breath in the, or the same week, I guess, the Gessler from the SCC said that he wants Bitcoin to be under this CFTC, but no mention of Ethereum.
So, you know, I think Gensler is, he’s not a friend or anything of Bitcoin, but he is not an. He’s definitely not an enemy and that that’s good. I think he, he sees Ethereum for what it is. He sees these alt coins for what they are, but he’s just trying his best to not lose in court and form good precedent.
And to me that is almost like that’s a good sign that we have like a robust legal system that the legal system isn’t as corrupt as everybody says. I mean, it is in some cases like political cases, when you talk about one political party versus another political party, there’s gonna be that type of corruption.
But at least for right now in the financial sphere there, doesn’t it, you know, it seems to be working pretty well. And I think the S sec will end up winning this case. They’ll end up forming a precedent with ripple, and then everybody will be on notice with the alt coins. So what do you think of that?
Kind of run down there. You know,
[00:57:31] Q: it’s almost like so perfect for Bitcoin. That there’s no way that that happens. Like that’s, that’s my honest opinion. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know what I mean? Like it’s like, that’s just too perfect. That’s that’s the dream comfortable in me. Yeah. Like I’m with you though.
I, I loved your take and I wanna unpack a little bit of like, you know, Gary Gensler being more friend than info to Bitcoin. I don’t know if I necessarily buy he’s a friend, but I do. I think buy to this idea that he may not actually be outright against Bitcoin yet. I think he, he might see, he has a better chance of winning certain cases against these Bitcoins first to then establish stronger precedent to then go and attack Bitcoin.
Now. We try our best to, to separate some of these things, but I wanna bring up the ho not trial and yeah. Yeah, there is, there is a, a very key thing. I think that is why so many Bitcoiners are so passionate about this case because it’s calling into question whether or not Craig Wright is in fact to Toshi Nakamoto and what would happen if the court in Norway is to find Craig Wright to be Sutoshi Nakamoto.
Well, now you all of a sudden have a centralized point to point to and say, this person can and has in the past controlled and manipulated this cryptocurrency. Then you can start to see a strengthening argument for. Some lawmakers who maybe don’t understand Bitcoin as well, who maybe wanna try to reach a little bit further, not necessarily use the Howie test perfectly, but just reach and say, well, we’ve gone after all these other cryptocurrencies built on blockchains.
Ethereum is under our control. So either we go after Bitcoin or we put Bitcoin under our control as well. I’m, I’m more worried that in each iteration of an S C win, they strengthen their case to eventually come after Bitcoin.
[00:59:37] Ansel Lindner: Well, what would they do to come after Bitcoin?
[00:59:42] Q: I think the most, the most commonly discussed attack, in my opinion, it would be something as simple as what you saw. I believe it was FDR who announced like, Hey, for the, for national security reasons, everyone needs to turn over their gold mm-hmm for national security reasons. Everyone needs to turn over their Bitcoin.
A statement, as simple as that, we will issue you something back. We will send you the CBDC to credit you for every Bitcoin. Every sat you send over to us. I think something as simple as that would be an attack on Bitcoin whether it be a legal attack or, or not remains to be seen. I also think, and something that you talk about in your, your most recent article is, is the ETF.
And I think something that we don’t, we yeah. Kind of hear on the outskirts of Twitter get discussed, but there’s a reason why the S E C loves the gold ETF it’s because the, it can and has in the past manipulated the price of gold as a result. But I do think there is a degree of. The inability to manipulate Bitcoin’s price is a larger factor into why the ETF has not yet been approved than anything else that has been said, because I don’t think they can ever outright come out and say like, dude, this will be a brilliant idea.
Absolutely. There should be a Bitcoin ETF. Bye. The only reason ETFs really work is because we actually kind of can like fuck around and manipulate it. So it doesn’t like go over the rails too much and they can’t outright say that. Cuz then it calls into question every single ETF that’s ever been introduced for a commodity in the history of ETFs.
That’s just my take, but I’ll take the tenfold hat off now and give you the mic
[01:01:25] Ansel Lindner: Well, yeah, I think so you said there they could do a what was it? 31 0 8. I think that was the executive order where they yes. Seized all the gold. Well, first off they, they didn’t seize all the gold, right? That you could still have numismatic coins and.
They, they took stuff that was easily accessible in certain types of accounts, but they didn’t go into your home and, and tell you with your stack under your mattress, that you had to turn in your gold coins. So there’s a little bit of mythology around that event. I think, plus, you know, if they did that today with Bitcoin, I think they would spook the market for lots of different things.
I mean, do you actually own the stocks in your brokerage account? You know, like all these things, if they did that to Bitcoin, they could do it to a lot of other things. And so, I, I think that kind of weighs on their mind too about being maintaining confidence in the system. Now I’m not saying it won’t happen, but I think it’s much less likely than what people think.
And so building up to that I don’t know, man, I think maybe it’s my old age. Because I’m over 40 now. Maybe it’s in my old age, I’ve become less conspiratorial. And I think that they, you know, Getler, even though they, they are unable to do it. Okay. So their, their main claim is that they are about consumer protection, right?
The S sec, now they are unable to do that. Obviously look at all points. They’re just, it’s 99.9, 9% scams that want to take your money. And the S sec does nothing, right? So there is no real consumer protection in the S C, but I think they kind wanna be, I think they, I, I think a large majority of people that work at the S C just like a large man, I hate to say this.
And, and you guys, you know, this, this wasn’t my opinion, 10 years ago when I was all into like anarchist stuff. But if you, you, there is 10% of cops are bad. I would say. 90% are good, but, and, and you could go down the road of, oh, well, those, those good cops need to rat out the bad cops. They need to take care of their own house, or if they don’t do that, then they’re bad as well.
And the SCC, so 10% of the S C people are bad. 90% are good. That’s, that’s kind of how I break this down. And I think that most people in the sec, and I think Gensler’s one of them, they actually want to do their job properly. I don’t know if they can do it. But I, I don’t have, like, I don’t think there’s like a malicious intent overriding their actions.
So what do you have to say about that queue? I want to hear a proper response to that
[01:04:02] Q: of, of,
I just think ultimately there’s too much. Power and control that has been given to some of these government entities. And it, it goes across the spectrum. It’s not just the federal government level. It’s not just state government level. It’s all the way down to your local government level, where there is corruption.
I won’t dispute whether it’s 90% or good, 10% bad or, or 10% good. 90% bad. That’s not. Yeah, yeah. Necessarily. I think where, where my disagreement with you lies, it’s more about the duties and obligations, cuz somewhere along the way. all these sort of state sponsored jobs. Cause that’s what they are.
They are state sponsored jobs and employment. Yes. They were meant to be done in public service as almost a part-time position or role, whether it be an elected or an fuck. I can’t think of the word right now of, of just being appointed. Yeah. Appointed. Thank you. Whether you’re elected or appointed, didn’t really matter.
This was meant to be a public service somewhere along the way. We, we lost that plot. I would argue it happened somewhere in the late 18 hundreds, early 19 hundreds, when a lot more money started to flow into America. And as, as a result, those with money decided and kind of understood how they could use that money to make rules that benefited them.
I think the most famous example that I will always draw on is John D Rockefeller and a lot of people’s favorite president Teddy Roosevelt and Teddy Roosevelt. Would very loudly get on the campaign trail, say in the speech down with standard oil, like this is a monopoly that has too much control and I wanna break them up.
You would say this in a speech, walk off the stage and then collect a check from standard oil to help run and finance his campaign. And that’s why Teddy Roosevelt actually never broke up standard oil. It wasn’t until Taft who came in after him, who never took money from standard oil and actually followed through on those campaign promises.
So that to me is the perfect signal of that breaking point of politicians, of being in public service or being in service of those who help finance and push you forward. I just think there’s, there’s gotten a point where there’s so much now money involved and turned so much power that it just. It’s we lost the plot a long, long time ago.
And rather than let’s just like put a couple band-aids here or there, I, I haven’t gotten old enough. I don’t have a family to, to settle down and not call for absolute anarchy. I’m sure, sure. Certain things will, will cause me to grow up and think things through a little bit more rationally. But for the time being, I, I personally am in the camp that to tear it all down and rebuild it.
Like, I I’ll say this in a way for, for the coders out there to better understand. There are times when you code and, and you are programming where there’s just, there’s somewhere, there’s a mistake in the code and, and you’re having too hard of a time to understand and find it. And for time purposes, you are often better suited to just redo the entire code rather than go line by line rerun every little point to find that point of failure.
And I think we’re at that point where to go line by line on all of the different powers the state have and say, Hey, actually, you have too much power here. You have just the right amount of power here. You should actually have more power here. That would be in my opinion, a waste of our time. And we’re better suited to tear it all down and, and build back something better.
[01:08:03] Ansel Lindner: Yeah. You make a, I did
[01:08:04] Q: say those fucking slogans and, and I hate it. but that’s
[01:08:09] Ansel Lindner: well, you make a brilliant point about it being too big and I, I think along the lines of being big is it’s inefficient. And I’m not saying by my arguments that, you know, I think that they’re not malicious, that they’re trying to do consumer protection.
I think that they are, are unable to do that. And even if they were, they would be more inefficient than a market solution. So I, I don’t know, it’s kind of a nuanced position, but I totally agree with you now. I think also man corruption, one of the things I’ve been thinking about a lot lately is, you know, Argentina, they are extremely blessed geographically.
They have a lot of natural resources. They have a lot of agriculture. They have a beautiful bay. They’re a beautiful water ocean access. Relatively easy to defend, right? Cheap to defend. There’s not a, a lot of armies nearby that they have to pro protect themselves against. So Argentina should be a super, super rich country.
and it was until a hundred years ago or so, but I think that a lot of times when you have natural resources like this and, and you have like this you’re blessed geographically, like Argentina, and maybe even like the United States is that you have this caring capacity for corruption that’s higher than other places like you, you, so the corruption in the us might be the same as say the corruption in Russia today, but the us can hide it better because we have a, you know, a, a higher corruption care capacity.
I don’t know if that makes any sense, but perhaps know we’re just going in a pendulum from overly corrupt to less corrupt back to overly corrupt. And that’s kind of how I see the world is is you. Fluctuating between extremes. And so you just have to invest accordingly, put yourself in a place, put your family in a place that they can ride the wish of this natural ebb and flow of human history.
I I’m 100, I’m kind of like the antithesis antithesis of a Marxist because Marxists think that they need to redefine history. Then we are in control of writing our home own history or rewriting history. I think we have control whatsoever over history and we are just riding the waves. So you need to identify those things and put yourself in the place where you can benefit.
That’s one reason why I moved to Florida here because I thought it was going the right direction. Now I moved here before COVID and that was kind of a happy accident that they were so great. COVID but I was trying to put myself, my family in a place of that was. The economy was gonna boom, versus a place where the economy was stagnating in the United States.
So, you know, you just gotta do what’s best for your family. Try to ride the waves and invest accordingly.
[01:11:10] Q: So well said. And so I wanna now touch on the white house, the white house report. I wanna come at it from a different angle though. We talk a lot about, I think the I’m gonna be nice right now.
I’m trying to be nice, the foolish and sometimes silly remarks that politicians who very clearly do not understand proof of work or Bitcoin make. And
at a certain point, there will be a decision made. I got into a little bit of a personal debate with my dad where I kind of pointed out. I was like, okay, fine. The U the us wants to ban Bitcoin mining. Fine. Bitcoin’s not gonna go away. It’s just gonna go to the next jurisdiction that will let it, and it will be an almost failure to capture the competitive advantage that the us can have in Bitcoin.
My question is, is there actually in the same way that we talk a little bit about like, what is left unsaid by some of the statements outta the government, do you think there’s something unsaid and a realization that has been made at least by the, this white house, by this white house in particular to say, Hey, Elizabeth Warren, we, we hear you.
All of you crazy idiots who are like, oh, energy’s bad. We hear you. But also. We bigger picture guys, there’s a bigger picture. Do you think there’s some of that? Am I giving, am I giving this white house a little too much credit?
[01:12:46] Ansel Lindner: Yeah, I think that, I mean, it’s my, the way I view this situation is kind of, there’s a lot of different stakeholders here.
So, you know, in the past there, like if you would’ve done this 10 years ago you know, the, this was a conversation with Bitcoin mining 10 years ago in the United States. We, we probably would’ve had different outcome, but right now there’s kind of like this dual between globalist world economic forum folks and wall street.
That’s how I, I do see this, this American business versus the globalists. And that’s how I see this shaping up. Now, why was the Biden. Executive order like friendly, relatively friendly to Bitcoin mining. At least that’s how I read it. And that is because, you know, they’re having to pick their battles right now.
And I think the, the business interests love Bitcoin mining. Just look at what who’s doing. A lot of flare capture now in North Dakota in, in some of these places around, around the country, big ass oil companies are getting involved with Bitcoin. And you just said, who breaking up standard oil with Teddy Roosevelt or Taft or whatever?
Well, guess what big ass oil has a lot to say in Washington, DC. They have a lot of pole with the president. And so there there’s this competing interest between making the globalist happy and Davos with their ESG stuff and making the American businessman happy and American wall street and American banker.
Right? So there’s these competing interests directly that. That meet right in this executive order. And I think you can see that. And for me, the American businessman is winning. I think populism is winning. I think globalism is on the decline. Davos, the Marxist sitting in Davos are losing and we see that everywhere.
We talked about this yesterday on fed watch with Sweden, with Italy. You’re talking about CCHO Slovakia here a little while ago or Slovakia, I think. And we see this in the us with midterms, a quote, unquote, red wave on, I don’t know exactly what’s gonna happen with that, but you know, there is this movement towards anti-global.
That’s out there. So we see this right in this executive order that that’s how I would like phrase it or frame it to read between the lines. Like, what are we, what does this mean? Gimme a framework to understand this executive order, what this exactly means. That’s what I would say. I would couch it within this, over this global competition between populism and globalists and in the us populism is the American businessman in wall street.
So what, what do you gotta say about that? There? Q
[01:15:34] Q: you’re so you’re so right. And then also so wrong. My friend and the reason you’re wrong, I’m gonna start there. Is there one in the
[01:15:44] Ansel Lindner: same? What globalists and American business
[01:15:48] Q: they are because American businesses, especially the, the CRE D creme of American businesses are global businesses.
They are not American only businesses name, any of any company that comes to mind as a top tier business. And I will be hard pressed to find an example of one that is strictly us only. Oh yeah. We can go oil and gas, Chevron, Exxon mobile operations, all over the world. Any of these tech companies from Microsoft, Google, apple down to whatever software as a service company, we wanna talk about consumer goods, Nikes or shit.
I don’t even know any food or beverage thing. Pepsi, Coke, Adida, like. It’s all, they’re all global. So I actually think that their interests are aligned with sort of these, the, the push of these global elites and what they are doing. So that’s where I actually think you are, you are off base a little bit there.
I think there are some smaller businesses that are, and I think this is a very, very key thing, businesses that are rooted locally and keep local values have been able to cement themselves and prioritize. I think their local operation and as a result are their business and value is our antithetical to what globalists want.
And that is sort of, that is where I’m looking for for the fight against. Example example of this are local farmers who are now using and utilizing the internet to reach out to other customers that may not necessarily be in their local purview, but are able to share that share the same values, and then they’re able to conduct business and trade with them as a result.
I think there’s a degree of this where there isn’t us versus them. And I think we’re seeing it play out in real time a P and I joke, but it’s not a joke. It’s more of a coping mechanism of like, yeah, there’s gonna come a point where
I don’t wanna say something insensitive, but there’s a lot of history and precedent from both movements from the left and movements from the right that have called upon something to happen. And. The, the counterargument was, it’s not gonna stop there and I’ll use two examples.
I’m gonna get misquoted. People are gonna try to yell at me, fine, fuck it. These type of things need to be said. The argument against gay marriage was not gay. People don’t deserve the right to marry. There was a larger argument against gay marriage saying, it’s not gonna stop there. It’s going to get a, to a point where they are indoctrinating our children.
Unfortunately, whether or not you agree with that narrative, that narrative has grown mind you. This was the argument against gay marriage that was used in the eighties and nineties, not in 2010, not in 2020. That was the base case back. Then look at where we find ourselves with this issue today. On the other side of the coin, the argument as to why Roe V.
Wade should not be overturned, was not of the skies of women deserve this, right. Babies deserve this, right? No, it’s none of that. It is the press. It sets, it will not stop there. What is the next things that they will look at in interracial marriage? What will, what will they look at next? Right. For gay people to be married or not.
And then sure enough, in the decision that the Supreme court submitted, they said that they wanna reexamine and that things like gay marriage and interracial marriage should be reevaluated. Now, like these concerns validate my, my claim in saying it won’t stop there. It will always be well. You’re not allowed to buy meat in the month of August is gonna turn into, we will never sell meat again.
You will only buy synthetic meat all the way down to, well, now you only have the choice to buy bug based proteins. It’s less about, Hey, whether this is right or wrong and understanding more holistically that history has proven. Once we give an inch, they will take the mile. Yeah. And I think that’s what this fight has turned into.
I hope that answers your question a little bit. I, I deviated a lot, I think.
[01:20:46] Ansel Lindner: Yeah. But I mean, I don’t know about all these, the political examples, I would say, like, you know, they, the Supreme court has something to say about constitutionality of things. They can’t enforce things or make laws or anything like that, but as, as taking it back to the ESG, Business interest versus globalists and stuff.
I mean, just ask the German people if ESG is good for business. I mean, so when I’m talking about the American businessman, The businessman of say Germany, they know that ESG is stupid and it’s not gonna work out. So, that’s the competing force here. You can say that the major companies are corrupt, they’re international and they’re global companies, but at the same time, they understand that these ESG globalist policies are not a way to make.
You know, go woke, go broke is the saying. And now we’re even seeing things like CNN, they’re firing half of their, their workforce. And they’re going back to their good old days of in the nineties when they were relatively nonpartisan. We see things like Netflix firing a bunch of woke people and going back to non woke programming.
I mean, you just see this up and down the line. So it’s, it’s a pendulum swinging back the other way. People know that this kind kind of globalist woke ESG you know, post-modern relativist. Morality is not a good, good for business. And so that’s what I mean is the American businessman knows that this stuff isn’t good for business.
And that’s where the fight is. Does that make sense?
[01:22:31] Q: That makes total sense. And I’ll even, I’ll, I’ll throw this statistic to strengthen your argument. Cause I, I do agree with, with that If you look at the ESG rankings by, I don’t know which one of these like three letter, three letter globalist organizations puts out Sri Lanka, which recently collapsed by trying to follow all of these ESG things to, to keep their businesses compliant with the money that the IMF gave them was like at a 91 or 92% ESG rating was like one of the top countries, as far as ESG ratings goes the USA, you know, we are, we are the leaders of the world.
We are the like people should follow our example. Our example has us ranked all the way down in like the 50% range. So like, I think there’s a degree where us businesses have like, Understood that actually this ESG stuff will inhibit what they do and things like carbon credits have become so normalized to help certain businesses operate because these Western businesses have the money to lobby against some of these legislature and or legislature.
I don’t know. They have the money to lobby against some of the legislation that gets submitted and in turn are able to create legislation that benefits them while not necessarily adhering to these policies and, and telling others, you guys have to do it. No, no, no. Like, trust us, we made this mistake, but it wasn’t a mistake.
We made those decisions because it helped our country grow and prosper. And then now we’re at a position of luxury to be able to maybe cut some of those things back to help this ESG narrative. If that is the goal, which unfortunately I just don’t think it is. That’s that’s sort of the way I’m interpreting a lot of this ESG stuff.
I do think that they wanna push it through, but I think this is an example of these are rules put in place much like many of the laws they got put into place in the early 19 hundreds, by the likes of the standard oil crew to say like, oh, well, like, yo, we learned as we did this, that like, you shouldn’t let other people do this.
Like, you shouldn’t let other monopolies exist, but like, we’ll break ours up. But like not really wink, win, like. The continuum, like I’ll, I’ll bring it to present day. All of these hearings that we hear about like big tech going in and like calling upon Congress, like you should make these new laws, you should pass through this legislation to like curb techs, sort of power and reach.
Why do you think they’re doing that? It’s not because they wanna decrease their power it’s because they wanna cement their place. They don’t want another competitor to come in. And I think these ESG rules are exactly that the developed nations are like, yo, if the whole world’s developed, we’re probably gonna lose some of our share.
So maybe if we create these little boundaries, these little hurdles, no one else is gonna be able to, to get up to our level and we can maintain and keep our place. So I don’t know if that, I don’t know. That’s my take interpretation.
[01:25:50] Ansel Lindner: Yeah. Makes sense. It’s just a, a different way to look at it.
[01:25:54] Q: But, and so Chris is how you guys, we are, we are at that time of day.
I wanna hand it off to you for any final words or remarks. We talked a lot about a lot of different things today. Is there anything we didn’t get to touch on that you wanna highlight really quickly?
[01:26:06] Ansel Lindner: No, just thanks for having me on. Thanks for supporting my content on fed watch. You guys have been gracious hosts you know, hosting me on Wednesdays at 3:00 PM.
Eastern for fed watch. Really love hanging out with you guys and, and doing that with CK. So thanks so much for that. And thanks for having me on here today. Maybe fleshing out some of my stuff. Some of my thoughts that people are unfamiliar with, and if you guys wanna keep up with me, go to Bitcoin and markets.com.
You can get the free newsletter there, or you can even sign up to support my content. I have a telegram and of course I’m also on Twitter at Ansel lender. And that’s it guys. Thank you. I cannot
[01:26:43] Q: stress enough, go subscribe to Bitcoin on markets. The work that Ansel puts puts together for this is truly incredible.
It’s it’s a free newsletter guys. Like you’re just gonna get smarter reading it. Before we go, I do wanna remind everyone. Tickets for Bitcoin Amsterdam are on sale. Now use promo code BM live to get 10% off of the tickets ticket price will be going up soon. Do not snooze. You will lose. And of course, lock in your subscription to the print mag today.
The next edition is going to be coming out shortly. You will want your annual subscription. We’ve released this print magazine once a quarter, so that are four issues every year. The work that went into this censorship resistant I’m resistant issue. I’m so proud of my colleagues overall on the print side, who put this together, this is thick, thick Almanac.
And of course, Chris, can I, can I go. No, no word on P guys, but because P’s not here, should I give you a dramatic reading? Should I, or is Chris just gonna like pull the mic and like wrap hard really quickly while I’m doing the dramatic re reading. But I digress. Get your copy today. Use probably called BM live to get 10% off of your subscription or anything you see at the Bitcoin magazine store.
That’s the wrap. We’ll be back tomorrow. Stay humble.
[01:28:08] BM Pro Commercial: Hey guys this is Q from Bitcoin magazine live
[01:28:11] BA Ad: Bitcoin magazine and the team that brought you the world’s largest Bitcoin conference is bringing the mission of hyper colonization global with the inaugural European gathering. This fall Bitcoin Amsterdam takes place October 12th through 14th at the beautiful Western GOs venue in the heart of the city.
Join thousands of Bitcoiners for three days of curated Bitcoin content that is relevant to the emerging Bitcoin scene in Europe and the global.
Confirmed speakers include Dr. Adam back, Alex Gladstein, Greg FOSS, Ray USF, and many, many more. This will be an immersive conference, which includes hands on engagements at our proof of workshop stage as well as exclusive content for VIP whales in the deep Bitcoins Amsterdam’s exclamation point will be a massive Bitcoin party in music festival that you won’t wanna.
The European installment of sound money Fest takes place on day three of the event, October 14th and admission is included with GA and whale passes. Check out all the details at b.tc/conference and use promo code BM live for 10% off. Ticket prices increase on August 21st. So grab your tickets a day for 299 euros for a GA ticket and 3,499.
Euros for VIP whale passes.
[01:29:23] Print Ad: The censorship resistant issue of the Bitcoin magazine print edition is available. Now, grab your copy at your local Barnes and noble store or head on over to the Bitcoin magazine store and use promo code BM live to get 10% off of your order today.