Hello, hello, hello, welcome to the new sunday live stream. We're going to try to do this every week. Lead back, relax, no pressure, just a hangout stream to go over the news this week. What's going on some memes, some gags, some fun, you know just to hang out for about an hour or so so i'm not posting this anywhere.

So if you're here you're an og and we're not going to be talking about the earnings of volunteer today, we have a whole a freaking live stream set up tomorrow with me, amit chris patel, a lot of like good guys are going to come on and we're Going to do the live stream um, so today's just kind of a laid back, a stream just for you guys to hang out and have gathered some funny headlines for us to go over, which i think we can really have fun with um hello amit. I was just telling them about our stream tomorrow tomorrow at the 8 a.m. We're going to go live talk about the volunteer stuff. Yes, i think it will be eight dollars tomorrow.

Oh goodness, so uh, i'm not gon na. Do this crazy, like there's no replay value for the stream, but i do want to show you some headlines which i saw, and some of them are quite hilarious, some of them quite interesting, so um. First of all, i want to pull up this year. Let me just where is this just give me a second i'm trying to gather some stuff? Why can't i find it? Oh, i know why.

Okay, hang on a second hang on give me one moment i'll be back. Okay, i got it so i sent an email to myself with all the headlines that i gathered and i couldn't find it and i got it now. I forgot to press send so, let's pull it up on the screen and okay. So this is the first one.

Okay, so i'll start with the more serious stuff and then we can uh talk about some memes and so there's this email that came out by the way i mean. Let me get rid of your comment. Yes, i will thank you nick for letting me know so. There's this headline, which is going to make a lot of news tomorrow, uh basically uh from bloomberg, is saying that now elon musk and his transaction are at risk of getting a basically reviewed by the ftc.

So essentially, what they're saying here is that um, you know how we were assuming that the deal is. Basically let me just pause this thing, so it doesn't play right in front of you. So basically, they're saying that the twitter deal is not as smooth from a regulatory perspective as we initially thought, which is a bunch of now. I spoke about it today, uh during our uh.

We had a zoom call today with my community and we talked about this today. I just want to let you guys know that this is just a bunch of so basically, and why is this important? Well because i i think a lot of you, i actually i'm doing a risk arbitrage on this deal, so i'm actually invested in this risk average deal, which means i've bought with a stock at the current price uh, in the belief that the deal will close as Planned and i will get 54.20 per share at this point. I think the gap is on 10 and the the idea is that i think it's a very transfo. It's a very simple deal.

It's one of the simplest ones, i've seen six months and that's the maximum amount this can take, and essentially so, if you buy today at 49, the payment comes in at 54 and 20 when it, when it happens, you get 10 percent assuming assuming that the deal Actually go for actually goes through now. This headline, i think, will cause a lot of people to think that the the deal is not as simple as it is because there's antitrust issues. This is just now. If i'm not going to do this right here, but you can read this article essentially what they're talking about here.

This is a pushback from two two perspectives. One is that elon forgot to notify them initially about the acquisition, so he forgot to notify the ftc. Oh, my goodness, i mean it's a technical foul, there's nothing going to come of it. The other thing is they're saying here, which is this.

One open markets, which is a non-profit group with ties to linacon, which is the current chair of the ftc, is arguing check. This out, i'm not even making this up that this deal would give elon musk too much control over free speech. The open market nonprofit is claiming that this deal would give elon musk too much control over free speech uh. This is not a term that can be used to analyze, uh antitrust deals.

I mean dense interest analysis for deals. I mean the law basically has no too much control over free speech clause when it comes to antitrust and obviously, if you look at this, the this is corporate talk for basically saying this is nonsense. Uh they're saying here anti-trust experts, don't expect the deal to raise anti-trust concerns, so this is bloomberg's way to say that this is you know. I explained this in my in my zoom call today.

The address authorities can only classify a merger as vertical or horizontal and in any case, they'll accept they'll examine what would be the impact on competition within that category and and if there's less competition they might look into it. So let's say that if a competitor, if two companies who compete against each other are being merged, that's would be an issue of concern here. You have an individual buying a company, so there's no vertical or horizontal merger at all. So this deal doesn't even go through the threshold of an initial ftc analysis.

What they can do here is they can put a monkey wrench into the deal and and when the ftc decides to initially review a deal. It's like a 30-day period, but this deal is not going to close in 30 days anyway. So it's it's pointless. So when you see this headline tomorrow, what i would do, if i like, what i will do probably is i'm going to see if this headline actually gets people more terrified that there's now a better like a worse probability that the deal will work and if the Price falls even more because of this headline, i'm going to be buying more because i think the risk arbitrage on this deal, which is now 10 and i believe, with this headline, will be more than 10.

It's just ridiculous, given the fact that it's a straightforward six months deal with absolutely. It seems to be like the most simple, straightforward purchase. I've never seen a 40 billion dollar deal. That's that simple and shout out to aeg001 for the 10 donation.

Thank you. So much love your channel love! You thank you for the donation. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much kindly um.

So that's number one. So that's kind of just uh. My initial, i told you i'm going to be focusing on risk. Arbitrage deals for the next few months because the market is due due the market is going to the toilet.

So this is one of my deals. I will also be looking at activision microsoft. On this deal, i think the other stacked, basically very heavy, that this deal will go through, and so i think this headline will scare people which would increase the arbitrage and before i move on to the next headline, i want to read a few comments um. I would not buy oil unless the short-term swing trade yeah.

I don't i don't. I don't know the trade and energy. I think energy trading is just too crazy. I don't understand nothing about it and i nash make this bleed.

Stop my friend, i cannot stop. This bleed uh, unfortunately um. What i can do is, i can show you actually, if you guys want. I.

We also did this today in our zoom call for for patreons and channel members, and i showed them this little thing right here and let me try and if i see if i can pull it up so where is this yeah? This is the one. So i showed them this table, which i'm going to show you here in stream, which should really be. I guess of interest to you guys so look at this thing, so this is what you're seeing on the screen right now. Oh, i cannot share.

Oh, yes, i can okay. So what you're, seeing on the screen right now is basically a table, a table that shows you yeah what happened every time the market crashed in history so right here there is, i believe, 20 times the market crashed and the definition of a crash for the purpose Of this table at this table, i believe, was done by bank of america. Yeah bank of america did the stable, so in the 20 times the market crashed in the. I believe this goes back to 1892.

So what 140 years? So in the past 140 years we had 20 crashes and the crash is defined for the purposes of the stable, as 20 percent drop in the s, p, 500 or more so in the in the 20 times the s p, 500 dropped 20 or more. This is how it played out, and you can see the different percentages here and the different time frame, and i want to explain what you're seeing on the screen when it shows you peak. This is like when everything was peachy in our example. This is december 27th.

You remember the santa rally, so the santa rally happened on december 27th. It was at its peak, so for our purposes the peak of this bear market right now is december 27th. It's a then the next table says through through means when it actually found bottom not went up found bottom, so it says found through means found bottom when the bottom actually happened when it stopped leading. So, as you can see here, the different dates uh, you can look at the recent one which is 2007.

This was the subprime mortgage for those of you who remember the subprime mortgage in 2007.. It bled for almost a two years. You see it started in 2007. Ended in 2009, so the bleeding went on for two years and as you can see, the next table is the decline and decline means how much the s p 500 fell.

So in 2007, when we had the subprime mortgage crisis, the decline was, let's see together. 2007. 56. 57.

So if we want to kind of uh talk about what happened, the last time we crashed hard like the real crash, the most recent crash last time. I believe this was 2007. and we had little minor kind of dips. But 2007 was the last big crash.

So last time we crashed, it went on for two years: the falling down went out from two years and it dropped sixty percent. It was fifty seven percent, the s p, 500, and so, if you compare it to where we at right now, just to explain to you why i said that i think we're not there yet right now, we are down 14 on the s p. 500. From december 27th to now, so we are five months into this and we're down 14.

Last time a crash happened, we were down for two years and it will fell 57. So, as you can see from this table, um at least if you use 2007 the subprime crisis as the reference we're not close to the end of this, it seems now there was a guy who actually averaged out all of this. I forget his name, but he has a article and he made an average out of all of this, and the average that he found was that the average drop in the s p 500. In those 20 crashes before it stopped was 37 and the average time until it found bottom was 10 months.

So again, if you, you want to use that as reference we're at 14 and 5 months, so half and much more so using statistics from what happened in the past. It seems like there's more bottom to be found here and again it's just statistics, and it doesn't mean that you know things will repeat themselves and by the way, a huge shout out for ash ashutosh ja for the five dollar donation. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Thank you so much, and so basically, if you want to use statistics, so you saw the numbers right. Average is 10 months 37. The 2007, which was the most recent one, was two years and 57 we're now at 14 and only five months. So things are not as bad as they could be.

Let's put it this way now. I've also kind of talked about this today, but even if you want to add into this a little bit of a fundamental analysis and you want to talk about okay, so it's just stats right. Statistics and past performance does not guarantee anything, and i agree to that. 100, so let's say now: you want to add to this some qualitative analysis, basically looking at the fundamentals and seeing okay.

So what's going on right now in the market, how likely is the bear market to happen? Because, may i remind you, as far as the s p 500 is concerned, we're not in the bear market. Yet the definition of a bear market for the s p 500 would be 20 drop off the high and we're currently at 14. So we're not there yet. So we're just to kind of emphasize to you how things can really get much much worse, so assuming okay.

So now we know the statistics. So if you look at the fundamentals - and i spoke about it today earlier during the zoom, if you look at the fundamentals i mean, can you guys think in the chat i mean chat? If can you think about any positive catalyst, if you can think of a positive catalyst for the stock market in the next year? Please put it in the chat, i mean it. I don't mean to be cynical if you guys anybody who can think of a positive catalyst in the market for the next 12 months put it in the chat, because i know that there's really horrible catalyst in front of me right now, which is massive inflation interest Rates increases supply chain shortages, log down in china, deglobalization and supply and interruptions wage inflation, geopolitical instability. So these are the things i'm seeing not to mention food shortages, not to mention fertilizer prices going through the roof, not to mention wheat shortages and massive, more destabilization coming as people run out of food with everything's going on in ukraine and russia.

So many many negative catalysts are coming, so what's the only positive catalyst as uh? Yes, that is true by the way cameron you are 100 correct, nasdaq is in bear market, it just passed. 23 percent, yes, nasdaq is in bear market. Sap is not yet so. The only positive catalyst as jorge is saying, jorge cervantes is saying in the in the chat.

Right now is the end of the ukrainian war. If the ukrainian war ends, that would be a really good positive catalyst because, assuming that it ends with a an agreement that would be acceptable on the west to the level where sanctions will be lifted and trade will be resumed with russia, ukraine, belarus, china, uh, india, Brazil, all those all this block of countries who are separating from the west will basically everything will be kind of rolled back. If this ends in a deal that is acceptable in the west, then yes, this is a positive catalyst and we will see an impact on the market. But you have to ask yourself a question: how likely do you think the end of the ukrainian war by an agreement that would be acceptable on the west is, in my humble opinion, i think it's more unlikely than likely and i'm going to leave it at that And people are saying yes end of the war transitor inflation franco, i don't think that's happening.

Transitory. Inflation is much like a back to the future for and never happening and yeah. It's not really a positive catalyst when everybody is bearish, but i agree with you: everybody is bearish and war ending so everybody's saying war. Ending.

I agree to that. Yes, i agree to that. A war with ukraine ending is the biggest catalyst we can see and once that happens, the market will bounce. But i would just make sure that we don't get ahead of ourselves here because, to be honest, as things are developing right now in russia, from what i understand, because i tend to follow that part of the world.

Obviously, as you know, things are looking like it's going to escalate into a nutrition war and not into a peace treaty, but who knows, maybe the maybe just out of the blue. They sign the peace treaty tomorrow and if they do, the market is going to bounce. So, let's hope - but at this point it's mainly hope and less, i would say probabilities, but let's see what happens covered gone. Yes, this would unlock china, which will ease supply chains a little bit, but it would not be dramatic as much as russia and ukraine at this point and uh hyperinflation is not a positive catalyst cat mcgee as a cat.

I'm assuming you didn't know this. It's it's a bad thing and yes, people are saying end of war uh, a hundred percent uh. I think that's too late, carlo, saying inflation, not as bad as they thought. I think inflation is actually much worse than they thought and so yeah.

I agree with the people who are saying uh, that end of the war would be a positive catalyst, but i think that if we are honest with the cells, i think it's less than 50 and that this happens and but even then, even if the war ends And then we still have supply chain issues. Money supply like there's still a lot of problems in the let's call it in the system and yeah. I agree with erwin erwin. One of our moderators in the chat is saying turbulence ahead.

Put on your seat belt say he agree with that 100. I agree and somebody saying 10 chance of a peace treaty. I would say that it's probably in that in that vicinity, but hey yesterday canelo went into the ring with a guy, nobody heard about and he lost. So if canelo could lose to dimitri beavel, maybe we can get a peace treaty.

I know who knows at this point, and i wonder just i thought there's another super chat. I want to get to it. Um brian p. Thank you for the five dollar donation brian is asking.

Are we headed for worldwide economic collapse with all the debt and money printing, endless money, and not necessarily, i wouldn't say we're heading to a worldwide economic collapse, but there's a big debt problem, at least in the us which i've spoken about quite a few times? There's a there's, an issue with with the way we have been increasing our debt and that that actually started for decades ago. It's not biden's fault, it's not even trump's fault, believe it or not. This is something that's been going on since the 90s and unfortunately, this could have been evaded quite easily, but as the u.s. Basically, since the 90s actively shipped out jobs outside the us, because it made sense economically, it would cheaper to manufacture in china, in india or whatever so sdos systematically shipped out jobs manufacturing.

Basically, everything outside the us, the us has slowly became a services-based economy. So the us is a services-based economy. Nothing is really manufactured anymore in the us, if you think about it, it's mainly in china or india or whatever, and when you're just an importer in a services based economy, then your deficit goes through the roof and as long as everything is fine, it's not a Problem in fact, it's a really nice way to to grow, but the minute something really bad happens like elevated interest rates like we're having right now, then you're, literally in the position where you cannot service the debt, which is it where we at right now, and i Can talk about solutions to that? If you want, i have some ideas. So if there's any demand in the chat, you know what i'll do i'll do i'll.

Do you a solid so brian, thank you for the donation? If you want me to go into a really deep geeky breakdown on how to solve the us debt problem, i can do it, and so, if you want this, geek analysis how to solve to use that problem put one in the chat and if you don't want This atrocity, which i would assume, would be the better option, put two in the chat so one for the analysis. It's going to be very nerdy and boring on how to fix the debt problem. Number two is basically moving on to some more funny stuff. I have because i have a lot of funny stuff prepared some articles i picked up so jokey, jokey, mimi, mimi or yeah.

Somebody put 69 in the chat come on bro. Of course, there's always going to be a guy who's going to put 69 okay. So it seems like there's an overwhelming somebody put 420 and uh somebody asked if i'm still buying volunteer stock. Yes, i am, i'm always buying volunteer stuff.

So it's it seems like there's a lot of people who clicked one hey so i'll do i'll do kind of a hybrid okay i'll do a five minute about the debt, and then we can move on to the funny stuff. I have for you, because i have like crazy headlines. You'll see it in a second, so um. You know what i'll i'll use i i have an idea.

I have an idea hold on a second, i got an idea. I got an idea hold on hold on hold on um. Where is this? Okay? Did anybody see the trevor noah rant about? Oh, we can do it later. Okay, i'll talk about it later anyways.

So let's do the stuff. I told you about okay, so here's the thing um, i don't think it's a good time to buy equities right now, just to be kind of honest right now, it's not a good time to buy equities. In my opinion, humble opinion, not financial advice, hey adam! Thank you so much for the you. It's not necessary, but thank you for the very generous twenty dollars.

Uh privette, i'm just showing love and support great channel and content i'm for mother's day. So ken stay. Thank you for the connor cheers, uh brighton beach here, hey adam. I think i caught you on the midstream so good to see you and thank you for the donation.

I really appreciate it. Thank you, my guy, and really really generous of you. So let me be quick about it. So the way things have happened over the past 30 years is basically uh.

The way the us prints money when you hear printing money more often, what they're talking about is the us issuing bonds and issuing bonds, basically saying hey. Basically, you can, you can i'll owe you money right, your bondholder, the us government is owes you money and you give us the money now we'll pay back with interest within three months: 10 years, 20 years 30 years. Whatever the bond is right and when you issue these bonds, that's how the us government gets money and for for obviously for reasons i'm not going to get into it in this video, but because the u.s holds the world's most important currency, which, which is the us Dollar and thank you for their super chat, uh dunham, dynamite dynamite pope is that dynamite pope uh we're just gon na get us demonetized. Thank you for that um, okay, so let me explain so basically the way the u.s works is because look we because the u.s holds the world's reserve currency, which is the u.s dollar.

For many many reasons, the issuance of these bonds is very cheap for u.s and the interest is very low because it's considered a very low risk bond. I mean think about it if you're buying a bond from the u.s government. What is the likelihood of this bond? Not being paid back, it's very very low and thank you chris for the to the donation. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you so much so the the chances of you not getting your money back is slim to none so because the risk on this bond is so low. The us government is able to issue these bonds at a very low price and the reason the risk is so low is because everybody needs dollars. Everybody needs dollars, because every single oil deal, that's being done with opec, for example, is done with dollars.

This concept is called the petrodollars and basically, since every government buys oil from opec, it needs to hedge against these, the the cost of of of oil and it hedges with the same currency. So there's this cycle of demand for the dollar, which is based on petrodollars, mostly, but mainly except for russia right now, mostly commodities deals are done in dollars. Most of the world's global trade is happening in dollars beyond just the petrodollars and because of that the u.s going to basically say okay, so we need more money, some bonds and you do it cheap, and the problem is that this bond and again this is not Biden's fault or trump's fault: this has been going on for decades. The problem is what happens when you take on more debt and more debt and more debt and more dent right? Yes, simon! This was your idea by the way, so i'm implementing your idea.

So, basically, when you stack up this debt on top of each other, you know what happens like the guy who basically maxes out credit cards and gets new credit cards. Eventually. You know the party is over, so we have been going through this really bad cycle of of collapsing under the weight of our own debt. Right now the us has, i believe, two times more debt than its gdp, not two times sorry time and a half.

Our gdp is 121 trillion dollars and our debt is 30 trillion dollars. So we have one and a half times more debt than gdp. That's insane, and there are countries who have it worse. Japan, for example, that's a whole different discussion, but we have a lot of debt and the service of this debt.

Basically, the interest payments on this debt are very expensive when you have, when you owe 30 trillion dollars, you pay a lot of interest and imagine that we're now paying about one and a half percent of our annual gdp as interest payments right now, with zero percent Interest or point twenty five percent so at point twenty five percent interest we're paying one and a half percent of our gdp just for interest uh, just to understand how much is one and a half percent of your gdp uh. The us spends about two and a half percent of http on education, uh and r d. I believe i don't remember, but it's insane, it's probably one of the biggest expenses individual expenses in the budget and that's with no interest, that's with no interest and you can keep it going to an extent. I mean mathematicians who work for the government calculated, and that was before the interest rate hikes that was before everything went to there.

People were basically saying hey by 2050. If we keep this up, we're going to end up paying 60 trillion dollars in interest payments and our interest payments will be 9. Nine percent of our gdp is going to be interest by 2050. If we don't stop this madness - and this was this - was with zero percent interest, this was like before the pandemic.

Nonsense before everything went to, and people were saying well, this is like insane it's essentially. The anticipation was that by 2043 this this, the interest payments would have become the single largest expense. More than any governmental program would be interest payments and by 2050 it would be 10 almost 10 of our gdp, and obviously, when 10 of your gdp is just repaying loans, that means money. It gets taken away from security, education, roads, infrastructure, health care, you name it right, and so now it was already kind of shaky and we were basically wobbling with this debt.

Now imagine we're looking at more interest just to explain to you how much more interest means. So for the us to be able to raise one percent of interest, so you know right now we're climbing from 0.25 to 0.75 and then next time we're gon na get above one percent. So one percent of interest would cost the u.s government approximately 300 billion dollars in annual interest payments 300 billion dollars in annual interest payments for each one percent of interest. Okay, now think about it.

This way, if that's the case, i mean try to estimate how much we need interest rates to be to battle and nine percent inflation. Assuming inflation stops going up, assuming we have completely like we freeze inflation at nine percent artificially. How much interest would we need to stop and nine percent inflation? So i'm not going to bore you with this, although i'm sure most of you already quite kind of bored from this, so for nine percent inflation, there's a very famous individual who actually is still alive. Believe it or not - and he actually is so successful - they named a rule after him, which is called the taylor rule taylor uh made up a very famous rule saying: well, he didn't make it up.

I mean he he he built it, saying that what you do is you take whatever inflation you have right now, which is nine percent. You subtract good inflation, which is two percent, and then you multiply the result by two. So if the result is nine minus two equals seven times two. We need uh fourteen interest so as it stands right now, the us needs 14 interest to battle nine percent inflation and that's just kind of that's just you know that's just consensus.

If you're not a politician who cannot say the truth, if you're like a normal human being, who can speak freely in the living room, so basically, yes, afb was right. He said it before. I said it, so he knew it in advance. Yes, 14.

So now uh. Basically, so you need a 14 interest and each percent would be costing the us government an extra 300 billion dollars per year. So now do 300 billion dollars times: 14. Okay, okay! So let's do math! I mean i don't have a calculator here, but let's pull up a calculator right: let's do a calculator, so we do it together, so 300 billion.

How much is 300 billion is a lot times 14. How much do we get? We get 4.2 trillion dollars. 4.2 trillion dollars. The us government needs to pay interest on 14.

Okay, that's an extra 4.2 trillion dollars. The us government does not have just to explain to you how much is 4.2 trillion dollars. This is literally the annual tax coalition collection of the united states. So the u.s collects about, i think, three to four trillion dollars per year in taxes.

So this number - i just told you which we need extra, is basically a hundred percent of our current tax collection and that's a big problem and obviously any kind of uh normal person would tell you that. Okay, so now let's say you raise it, you raise interest to 14 and you need to come up with an extra 4.2 trillion dollars in that case, you'd have to literally literally print money, not borrow money, literally print money in the printer and essentially flood the market. With 4.2 trillion dollars a year, you know what's going to happen to inflation, so you just implemented 14 interest, which is going to crash the economy and the stock market and inflation doesn't budge because you just flooded the market with a on the money. So until you figure out this problem with the national debt of the us, you cannot raise interest rates and until you and since you cannot raise interest rates, inflation is going to go crazy.

So you would have jerome powell on tv basically lying to you me and everybody that everything is fine, so it started with everything is fine. It's all transitory. Don't worry. It then switched to well just just point 25 percent, and now it's okay, 0.5, but they're pretty much very close to how much they can raise until it's just literally the u.s can't pay the debt and without printing, like it's an obscene amount of money.

So it needs to be solved. Okay, it needs to be sold because the us absolutely needs to raise interest rates to battle inflation. Uh. You can go back to the 80s, and so this is the highest inflation we had since 1980.

I think so and go back in history and check how did we get rid of inflation in 1982? We got rid of inflation in 1982, which is a long time ago, 40 years ago, because we had a crazy psychopath of a fed chair. His name was paul walker and paul, volcker, basically, in conjunction with reagan, implemented insane interests like i don't even remember the numbers if anybody can put in the chat what was the interest rates in the 80s of paul volcker? I assure you this was something insane. It was in the i think in the 20s something crazy, something crazy and uh i'm gon na. If, if this doesn't come out in the in the chat, i'm gon na look at myself, but it's yeah, i what people are saying 20 yeah.

It sounds sounds about right. 20. I don't remember whatever it was an obscene amount. So the problem is that once paul volcker did this with the with the with reagan.

We didn't have this massive debt, yes james, i agree with you. It wasn't when he doesn't remember exactly how much we didn't have this insane debt that we have right now and now it's a whole different enchilada. Now we're really pretty much screwed. Let's put it this way.

So how do you solve this? So the only way you can solve this, the only way you allow a runway for the fed to raise interest rates is by solving the u.s debt problem. So how can you solve it? Well, you absolutely have to increase collections of tax, in fact, at the very minimum, let's say you want to raise interest to three percent three percent, three percent interest, which is still far away from where we are right now and if you're wondering why is taking the Fed so long to raise interest rates now you understand why! So if you want to get to three percent interest, you need one trillion dollars of extra tax revenue for the government to be able to afford the debt. Okay, so now make a calculation. Where do we get one trillion dollars now? There will be people who will tell you this uh, and this would be a mistake to listen to them.

They will tell you hey. We should increase tax mainly on corporations and when we increase the tax on corporations, we're going to increase the collections of tax by 1 trillion easy, and you know these evil corporations. You know we just they're they're, stealing our money, let's just tax the living crap out of these corporations. Let's just get it now, what they don't understand these people or they even worse.

Some of them understand this and they're still saying this, even though they know it's wrong because they're lying to you, because it sounds good and it's an easy sell from a pr standpoint. So they either don't understand this or they're intentionally lying to you, and i don't know which one is worse, is that once you raise interest rates on corporations beyond a certain point, the collections of tax go down so the way collections of tax work, and i can Show you this it's very, very simple and i'm just gon na show you on the screen. I'm gon na pull up on the screen one. Second, i'm not very uh good with the technical stuff, so bear with me.

Okay! Okay, can you see this thing on the screen now the multiple examples of this curve? This is, this is called the laffer curve and you're, seeing multiple examples of how it looks like, and i'm not going to take a position here to tell you which one of these is the correct one, because there's many uh there's many correct ones. But the idea is that it's at the certain the vertical line is the percentage of tax. The horizontal line is how much tax you collect and the idea is, you know, as you raise the taxes, the collection goes up right. You can see it in the laffer curve.

It always goes up, but then it starts to curve. So at some point, when you're raising taxes you're not getting as much linearism in the tax collection as the increase of tax and at some point even further than that which is called the equilibrium equilibrium point, you're increasing, increasing taxes actually decreases the amount of tax collected Because at the certain tax burden, the companies will just have so much incentive to plan around your tax and use loopholes and absolutely invest obscene amounts of money in evading the stacks that your collections will go down. So the question is right, and this is the million dollar question is: where is this equilibrium equilibrium point uh and i'll? Show you it's, i don't need to uh uh. I don't need to guess this, because people have already done this for me.

So this is a i'm going to show you right now on the screen. So the optimal point is right here, um. If i can find it. Oh man, i i suck at this technical stuff, so much bear with me.

I need to get like a course how to do this better, okay, so on the screen right now, what you're seeing is the magic number? This is the magic number. This is the average in the oecd, okay, um. I believe the oecd is the world's richest 40 countries, i'm not mistaking, but that's that's kind of like the extension of the g8. These are like the world's top four countries and in the oecd, the average corporate tax rate is 23, 23 right.

So 23 is the global corporate tax rate for years and years and years in the u.s we had, i believe, was 35 corporate tax rate and with added state tax, the average would you know it could go to 39 tax burden on companies. So so donald trump came in and i'm not endorsing donald trump here, don't get me wrong. All i'm saying is that it was actually a smart move and he basically said well look guys. We have all these companies running away from the us because we tax them 40 cents on the dollar rest of the developed world is taxing them 23 cents on the dollar.

So let's go a little bit below the average. Let's go to 21. So then the us goes to 21. Now, if you factor in state corporate tax, because what we're talking about here is federal corporate tax, which is 21 and beyond, except the delaware, florida, texas and a few other countries, a few other states.

You also pay corporate tax. In the state you're located in as a company so with state taxes, you're, probably at 23 in the us, so basically what donald trump did in his tax reform, he essentially equated the u.s corporate tax liability to the average in the developed countries. Okay and now here comes the interesting part, so basically what i can tell you with a high degree of certainty - and i don't need to be a genius for this - is that if we increase the corporate tax in the us beyond 21 22 23, like people are Suggesting we're gon na lose revenue from tax, make no mistakes about it. The 21 22 23 is that equilibrium point on on the laffer curve, and that's not me saying this: that's the oecd, saying it and the oecd and basically have data showing that.

So if we cannot increase tax, what can we do? And i tell you i have a solution, so we cannot increase tax rates. It's not a good idea, even as much as i want to tax corporations more. I know pragmatically that if we increase the rates on the corporate tax, we're not going to tax them more they're going to plan themselves out of it trust me, i've seen it happen in real time. So how do we do this? Well, there's two ways: we can generate an extra trillion dollars for tax hold on a second okay.

So the way we the way we can do it is with with implementing two things. There are basically major loopholes in the us for tax evasion and the first tax evasion, which is uh almost grounded in the way. The u.s tax system works is that multinational companies around the world that are based in the us that are managed from the us that are controlled by u.s residents. U.S citizens do not pay tax in full.

In the us, they pay a small percentage of tax. In the us, but mainly they pay tax in other countries with better cheaper corporate tax. Like ireland, for example, go check me on this. Go check where the headquarters of google and facebook et cetera, et cetera, are they're in freaking ireland, because now they pay less corporate tax.

Simple as that. So you have this fake structures where all of these us companies cosplaying pretending to be irish companies and whatnot and not paying tax in the us, and as this keeps on going on, these governments collect tax. And basically, the us is left with the breadcrumbs of whatever these companies decide to bring back to the us as dividends, which is obviously you can realize it's nothing. So the first thing that needs to be done, and this this is actually done very, very they're.

Very smart about it. The way they do it is they basically define well, you know. In ireland we have we sold all of our intellectual property to the irish entity. Our management is in ireland.

The irish company is signing all the contracts on our behalf. The only thing we have in the us is just marketing, so we should allocate a little percentage just to you know, for the marketing department. Everything else is in ireland, while in fact the center of their business is in the us. I think none of you would argue with me when we say that all tech companies are the center of any tech company is in the us, it's the biggest market, it's the target market for them.

It's where all the networking is it's where all the funding is. It's the center of the universe is for tech is the us for anything really. So how come we're providing them with all the infrastructure right, the roads, the education, everything and they don't pay tax so the way they do it is basically, they hire professionals to write these transfer pricing studies that show why the u.s should not be taxing. The vast majority of the income of these companies this needs to stop simple by the way.

If you stop this right now, and you legislate anti-evasive provisions to stop this from happening, basically saying hey. If if the irs says that no matter what the papers are saying, if the irs says that this is a u.s centric company you're paying tax in the u.s and whatever is left whatever's left after the u.s finishes collecting tax, it's 21, they can pay elsewhere. No problem, you know if the other country has 30 tax rate, you can clear the extra 10 after us, but we feed first from our companies. So if the united states does that that is an easy trillion dollars right there a year.

The estimations are that about one trillion dollars is an offshore tax loss every single year, so you can the us just by doing that, adds another trillion dollars to its tax collection every single year. Now you can also close. That's one part of it. That's the truth.

That's three percent of increase right there. You can also get another percent by finally closing the loophole of the rich, who don't pay tax on the estate tax in the u.s. There's a law that says that when a person passes away the the children or the wife or whoever inherits these assets should pay, i think 35 gift in the state tax. I believe it's 35 of 40, don't remember, there's a tax levy on inheritance.

So, basically, once you get the the house or whatever like but there's an exemption that says anything up to five million dollars is exempt. You know what that's fair. If a person accumulated five million dollars in his entire lifetime, it's his right to leave it to his kids without the government touching the out of it and i'm not saying to get rid of the exemption. No, you know if somebody accumulated five million dollars in this entire lifetime.

It's his right to give it to his kids, no problem, but i'm talking about the big money, the big money isn't the 5 million. The big problem is: what happens if you have above 5 million, so go check me on this. The statistics you know how much people paid out of the entire inherited amounts. Last year in the us, which was above 1, trillion 1.2 trillion dollars was inherited in the us last year.

Less than 1 of those were taxable 99 of this was not taxable, and the reason is because what these people do, the ones that have more than five million dollars to inherit. Is they put these assets in the trust and then the trust owns the assets. So when this person passes away, there's no change in ownership of the asset and it will never ever ever, get taxed for estate tax purposes, so they just pass along these assets to their kids and never pay taxes about 5 million on the estate tax. That alone do the math 40 off of 1.2 trillion.

That's another percent right there, so i just gave you in 10 minutes of napkin mathematics, four percent of interest. We can pay for right now if we change, if we close, simple, annoying loopholes in the tax code and that's just kind of my initial just that would give us another two years to actually find a bigger solution for the bigger amount of debt. And i want to give a huge shout out to rodney thank you for the 15 with inflation. This may get you coffee.

We yeah that's true, but thank you for that, regardless. I really really appreciate it. Thank you rodney for that uh. Now i went on a little bit of a tangent and i'm sorry.

I hope you guys found that interesting and didn't fall asleep. I don't know how many people are still here after this and i'm gon na read this comment: tom, those who are making the laws. Don't want to pay either so they make laws that help their friends and themselves. Yes, this is called the lobbying system, but at some point uh you have to do what's best for the country.

I mean you can't it's just otherwise. The whole system is falling apart. Uh some states earn tons of money by allowing offshore companies and trust funds yep. That is 100.

True er. Thank you. I appreciate it. You're, probably the only one who found this interesting so well, there's actually a thousand people in the chat which is insane.

I don't know who stayed here: uh tax paletas. Why why people hate companies they don't invest in. I don't understand this point, but okay, whatever uh, okay. So, by the way there are country, multiple countries where there's no estate tax, and but just you know, if you leave the us to go to that location, you pay exit tax, which is the equivalent of the estate tax.

So there's no there's no way to avoid it. Now. I now we're getting to the funny part of this, because i prepped some funny articles to show you so article number one to show you which was kind of funny and it would tie in nicely uh daniel. I can't believe you are here for this uh we, it was literally verbatim what we talked about in the zoom.

I mean this is like talk about talk about redundancy, but thank you for that. I appreciate it, so the so then stay for this you'll love this. So, okay, so how insane is this right now, after everything i just explained to you and the tail rule the 14? When you read this article from the wall street journal, how amused are you when they're saying three and a half percent will not be enough like how amused are you by this? Now that we know we know that they know that they need 14? I mean right. We know that they know, and now this little group of 1000 people knows that you know the jig is up at least in this kind of living room conversation right.

So now you see what they're doing they're sending this guy, whatever generic fed official. I don't even know his name, i don't care, so they send this. You know the regular generic fed official to warm you up to the idea. Hey.

We need more than three and a half percent, so they're, starting to slowly massage you so to realize. Okay, so we're not even three and a half we're right now at 0.75, so now they're saying three and a half is not going to be enough. Now you understand now that you've heard me speak about this and we've calculated the numbers. We did.

The application of the tail rule you're, seeing that this is ridiculous. Right and now i want to show you something more ridiculous, so this is: where is this cat hold on? No? Where is this? I have to find him. Yes, nil, kashkari, yes, okay! So this is the guy okay check this out and now tell me how ridiculous is this and now tell me how ridiculous is this? As far as you think that the previous article was funny - and it was kind of hahaha - you know you think we're idiots. How insane is this dude? Neil kashkari is his name telling you that 0.75 interest in the 9 inflation environment is aok, where close to neutral, yeah you're, seeing this so now that we did this little one hour, sorry, 20, minute kind of a primer on inflation tax and all that stuff.

Now you can read these articles on seeking alpha and understand how ridiculous what he's saying the dude knows it is full of i mean he knows it's full of make no mistake about it. We're close to neutral. Now i'm not going to read this, but you understand now like when i saw this thing i was like: what's he smoking, my guy, that's insane um, okay, so people are asking about volunteer prophets i'm going to talk about in a second and i don't know if You're going to like what i have to say, but i will call it like. I see it anyways so before i had more articles here to show we did this it for this dumping ribbon i mean that's, not really um.

Okay. I found this one okay. So this is another article. I want you to see one more before i talk about volunteer and then we do politic.

So this is. This is very interesting. So this is an article that in hong kong, some guy who was elected in hong kong to be the hong kong leader, blah blah blah blah blah blah, and then you realize he was the only candidate running. So this guy, who got elected in hong kong, who's.

The china back candidate was the literal literally the only candidate to run and he received all the votes. Obviously, and when you look at it, it's 1400 votes. So there's a small group of imagine how insecure you have to be where it's not only one candidate. It's only it's also letting only 1400 people vote in hong kong, so only 1400 people vote and it's only one candidate like how insane is this world getting to bro and yeah? Okay, so uh that aside, let's talk real, quick.

I it's been asked, there's a question that just came up. It's been asked, hey, jakub, we've talked about it in the beginning of the stream. I pulled up a chart to show you historical data of how bad it can be, and this is the. But if you haven't seen this part go check it out.

This is as bad as it can get. I mean i'm gon na. Let you in a little secret. It can get a lot worse.

Okay, so real quick, there's been hey uv. What's up he's here in every stream, um always here always happy to see you so um. As far as volunteer earnings go look you're, not gon na, like what i got ta say. I think we're gon na we're gon na test the waters of the eight dollar per share tomorrow, because the thing is uh volunteer as a company are doing better and better.

The problem is: there's three things working against them. As far as the share price goes, not the company itself phenomenal company, the stock is not behaving. Why well. First of all macro is totally in the toilet right now, inflation is going crazy, shout out to the thousand people the chat, so inflation is going crazy.

Uh people are running away from equities because they're fearful we have paul tudor jones, the billionaire on cnbc, saying: hey: go 100 cash, so people are running for the hills, so that's number one and bro. If amazon can fall, forty percent valentina can fall sixty percent, it's normal. So that's number. One macro is not working uh in anybody's service right now, especially not a growth company number two beyond the macro stuff, which are not good.

A palantir has multiple specs on the books for which it will take a big loss, because all these packs that they're invested in will be devalued and there's going to be like ford took. A big loss on vivian volunteer will do the same thing with the specs. They invested in and that's going to reflect poorly on the financials, even though it's not a cash flow item, it's just a valuation of an existing investment, but if there's one thing you should have learned by now is that unless you have stellar financials right now with Insane expectations of the future uh, your quarterly results were going to lead to a sell-off. I mean every literally every company that report right now, just it led to a sell-off i mean.

Essentially, i would even say that there's no, no chance that like go back and see which companies reported in the past two weeks and which did not go down simple as that, so i think we test eight eight dollars tomorrow um. So this is a very interesting thing: we're going back to the previous discussion a little bit i'll. Do it quickly balance sheet runoff, for those of you are not familiar with this term, is when the fed is reducing the amount of bonds it holds on its book. So the fed is actively buying bonds in the free market to prop up the price of bonds and drop the yield, as they actually reduce their balance sheet.

They're selling bonds, the yield goes up. Interest rate goes up, it's part of the livers and mechanisms they use to control interest rate um. Yes, amazon did take a big loss on rivien. That is true.

Um, yes, greg is here with his favorite stock, zim, a dividend monster and so rich is saying something very true: the stock price has changed, but nothing else on the volunteer front. In fact, i would just say i would even go further than that rich and i would say, the stock price has declined, not has has changed. The stock price has declined massively, but the overall performance of palantir as far as margins, new business, new deals and overall performance of the company got better, which is a discrepancy. It's kind of a cognitive dissonance, um interesting debate here from eric, and i'm going to address it in a second eric is using the debate point which says that the tail rule is only applicable to persistent inflation.

It does not apply to sudden shocks and it's ambiguous of inflation. Gdp growth are opposite directions, so the idea here is basically is what eric is saying here. Is that you shouldn't it's, i'm going to simplify, of course sorry eric for this i'm going to simplify the argument a little bit here is basically, if it's, if it's a transitory inflation, if it's a transitory inflation, then the taylor rule is not applicable. I would agree to this.

The only problem eric is unfortunately seems that uh it the the argument itself that it's a transitory inflation is kind of transitory. It's no longer here, um, hey chris.