Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 10/11/22: Ukraine Military Aid, US vs China, Saudi Arabia, PayPal Censorship, Dem Agenda, Worker Action, & More!

Episode Date: October 11, 2022

Krystal and Saagar give their commentary on Ukraine military aid, calls for diplomacy, microchip competition, Saudi-US relations, animal rights, online censorship, economy messaging, Chipotle unionization, & more!To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/Chicago: https://www.axs.com/events/449151/breaking-points-live-tickets Chipotle Workers: https://workerorganizing.org/support/chipotle-workers/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. trustworthy mainstream by becoming a Breaking Points premium member today at BreakingPoints.com. Your hard-earned money is going to help us build for the midterms and the upcoming presidential election so we can provide unparalleled coverage of what is sure to be one of the most pivotal moments in American history. So what are you waiting for? Go to BreakingPoints.com to help us out. Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. A lot of important and also interesting stories.

We have new developments with regards to Russia and Ukraine and also our administration's response. We have some very, very revealing and interesting comments. A very prominent official calling for diplomacy, something that you rarely hear on cable news. So we're going to break all of that down. Also some new developments in terms of the stock market and new regulations from the Biden administration with regard to chips being exported to China that could be quite significant. This is a story I've been following for a while. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Now you have Senator Menendez, who is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying, hey, you know what? It's time to stop selling arms to the Saudis. Huge development. His rationale is interesting and revealing in and of itself. We'll get to that. And we also have an important update for you. On a story we covered a while

back, animal rights activists who had been arrested and charged for rescuing two piglets, which were on the verge of death, they sent in like half a dozen FBI agents across state lines, all with regard to these two little piglets expending these incredible federal government resources. Why? Because they're embarrassing the, you know, big agricultural industrial farming industry. So we'll break that all down for you as well. We've got two Chipotle workers on who are organizing Chipotles across the country. So excited about that one. But before we get to any of that, we are really excited about the live show that we have going on this weekend in Chicago. Let's go ahead and put it up on the screen. So we're headed to Chicago 15th. It's your

last chance this week to get those tickets so that you can come and see us live. We've really spent a lot of time sort of workshopping this particular show and thinking about how we can make it really participatory. We're going to have a lot of audience engagement. Some of the normal elements of the show that you're used to are monologues and our back and forth and all of that, but also adding in some new and different things as well. So we're very excited about that.

Yeah, lots of lessons from Atlanta about what works the best, and I think we're really, really leaning into that. This is also a beautiful venue. I really encourage you guys to go ahead and do it. Also, we do have, I think, a couple of tickets left, which involve a meet and greet at the end, so you can go ahead and purchase those. The link is down in the description.

It's happening, so if you have no plans on the weekend, Saturday night, this is what you want to come and do. We promise you it will be a great time for friends, family, parents. Some people brought their parents to Atlanta. So, yeah, anyway, it's always very heartening in order to meet everybody. And we're really looking forward to that. So go ahead and take advantage.

Wait, so where do people actually go to get the tickets? There's a link right down in the bottom of this video or in the podcast description. So there we go. Those are right there. Also, this is the last week of the CounterPoints discount. Extended it a little bit by popular appeal. It's going to put the CounterPoints graphic up on the screen.

That's right. We've got a fantastic show that they're going to be doing on Friday. We're really looking forward to that. I also want to say, not only on top of the discount that we're offering, but Supercast has actually done us a great favor, Crystal. We've had a lot of people ask if they could actually give more

than when the preset amounts for their membership. Now, actually, you can select the amount that you would like in order for your membership to be upgraded or for however much you would like beyond that figure. So, again, we are not asking or requesting, but if you would like to, it's very, very helpful. And given that so many of you have asked us, that is now available.

And if you need help setting all of that up, just send us an email if you're an existing premium member, breakingpointspremium at gmail.com. Okay, administrative stuff out of the way. As always, we thank you so much for bearing with us on these things. Let's start with Ukraine. Of course, the most important. After missiles rained down, not only on Kyiv, but really across the entire country, hitting critical energy infrastructure,

stopping Ukraine actually from exporting energy for one of the first times in the war and causing longstanding blackouts everywhere. There has been increased calls from Ukraine and President Zelensky in order to get allies to send them advanced air defense systems. I'll go ahead and put this up there on the screen from the Washington Post, which is that the attacks against the cities and the key infrastructure actually has galvanized a longstanding debate amongst allied countries on what exact sophisticated air defense systems and critically long-range weapons systems that they should provide to Ukraine. So going a little bit into this, it's complicated because the United States actually does and has provided surface surface-to-air missile defense systems, known as, and I don't want to screw this up for the geeks out there, NASAMS, the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System. They're always very creative with what they say. Now, we have actually been providing Ukraine with those systems since July. However, we provided them two anti-aircraft systems,

of which the Ukrainians say that they have actually used quite well during that attack result. There's no way to know. The Ukrainians claim that they shot down like half of the cruise missiles that were fired on Ukraine. I don't know. Russians say they hit all their targets. Right. Russians say they hit all their targets. Who knows they hit all their targets. Yeah. Who knows what's true and what's not. In fact, there was some video showing that there were some backfire on the surface air missile system. The problem is, is that for the United States to provide Ukraine with all of the systems that they are going to be asking for, here's the issue. We don't have them. Yeah.

It will take, quote, several years to procure and to deliver. As in, we literally do not have any of the leftovers. What we do have are some Soviet-era defense systems that officials have said are already being familiar to the Ukrainian troops. Now, those have been provided by Slovakia and a few other of the allies. Germany also announced yesterday it will be providing some air defense systems as well. They're known as IRST air defense systems and said that they would have arrived, quote, in the next few days. However, this is not the fulsome nature of what the Ukrainians want, because they are actually combining what has just happened with air defense systems on top of,

hey, by the way, we also need those long range missile systems that you refuse to sell us because they're saying they need to have a war of defense to be able to strike on the missiles that are targeting them. Well, that brings us into a very different strategic territory because we did not provide them those weapons systems specifically because we were afraid that it would spark a bigger conflict with Russia, according to Biden. However, and let's put the next one up there on the screen, Ukraine is very, very savvily, I will say on their part, approaching and it's, quote, weapons wishlist as the winter approaches. So what we've seen here is that on top of their

new air defense systems, really what they want is to be able to deter critical Ukrainian infrastructure strikes, the likes of which that we just saw yesterday. The issue is that there is a major conflict in Washington to try and separate out any defensive system from an offensive system. And you can completely make sense, which is that in U.S. military doctrine, for example, part of the reason we were so against a no-fly zone is because there's no such thing as just declaring a no-fly zone. Like if you declare one, that means you have to be able to take out any of the systems which are going to shoot down your planes. So now you're in a war of offense even though you're technically in a war of defense. And this is going to be the critical debate, I think, in the next couple of days given the fervor of how people are reacting after the Ukrainian attack?

Yeah. So there's a lot of interesting context here. First of all, you know, in the early days of this war, Zelensky, and you all will probably recall this, was very upfront about what his demands were, what he wanted, was making public, very public appeals. Those public appeals were sort of dialed back over time because he recognized that this was not really the most effective way to operate. The demands did not go away, but instead of being publicly issued, instead it was, you know, talking to the administration directly and continuing to press for more and more weapons and including these missile defense systems and also in the longer range missiles that they still are very much pressing for.

So what was interesting here is the minute, effectively, that you had these Russian strikes across the country, you had a concerted public effort from the Ukrainians to ask specifically for anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems to Ukraine. So you had the defense minister tweeting the best response to Russian missile terror is the supply of anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems to Ukraine. This will protect our cities and our people. This will protect the future of Europe. You had the foreign minister tweeting after Russian attacks that we urgently need more modern air defense and missile defense systems to save innocent lives.

You had a presidential advisor tweeting instead of talking, we need air defense, MLRS, longer range projectiles. And Estonia's intelligence chief, and we've been covering Estonia, they're very hawkish in terms of their approach to this conflict. They also are calling for these types of longer range weapons to Ukraine. And that's the piece that, you know, the Biden administration is concerned would be very escalatory. As, Sagar, you were indicating, the concern over the anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems is less about that escalatory factor and more about just not having those systems available. And also what we may need should we ever get into a conflict. Right. So the idea was that, you know, we would provide them certain things that we have been providing and we would sort of fund their ability to procure on their own these types of systems.

Now, of course, that will, as you indicate, take quite a while for those to be developed. And then there's the question of training and whether they'll be ready to go to effectively utilize those systems. So, you know, if you're Russia, just think about this, because I'm reading reports this morning, you know, the lights, electricity, and water is is basically back on mostly across the country. You know, there's no doubt that this, first of all, killed people, including civilians, and that this, you know, was a terrifying situation for Ukrainians across the country. And it was designed to be so.

But also, they didn't, unlike the, you know, attack on the Crimea Bridge, which was a big psychological blow and also a big strategic blow, this didn't accomplish any sort of real battle objectives. Their hand in terms of their military tactics and where they stand has not changed because of these attacks. This is essentially like a sort of like an anti-virtue signal, like just being able to show like we can still do something, which is both designed to terrify the Ukrainian public and also to sort of placate their own domestic hardliners. So they have this sort of showy display that doesn't really accomplish their battlefield objectives. And then right away, you basically have the Biden administration saying, you know, those anti-aircraft, anti-missile defense systems that you guys have been asking for, we're going to go and we've been dragging our feet on. We're going to go ahead and provide this. And that's also what complicates this so much, because on top of this, there's actually secret negotiations going on right now between the U.S. and Ukraine on whether to send F-16s and Patriot missile defense systems to Ukraine. Now, the thing iss and Patriot missile defense systems to Ukraine. Now, the thing is with the Patriot missile defense systems is we barely have enough in order to protect NATO and ourselves.

There's a longstanding supply problem of which is very boring and I could go into for a long time. But the secondary part of that on the F-16s is one that has been one of those lines that the Biden administration, and NATO in particular, has been refusing to cross. Both Poland, Romania, and others will remember the whole fighter jet controversy in the beginning of the war. Anyway, all of this is getting looped in to the current environment as to why we're spending so much time covering it because how NATO and the West decides to respond to this and the type of weapon systems they send could actually change the strategic situation overall. President Biden put out a readout of his phone call. Let's go and put this up there on the screen with Zelensky yesterday. Here's what he said. Biden spoke today with President Zelensky of Ukraine. He expressed his condemnation of Russia's missile strikes across Ukraine,

including in Kiev, and conveys his condolences. Biden pledged to continue providing Ukraine with the support, adding to defend itself, including advanced air defense systems. He also underscored his ongoing engagement with allies and partners, etc. Now, the reason why that this matters, again, is it's all being looped up. The debates on defensive and offensive weapon couched in the realm of supposedly being able to stop future Russian attacks within the context of these strikes. Now, the other problem, too, on the strikes, this is what you just said. Power is back on in Ukraine. Did it work?

I mean, kind of. Like, the Ukrainians are probably more resolute than ever. They're like, wow, I really hate these people. We're not going to— We're not going to roll over for these assholes. At the same time, you know, it's like, what, you're going to bomb one of our childhood parks? And it's like, we're going to— Parks and a pedestrian bridge where people take selfies, like a beautiful national place. And we're just going to capitulate to you whenever you have the unproven capabilities

on the battlefield. No, the issue is that Russia also does not necessarily have a lot of these precision guided munitions. So I looked a little bit deeper into this. And from all current estimates of their actual precision-guided munitions, there is a reason that we saw this limited one strike happen yesterday, and it had not happened effectively on that scale since March. It's because Russia has two things. They're not in a total war with Ukraine. If they wanted to dedicate 100% of their military capability to this, I guess they could. And, you know, frankly, it would be horrific for the Ukrainian people and for the world. But they also have to consider, hey, what if we get into a war with NATO? What if we get into a war with any greater power than Ukraine?

We're going to need these advanced missile systems, and they do not have a lot of the production. So they have, and there's all this propaganda about the amount that's rolling off of their production line and more. But it seems that they are very limited to the conventional world, basically like weapons developed from the 1950s to like the 1970s. Like everything that's advanced and requires a lot of electronics, microchips, and more, that stuff is very difficult for them to procure at mass scale and especially at speed, which is why they have not been able to bring it to bear. Anyway, so it bears the question of like, is this actually a real, you know, is this actually going to be a real problem in the future? I mean, all current stocks indicate that Russia, yes, they're capable of lashing out like this, but unless they go to a total war footing, which by the way is possible, like if the Ukrainian, if the Russians, this is what we've

warned about a tactical nuclear strike, if their regime is fully up against the wall, then yeah, I think they might fully mobilize, dedicate their entire economy, population, and weapons cash is to war with Ukraine. But in the current environment, like I just don't see how, I don't think it would be conventionally possible for them to do so, which is, and that's not just me, like, everything I've read from arms experts and more that estimate, that estimate their actual force capability, in a lot of ways, the strike yesterday was a position of weakness to show you, like, we can't do this all the time, but we can do it every once in a while if we want to. Well, and then you, it begs the question, like, what was the real purpose of these strikes? And, you know, I do think potentially, like, just as a reminder to Ukraine, like, we have other stuff we could do and you should continue to be terrified.

But I actually think, and this is the point that Yegor was making to me, this is more about placating a domestic hardline audience. Which immediately, you know, Kadyrov and all these guys that have been out there chirping and, like, complaining about the direction of the of the war and like really raking across the coals, the military leadership. Well, they put a new, more brutal guy in charge. They unleashed these attacks on energy infrastructure and sort of across all of Ukraine, hitting strategic cities across the entire country. And now those guys are all happy as they could possibly be and celebrating this great win for Russia and all of this stuff. When again, in reality, what have you done? You've burned through some of your precious stockpile. happy as they could possibly be in celebrating this great win for Russia and all of this stuff, when again, in reality, what have you done? You've burned through some of your precious stockpile. You've sort of demonstrated the limits of your capabilities. And you've also ultimately not changed your position in terms of the outcome of the war really whatsoever. If anything, as you

said, you've probably strengthened the resolve of the Ukrainian people even more to push you all of the way out. So that's why I thought, you know, when Yegor was making this case to me, it made sense to me that this is really more about quieting the hardliners and placating a domestic audience after this very humiliating situation with the Crimea bridge and, you know, however that unfolded and whatever happened there, so that he would sort of quiet that dissent. As we've been saying all along, the strongest adversarial voices in Russia are not those who would actually want peace. It's the hardliners. It's the people that want that wholesale mass mobilization, that want more

of a hawkish approach that even in certain cases have called directly, in Medvedev's case for tactical nuclear strikes. So that's the audience that it seems like these strikes were really designed to ultimately message to. Yeah. And at the same time, the U.S. also committing 100 percent beyond President Biden. Let's put this up there. Secretary Blinken, he says, quote, I just spoke with my Ukrainian foreign minister to reiterate U.S. support for Ukraine following the Kremlin's horrific strikes this morning. We will continue to provide unwavering economic, humanitarian, and security assistance to Ukraine so Ukraine can defend itself and take care of its people. So, you know, basically unwavering from the United States. And I think that that is a pretty good overview of where things stand. Not necessarily this changed anything on the battlefield situation,

but it may change things in terms of how NATO and the Western allies continue to supply Ukraine. And it does show you the dance the Russians have to walk, which is if you go too far and you actually commit to it, you could get into a broader war. If you don't go far enough, you might lose the war, which is happening right now. Anyway, critical times remain on the battleground. Or lose his power. It's very hard to have any sort of insight into whether there's a real threat of that or not. But these sorts of actions sort of indicate that he's feeling some pressure just in terms of maintaining his own grip on power. Yeah, I think that. I think the fact that he did it to

play, and the fact that Kadyrov came out saying he now supports the military operation shows you who the intended audience for it. Beyond Ukraine, there's also many domestic audiences that he has to fulfill. All right, let's move on now to a very interesting diplomatic development here. And this shows you again the tightrope that I alluded to. Let's put this up there on the screen. India and China, which all eyes are on are, of course, with regards to this situation, the two great powers, which are not backing Russia, but not also being as adversarial, actually criticized Russia after the strikes, calling for de-escalation. Now, to be clear, they did not name Russia specifically,

but as when Prime Minister Modi said that the world desires peace while sitting right next to Vladimir Putin, it's kind of a screw you in very coded language. First, from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, here's what they said, quote, All countries deserve respect for their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Support should be given to all efforts that are conducive to peacefully resolving the crisis. Now, from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, here's what New Delhi says, India is deeply concerned at the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, including targeting of infrastructure and deaths of civilians. So anyway,

the Indian response there is probably the most direct criticism yet that they have given of Putin. Why does it matter? Well, they remain one of the top customers of Russian oil. And I do think it bears parsing as to how the Indians in particular are approaching this. And even in the Chinese, they're like, listen, if you're going to sell us cheap oil, we'll take that oil. They're like, but don't mistake for a second that we support, you know, bombing of critical infrastructure in Ukraine. And it's also a little bit of a lesson for Putin of, yeah, you might want to go total war if you, but if you do, you will lose your last two standing customers who are funding basically the entire war effort.

He really has put himself in a very strategic pickle. And I think for him to have zero allies in this fight except for Belarus, I mean, look, that's a bad situation to be in. And it just highlights how strategically dumb the invasion was in the first place. Also shows you how precarious their situation is, is they can't really commit beyond what they're already doing without possibly risking the loss of their largest oil customers on the globe. Yeah. Well, Saudi is backing them up. So they've got some friends there. We'll get to that in a little bit.

Yeah. So they've got some friends there. We'll get to that in a little bit. I think also from the India and China perspective, you know, part of the rub with these countries with regards to the West is the feeling of like all these international organizations and like rules of the global order. Not to say that in the conspiratorial sense, but these are all set up by the U.S. and by the West. And they feel like they're given a sort of second class status within that order. So in the beginning of this, when it was like, oh, Russia is like challenging that order and maybe we're going to sort of wait and see how this plays out. Well, now they're saying how it's playing out and it's not playing out that well for Russia. So it's important to remember that these new comments, these are not the first comments that Russia, I mean, that China and India have made that have been at least obliquely critical of Russia. There was that summit in Uzbekistan last month. They say it was meant to be a show

of force for Putin, but the leader had to acknowledge that Xi Jinping of China had raised, quote, questions and concerns about the war. India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi was more public and direct, describing how the war has exacerbated challenges for developing countries. He told Putin at the summit their meeting would be, quote, a chance to discuss how we can move forward on the path of peace. And, you know, these are also countries that have their own domestic political considerations that they have to think about. I mean, they are also being hit with inflation. China seems to be facing a lot of economic woes and difficulties. So, you know, the fact that this war has exacerbated some of these crises for their own domestic population is obviously a consideration here as well, but quite noteworthy, the increasing like arm's length distancing of these two countries that Russia, in particular with China, thought they'd be able to rely on the beginning. Yeah, I think there's no other way to describe it as a real problem for Putin to be in this situation. And everybody has their own domestic political

concerns. I think the clear answer from New Delhi is, hey, we're willing to stand up to the West as long as we're getting this cheap oil and we're able to do it without incurring any costs. But if you go too far and you're going to incur us costs, then this entire deal is up. And the precarity then of the Russian economy really can't be overstated. I mean, over and over again, the Russian oil markets and Russia really has been saved both by OPEC and by the supply shock. But that is a dangerous situation to have only one or two customers that you can be wholly reliant on in order to backstop your economy. And that means you have to placate them very, very, very carefully. I think that New Delhi, the moment that they would have to face a U.N. resolution

that would actually, or sanctions possibly by the West, some type of thing, they would pull the plug on their relationship. That's what they've always done. They've basically played the West and the Russians against each other and were like, we'll go with whoever's going to give us a deal, is going to give us a deal. Most of them, it's very Indian, I think, in their handling it. As far as the Chinese- You can say that, I can't.

Yeah, I'll say that. As far as the Chinese, I mean, they've been doing it basically since the Cold War. It's kind of interesting. It's called the non-aligned movement. Anyway, in terms of the Chinese, same thing, which is that they like the chaos. They like actually the West being pinned down in Europe. So they'll backstop the Russians, but they're not going to sell them any weapons. They haven't done so. I mean, the North Koreans right now are taking advantage of that. If Russia really wasn't a pickle, would they come and save them? I'm not so sure because they too also don't want to suffer those consequences. And they don't really, they don't want the trouble to be directly on them. Again, they're just like the Indians. They'll take the cheap oil. Yeah. And this is why,

you know, when there's, we've been over this a couple times, but I just, I keep hearing this argument being made, so I really want to underscore why I think it's silly and facile of an argument, this idea that like, oh, if you negotiate with Russia at all, if they end up getting anything out of this, then they're going to be emboldened, they're going to roll into another country or other rogue regimes around the world are going to look at this and say, you know what, we should do this too because Russia ultimately got X or Y or Z out of this deal. Like, this has been an unmitigated disaster for Putin, for Russia. I mean, for him personally, in terms of his grip on power, there seem to be cracks. It has not gone well in terms of the war effort. It has not gone well in terms of their economic

standing. It has not gone well in terms of the war effort. It has not gone well in terms of their economic standing. It has not gone well in terms of their international standing. I cannot imagine any leader around the world looking at this and saying, that's an experience I want to replicate. Right. Right. Even if there was some sort of like, you know, they end up with Crimea or something like that. No one is going to look at this and be like, that was great for them.

And I want to do the same thing. I tend to agree. All right, let's move on then to the final part here, which is interesting also in its own right. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen, which is the issue that we face right now, which you just got to on negotiations, which is the Russians, for all their talk about diplomacy and all of that, their number two, Dmitry Medvedev, on the day of the strikes, still calls, Crystal, for complete regime change in Ukraine.

And actually uses... Who knew this guy was such a psycho? You know, it's actually a fascinating story in its own right, as I've alluded to, which is that Medvedev, while he was president, Obama thought that he could deal with him on a better basis. They saw him as more proto-Western. Didn't Hillary go with the reset button? Yes, the reset button. What, didn't end up saying reset? Yeah. That's hilarious. But yeah, Medvedev was seen by the West, by European allies, as somebody you could work with, a lot less

conspiratorial than Putin, all of that. Yeah, it turns out he's not only a crony, like he's willing to take power wherever he needs it and be Putin's literal attack dog and sacrifice his entire standing with the West for all time by calling for denazification in Ukraine. So it does show you that even with their backs against the wall, even after the humiliating defeats on the battlefield, the scourge of the eyes of the world,

the diminishment of the Russian state, I could go on forever. After all of that, they are still using the same talking points about how you need complete regime change in Ukraine when you're celebrating those missiles. And he's the one calling also for tactical nuclear weapons. And this is, again, for people who want diplomacy like us, it's like, well, look, you got to have two sides at the table. And if the other side is going to be completely unhinged and crazy, then the death is on you as much as it is on the other side,

which is why it drives me nuts whenever they speak this way. Yeah, so there's a development this morning I'm curious of your thoughts on. So Sergei Lavrov, who's Russia's foreign minister, said on Tuesday Moscow was open to talks with the West on the Ukraine war, but had yet to receive any serious proposal to negotiate. I'm reading from U.S. News and World Report. In an interview on state TV, Lavrov said Russia was willing to engage with the U.S. or with Turkey on ways to end the war now in its eighth month. His emphasis on Russia's receptiveness comes after a series of stinging defeats, et cetera, et cetera.

Lavrov said officials, including White House National Security spokesman John Kirby, had said the U.S. was open to talks, but Russia had refused. This is a lie, Lavrov said. We have not received any serious offers to make contact. So making some noises like

he would be willing to have a Putin-Biden meeting. Right. What do you read into that? I mean, once again, it's like hard to take him seriously. Putin and Biden meeting for what purpose? I mean, and also they need to be real, which is that there's no way that's going to happen unless there is any serious ceasefire. Well, there have to be communications below the presidential level before you would expect to get to that level of meeting. There would have to be some sort of, I mean, I think it would be hard for Biden to meet with no conditions whatsoever with Putin at this point. Yeah, I agree. I agree. Two things would happen. Either they would have

to stop or things would have to get a lot worse. Like we'd have to literally be on the brink of a nuclear exchange for that. And even then, I'm not sure the political conditions would align. I mean, the issue to Lavrov in particular, like these guys are wily liars. I watched them break many, many ceasefires in Syria. I'm not going to say it was all on them. There was a lot of complicated stuff. But the point is you can't really take a lot of their word seriously.

And so if they're going to continue to parrot this type of language, and also even in terms of their negotiation, at the one hand, they're saying this stuff. On the other, they endorse Elon Musk's proposal continue to parrot this type of language. And also even in terms of their negotiation, you know, at the one hand, they're saying this stuff. On the other, they like endorse Elon Musk's proposal as one that they would consider. So it's like, which one? You know, they're the ones also that have to lay things out as well. And they're not giving themselves any room in order to open that table. I just don't think it's possible from the Russian side. But I also want to be clear, I don't think it's really possible from the Ukrainian side either. I mean, go ahead and put this next one up there on the screen. You know, right now, Zelensky remains resolute in his position, quote, Ukraine is ready to hold negotiations with Russia only with a new Russian

president, effectively calling for total regime change in Moscow on the same hand. And actually, there was a columnist, David Ignatius, who I don't think you should pay attention to him for necessarily his own opinions, but you should for his deep connections with the CIA and the deep state. And he was in Kiev, and he basically wrote a column, actually very recently, that just came out. And he said, look, the idea of compromise right now is absurd. It is simply not in the cards for us. The consensus is there can be no compromise. And this is from the, again, I take him seriously because he was just in Kiev with Zelensky and all of his advisors and the thinking, maybe it's bluster, maybe it's not. Once again, I have no idea.

I can only tell you what they say. And here's what he writes. What's clear to me is that there's no middle ground. The resiliency and resolve I heard reminded me of Londoners during the Blitz in World War II. I was asked repeatedly by Zelensky and his advisors why people in the West still even talk about compromise with Putin. So their head is nowhere even close to negotiation. So you basically have two sides that at least at times publicly stated position is, we won't negotiate until we have regime change in the other country.

And that's a recipe for disaster. Here's a direct quote from the head of the Ukrainian National Security Council. It would be extremely difficult to explain to our society why we need to even sit down at the table with these terrorists and negotiate. That's it. And this is where, I mean, I don't blame them for that view whatsoever. But this is also where the Biden administration's stance has led to the place where you would have this really hard line, you know, totally uncompromising language coming from the Ukrainians where, you know, I don't doubt that they really mean it because we have sort of enabled, you know, we've created the reality that exists right now where they really feel like they have a chance at complete victory, where they feel

like it's possible that they may even be able to, you know, watch the downfall or the overthrow of Putin's government and his power. And so, you know, we've really sort of enabled these loggerhead conditions in terms of any sort of diplomacy. And that's even without going back to, you know, the short circuited peace talks that at least by some reporting had some chance in the early days of working out. And we said, no, we're not down for that. There's no way to know. There's literally no way to know about how this is all going to work out. But I think it's always important, you know, for people who are, you know, fans of diplomacy and want it for us to also be real about what the conditions being

created by the both sides are, where it seems almost impossible. And the road to much more destruction and death just seems all the more likely, unfortunately. Total defeat for Russia, like even being pushed out of Crimea, etc. That really heightens the risk. Number one, that Putin would feel his status in power was at existential risk. And dramatically increases the chance that he would resort to something like a tactical nuclear strike in order to hold on to power. So that's why, you know, these kinds of signs and signals are troubling because ultimately that's the sort of back against the wall, no other option situation you could end up in with catastrophic consequences for everyone, including the

Ukrainians. That's right. So let's get to the next block. We thought it was very important to highlight this. What we're about to show you is Admiral Mike Mullen. Some of you might know him. He was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Bush and President Obama. Now, look, I'm not going to lie to you. He has a mixed record on Afghanistan. Didn't exactly tell us the truth. That being said, I followed him a lot in the days of the Syrian civil war crystal, because even at that time, he was always pushing back against hawks who wanted to create a no-fly zone over Syria because he wanted to avoid conflict with Russia. And he gave a very eye-opening interview, the first likes of which I have ever seen on

national television, in which he was very clear with the American people about what Putin needs to be taken seriously on, what exactly the nuclear threat consists of, and what the avenue for the U.S. should be. The reason why I think it's important is that this is a former head of the entire United States military, chief military advisor to the president, advocating not for military action like David Petraeus and other four stars that was seen on TV after, but instead for diplomatic negotiations. Let's take a listen. How do you assess the nuclear threat from Russia right now? Well, I have to take Putin seriously. He's got lots of options with tactical nuclear

weapons from very low yield nuclear weapons. He's a cornered, I believe, a cornered animal. And I think he's more and more dangerous. Just what's happened in the last 24 hours. It also speaks to the need, I think, to get to the table. I'm a little concerned about the language, which we're about at the top, if you will. President Biden's language. President Biden's language with respect to how it all ends.

And that really is up to, I think, Tony Blinken and other diplomats to figure out a way to get both Zelensky and Putin to the table. And as is typical in any war, it's got to end. And usually there are negotiations associated with that. So there are a couple of noteworthy things that he says. Number one, take Putin's threat of nuclear weapons seriously. Number two, calling out President Biden for his nuclear Armageddon language. Although on that one, I've seen that the hawks are basically like, Biden shouldn't be so hyperbolic. I'm like, well, what if he's not being hyperbolic? What if he was real? What if that's what he believes? You know, I said this yesterday, Crystal.

I think we should reiterate it again. The idea that you can make your most fulsome comments about how the entire earth may be destroyed behind closed doors, not on camera, in front of a bunch of rich billionaires, and everybody's just supposed to accept that, when in reality, if the risk is that high, you need to sit your ass in the Oval Office and give a direct address to camera on exactly what the threat is, what the United States will do, and everything I am doing in order to mitigate that threat. Well, and this is where with Biden, I mean, it almost is, it's sort of very Trumpian, where you never know how much is him just like off the cuff saying some shit that he really shouldn't say, but that he actually thinks, and how much of it is like planned out intentional messaging and strategy. I don't know. You know, I mean, my instinct is this is just, you know, he's in a room, he's talking, he's

Joe, he's even before the mental decline, he's always had sort of verbal diarrhea and said things he's not really supposed to say. So my instinct is it was more of that kind of a situation where he accidentally let loose what he really thinks, even as clearly many other people in the administration are trying to avoid saying any of this publicly whatsoever. Why? Because if you acknowledge that we are right now in a position where we could face potential nuclear Armageddon, it begs a lot of questions about how the hell exactly we got here. So that's the reason why he doesn't want to give that fulsome, direct speech, comments to the American public, because

to acknowledge that we've allowed ourselves to get in this place is to acknowledge that there were potential catastrophic failures along the way. We know that the American people would like to see diplomacy. The views that are expressed by Mike Mullen here are very mainstream, even though if you express them, you know, on Twitter or other places, you'll be absolutely dogpiled as a Russian sympathizer and all this sort of stuff. But, you know, the reality is, if you want to end this conflict without having overt World War III, we're already in sort of like low-key World War III, but overt World War III and a potential nuclear exchange, at some point people are going to have to come to the table. Now, it feels like we are right now a long way from getting to that place. So then that begs

the question, what do we do to change the conditions to enable that sort of serious sit down where at least you could get to a ceasefire, at least you could come to some sort of an understanding or a detente to de-escalate this situation rather than what we continue to see week after week after week is a little more escalation, a little more escalation, a little more escalation, a little more escalation. I mean, we just learned, let's not forget that this is already sort of like fallen out of the news, but we just learned the Ukrainians assassinated a Russian citizen in Moscow using a car bomb. So those sorts of tactics are apparently being deployed by the Ukrainians.

The U.S. intelligence community says without our consent may or may not be the case ultimately, but this is a really dangerous game that we're playing every single week that it goes on. All it takes is one thing to go wrong. That car bomb didn't even kill the right person, so they didn't even kill, you know. Okay, now what? It's like, what if you killed somebody who's fired up the food chain? What if you start assassinating children? People start to go crazy.

I mean, look, all of this is 100% on the table. The final thing that I think that Admiral Mullen said was notice who he said should bring people to the table. He said Tony Blinken. He named the United States Secretary of State because Admiral Mullen is not an idiot, Only the U.S. has the convening power with these two powers that are involved in this war to actually get some sort of facilitation at the table. And, you know, I think that this cannot be overstated. America is the only country on earth that has the capability to compel Ukraine to the negotiating table because they literally do not function as a polity without us. We pay their bills and balance their budget. I don't think people even understand that their entire economy and currency

would collapse without the United States, given the amount of economic assistance. Two, their war effort is 100% dependent on U.S. Like, in terms of overall military aid and materiel, it all comes from us. So, at that point, you have a tremendous say over the conflict. And I was really heartened to hear Admiral Mullen say that because he has actual cachet amongst the so-called decision makers. I will say, though, there's always been wars over who has respectability and who doesn't. And we have to be honest, his view is not very popular here in Washington. But I'm starting to see a couple of things break through.

Actually, just this morning in the Financial Times, a guy named Alexander Gabaev, he's a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He came out with the same thing. The risks of escalation in the Ukraine war are rising fast. No comprehensive settlement is possible, but the U.S. must start laying the groundwork for crisis diplomacy. You saw Congressman Ro Khanna, who I believe we have on the show on Thursday, actually, making similar noises, which is also noteworthy that there would even be a perception that there would be any space in the conversation to say that at this point. Yeah, so I think that the tide is beginning to break for what we have been saying here on the show for a long time. But we also can't overstate, I'm talking about two voices or three voices in a sea of 10,000 who rule Washington. Don't ever forget there's more Ukrainian flags in the city than there are American flags.

You're absolutely 100% correct, though, that the initiative really does have to come from the U.S. I mean, there's just no other way that this is ultimately going to work out. I mean, we saw the way that this happened the last time there were any sort of peace negotiations. The U.S. and the U.K. basically said, no, we're not down with this. And that was the end of it. So if it doesn't come from the U.S. and from some sort of initiative from our side, there is no possibility whatsoever. I hope that Biden's little realizations about World War III and potential nuclear Armageddon maybe makes him a little more serious about figuring out how we could get to that place, not that that is an easy thing to figure out how to engineer whatsoever. We'll see. Inshallah, as they say in the Arab world.

We have a lot of foreign policy news in the show today. This was another really significant move that I wanted to make sure did not get overlooked as we, of course, have continued to focus on the possibility of nuclear Armageddon, which I would, you know, dare say is an important focus, place for our show to focus these days. But the Biden administration making some significant moves with regards to China and those crucial semiconductor technology. Let's go ahead and put this tear sheet up on the screen. From Bloomberg, they said, no possibility of reconciliation as U.S. slams China chips. The Biden administration implemented sweeping new restrictions and the U.S. move hampers China's efforts to develop domestic technology. Okay, what are we talking about here? Now, first of all, let me say that according to all the analysts, the devil is really in the details here over how this is all implemented.

However, the Biden administration on Friday announced sweeping export controls on semiconductor technology to China. The idea is to sort of cripple Beijing's access to those critical technology. It's needed for a lot of things, but including sort of defense and guided weapons. So that seems to be what it is aimed at. Technology experts said the rules appear to impose the broadest export

controls issued in a decade. This is per the New York Times. Similar to the Trump administration's crackdown on the telecom giant Huawei, the new rules are far wider in scope, affecting dozens of Chinese firms. And unlike the Trump administration's approach, which was viewed, this is the New York Times editorial, as aggressive but scattershot, that's probably fair characterization, the rules appear to establish a more comprehensive policy that will stop cutting-edge exports to a range of Chinese technology companies and cut off China's nascent ability to produce advanced chips. So they have been, the Chinese government has been really heavily invested in building up their own semiconductor industry, but they are still way behind the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea in their ability to produce the most advanced chips.

In fields like AI, China is actually more at par with where we are, but in terms of semiconductor chip production, they are apparently behind. This is also crucial because it's really sort of broad reaching. So even companies that are overseas, like in Taiwan, for example, but rely on U.S. technology are also subject to these export controls. The market is, and again, you know, they add in these potential loopholes where basically like on a case by case basis, they can issue exemptions. So that's why analysts are saying like the devil's in the details and it depends how this is all ultimately implemented. But the markets are certainly reacting like this is a big deal and like it's going to be enforced in a quite an aggressive way. Let's go ahead and put this next piece up on the screen. I don't know if you guys followed this yesterday. The NASDAQ closed at a two-year low on Monday, hurt primarily by those slumping chip stocks.

They say this comes after the Biden administration announced those new export controls. And the Nasdaq's losses for the year are now greater than 32 percent after Monday's decline. The S&P 500 is off by 24 percent. And in terms of how much teeth this is ultimately going to have, this is the last piece here, Sagar, and I'll get your reaction. Taiwan has also signaled, let's go ahead and put this last piece up on the screen. Taiwan has also signaled their chip firms are going to follow these new U.S. rules, which again, apply to them because they rely on some U.S. technology. So interesting development. Yeah. I mean, this is the new gold, has been for a while. Frankly,

this should have been policy for 10 years, 15 years ago. The idea that it took until 2022, and the idea that the Trump administration didn't do it just shows you how laughable they really were in the first place. It took Biden also nearly two years in office to get there. So look, let's not applaud anyone. But he didn't get there. He got there. It's happening. I'm glad it's here. Unfortunately, and I do not want to be the Debbie Downer, everything I have read so far, Crystal, is that almost all of this is 10 to 20 years too late. Here is the very simple truth. Taiwan Semiconductors is 25 years ahead of the entire global populace. These machines and facilities are so sensitive, if a single human hair gets in the wrong place, the entire thing will shut down. Also, they work 24 hours a day.

There's a great interview with the TSMC CEO, and they ask him a question. It's translated, but they're like, hey, so why did you beat America? And he's like, you people are lazy. He's like, we work 24 hours a day. He's like, we have our people on eight-hour shifts three times. The facility never shuts down. He's like, when you outwork somebody double, then you beat them. Very simple. Anyway, they are just magicians, essentially, that have the proper supply,

workforce, technology, know-how. There's actually only a limited amount of executives in the whole world who even know how to do this. So look, I applaud the CHIPS Act, and I applaud this. The reason why America and China are posturing over Taiwan is because of TSMC's facility. And as much as I support the $50 billion and Micron and all those other new things that we're building here, we are over a decade away from any capability of producing anything. I just want to be honest with people. It's true. It's baby steps that we've been taking. I mean, clearly this has been a concerted effort and focus of the Biden administration. I hope it works. Clearly somebody in the administration gets that this is a big issue.

It's a big vulnerability for us. And not just in terms of like military and defense and those sorts of things, but in terms of like electric vehicles. And if that's something you care about and like the future of, you know, the climate, and that's obviously a big push of the Biden administration as well. This, you know, you don't have that future if you don't ultimately have the chips to facilitate it. So one interesting thing, just a political note, J.D. Vance and Tim Ryan squared off in a big debate in Ohio last night. I saw lots of clips flying around. Matt Stoller, of course, one of our great partners here, was pointing out that it's quite notable that both Vance and Tim Ryan said they supported the CHIPS Act. Yes, absolutely.

I think, you know, I mean, just given how hardened and partisan everything is, the fact that you have any Republican going along with anything Biden has done shows you that there's at least somewhat of a bipartisan recognition that this is extremely important. Don't forget that Intel is opening that facility in Ohio. So this is $20 billion. Jobs issue for them too. It's also a jobs issue on top of American security. And I will say, look, on JD,

I've known the guy for a while and he does genuinely care a lot about the chips issue in particular. I think the point that is very important to underscore is that this is good, but the major geostrategic questions on what happens in the event of a Taiwan invasion are still unanswered and will not be answered now for a decade. And it's interesting.

There's a lot of discussion right now in Taiwan about essentially creating a mutually assured destruction on the chips industry should they get invaded, where they just blow up the TSMC facility. And they're like, well, China's not going to get it, but neither is America. And look, I mean, the reality is it's such a sensitive facility in the first place that it's almost impossible. 92% of the world's most advanced chips come from there. And I think we should also all be honest. Like, you know, this MacBook in front of me, if there was a shutdown of TSMC,

this would be the last one I'd be able to buy for probably seven years. iPhones, get ready, folks, and look at what's happening in Russia. If conceivably the United States went to war with no TSMC, it is very likely, Crystal, that we would have to basically dismantle all of our camera equipment and turn it into the U.S. government. I mean, think about what happened in World War II. You're talking about Russia's having to pull them out of washing machines. I actually looked into that story.

It has happened. It's unclear. But the truth is that they are cannibalizing some consumer electronics. Now, if we were to ever enter a war and there were no more TSMC, it is very likely the U.S. government would be like, everyone has to turn in their consumer electronics in order to run our missile systems off of. Let's just be very real about the vulnerability that we face in the global supply chain right now. And why? I mean, I do scourge so many of these policymakers for what they've

done to us over the last year. I feel on semiconductors the way that if you are a rightful German should feel about nuclear energy and about reliance on Russian gas. I cannot believe you people put us in this situation. Let us get to this place. Because that is the level of vulnerability. We just don't feel it yet because there hasn't been a crunch. We got a small taste in 2021. Our car companies lost $10 billion in revenue because of the chip shortage. $10 billion. That's, you know, a lot, but also not that much compared to what would happen with a total shutdown of the supply chain.

Yeah. I mean, it's, yeah, it is that ultimately critical. And it's part of why, you know, Pelosi pulling her hawkish bullshit with regards to Taiwan and all these people who love to beat their chest. I'm like, do you have any idea what this would actually mean? Like, have you thought for five seconds about what this would mean for the world, what it would mean for us? And the answer, obviously, is no. Bingo.

In broader economic news, some interesting comments from our friend, Jamie Dimon, who's really actually been sounding the alarm for a while about a potential recession. I think previously he said they were preparing for a hurricane. He is once again making some eyebrow-raising comments with regards to that. Let's take a listen. It is going to happen. And I think the likely place you're going to see more of a crack and maybe a little bit more of a panic is in credit markets. And it might be ETFs, it might be a country, it might be something you don't suspect. If you make a list of all the prior crises sitting here, we would not have predicted where they came from, though I think you can predict

this time that it probably will happen. And so if I was out there, I'd be very cautious. If you need money, go raise it. What about stock markets? Where do you see the trough for the S&P 500? Oh, I don't know. You know, it may have a ways to go. I mean, it really depends on that soft landing, hard landing thing. And since I don't know the answer to that, it's hard for me to answer that. But it could be another easy 20%.

So a couple interesting things there. I mean, first of all, he just says of a recession, it is going to happen like very definitively. I mean, listen, as we've discussed by some metrics, we're already in a recession. As much as the Biden administration wanted to workshop that a little bit and smooth that over. And he also points to actually before he says and that clip picks up and says like it is going to happen. He points to just all the signs that you're seeing in the market of, you know, the IPOs and this happens and that happens. And, you know, ultimately you see kind of the bottom fallout. So he also talks about, you know, we haven't come anywhere near the trough in terms of the stock market. So always noteworthy when you see these guys who, listen, they have many,

many faults, but they are paid and make a lot of money to watch and figure out what market conditions are ultimately going to be. And he's saying very definitively that we are headed for that hard landing that the Fed has been claiming to try to want to avoid. I think there's just no doubt about it. I've been reading a lot. I read an analysis this morning, also from the Financial Times, just to see what people are saying in Europe. And they're like, look, the Fed is making it so that, let's put this next one up there on the screen just to underscore this, that they are on track right now for another large interest rate hike after the jobs report of last week. Basically, every economy right now in the world is required to effectively also raise their rates to prevent their currencies

from slumping against the dollar. Because the dollar is king, that makes it so that the Fed actions can tip Europe into, well, frankly, further into recession. Here's the thing. Europe is already in a recession. They can fake it all they want, but the destruction of energy prices, of supply, and the massive shock that they're experiencing, no question right now that they're in a recession. Us, I mean, technically, probably, it's obviously wonky. I would just say things are bad and that in general, whether it's technical or not, it's a bad situation. From that point forward, pushing us further into that bad situation makes it undeniable to have a recession.

And that the global conflagration on all of this is that you kind of have a spinning effect. So we raise our interest rates and the central banks in Europe raise their interest rates. And then the dollar has all of this chaos, which affects our trade markets, our exports. On top of that, you have demand shock, basically from destruction of demand via the Federal Reserve. And you have all these massive supply shocks coming in the energy markets. It's just a recipe for disaster and for chaos, essentially, in the economy. And we really haven't seen this global, all at one time tightening that's happening right now that you're referring to, where it's not just the Fed, it's central banks around the world that are all... And it is partly related to what we're doing,

because we're effectively, when we're hiking rates, we're effectively exporting our inflation around the world. I mean, it's kind of a simplistic way to think about it, but it's making things difficult for European countries. It's also making things very difficult for global south countries that have dollar-denominated debt. And then, you know, once their currency is weaker, it costs more for them to be able to service that debt so it can contribute to those spiraling crises. And those things, of course, don't stay overseas. So that's an added risk for us. Yet, there is no sign that the Fed is intending to slow down whatsoever. As you indicated, you know, we just had this, like, fairly solid jobs report. Employers added 263,000 workers in September. You might think that was good news. When I look at that, I'm like, oh, that's good. We still are adding,

you know, hundreds of thousands of jobs and not going backwards. But the Fed perversely looks at that as bad news because they want to crush the labor market and they want to stop new job creation and they want to lower wages. That is part of their direct goal in what they're doing here. And so when they look at those numbers, you know, indications are that they'll make a fourth increase of 0.75 points at their November 1st and 2nd meeting. They are saying that now, you know, after that meeting, they'll debate how far they want to go at the next meeting. But, you know, it's incredibly dicey territory that you have such aggressive rate hikes from the Fed with the spoken stated goal of we basically want to screw over workers. And they continue to move in this, you know, very, very aggressive

direction and, you know, see these numbers and think that this is a reason to keep going. You're increasingly hearing voices saying like, you all might be going too far with this. And it's interesting that those voices have also started to sneak into some mainstream coverage. I think that from what I've read, and I read a pretty decent analysis yesterday from the journal, the Fed just doesn't care. They, look, I think we should also not underestimate it. You and I, you know, we have a nice, we have a big show, but we do not have cachet in, like, official economic thinking. Correct. And those people rule the world. The Fed is unaccountable, and they are, by definition, independent.

Per their philosophy of the economy, things are going exactly as planned. Their entire philosophy is to divorce themselves from the actual like lived experiences of people's lives specifically in order to have that like grandiose, you know, the thumb on the scale managing up and down and away from politics, kind of the philosophy invented by Paul Volcker. So. And there's a, there's a mono ideology there too. It's not like you talk about the hogs and the doves at the Fed. They're all on board with this same policy right now. So there really is very little difference between them. We can moan until the cows come home, but it's not going to do very much. And until, here's the other problem, which is that by taking this out of the realm of politics,

we really do make it so that Americans don't really understand anything about the Fed. And they, frankly, want it that way. They don't want you to have debates about monetary policy. We used to have them. I have one of my favorite posters behind me. Yeah, you can see it over my shoulder. That's from William Jennings Bryan, you know, in the silver, the free silver movement in the 1900s. This was a real thing that farmers used to understand the direct impact on them. All of the financialization of our economy today is such that it's like, be a good boy, buy your goods, but don't ask questions. It's a direct consequence of neoliberalism. You know, it's the idea that like, you know, we're going to let the markets aside

and we're going to let the experts handle it and you don't need to worry about it. And so it's no accident that Alan Greenspan was really the one that sort of like innovated in this elitist direction of the Fed. And they would talk about Fed speak where it's like you need a freaking decoder ring and a PhD to understand what the hell this guy is trying to say. Like this was all very, very intentional. And over the past decade, there has been, you know, post financial crash. There's been some of the most radical experimentation going on at the Fed that we have ever had in our nation's history. And so it's also not an accident that during that time of completely radical experimentation that there also is, you know, a need to sort of like tell the population, don't worry about it.

We got it. Nothing to see here because they don't want to really open themselves up to that debate and understanding of what was going on. So in some ways, we're also at a place where those chickens are coming home to roost in terms of the end of that period of truly radical Fed intervention. So anyway, it's something that we've really made a concerted effort to try to cover and decode here for everyone because it's ultimately really not that complicated. Anyone can understand what's going on here. And there are few things that directly impact your life as much as what the Fed is deciding to do at each of these meetings. Very true. Okay, more gigantic foreign policy news. Stunning. Something, something I honestly thought I would never see, but it's

interesting the rationale here. So Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Senator, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez now saying, let's go and put this up on the screen, that the U.S. must immediately freeze all aspects of our cooperation with Saudi Arabia, including any arms sales and security cooperation beyond what is absolutely necessary to defend U.S. personnel and interests. So he does put a little bit of a loophole in there, how you define what is absolutely necessary to defend U.S. personnel and interests. But there's no doubt about it. And let's go ahead and put this full statement up on the screen so we can see it. This is a stunning shift in the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi. He says, I want to read through this because his rationale here is important. This comes in the wake, of course, of Russia's attacks on Ukraine. And he says, I'm horrified by Russia's depraved and desperate escalation against civilian infrastructure

across Ukraine, including in Kiev. I pledge to use all means at my disposal to accelerate support for the people of Ukraine and to starve Russia's war machine. That is why I must also speak out against the government of Saudi Arabia's recent decision to help underwrite Putin's war through the OPEC plus cartel. There's no room to play both sides. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia chose in a terrible decision driven by economic self-interest. And that's when he goes on to say the U.S. must immediately freeze all aspects. And he says, I will not greenlight any cooperation with Riyadh until the kingdom reassesses its position with respect to the war in Ukraine.

Enough is enough. So all of this comes after, as we covered here, OPEC Plus had their meeting. They said, we're going to cut production significantly. That's great for Saudi Arabia's bottom line. It's great for Russia's bottom line. You know, keeping oil prices elevated and high, it's bad for us. It's bad for the world. This also comes on the heel of the Biden administration trying to extend an olive branch and going and meeting with them sort of on bended knee. Obviously, that didn't work. But I also think it's noteworthy, Sagar, what this comes in reaction to. Yeah, that's the problem.

You know, it's not about Jamal Khashoggi and human rights. It's not about the atrocities they committed in Yemen creating the worst humanitarian catastrophe on the entire planet. It's not about what they're doing to our own domestic population in terms of screwing us over with gas prices. It's not even about, like, well, it might be partly about the political predicament that he is putting Biden in, that they're putting Biden in, in terms of like putting the screws to him before the midterm. It's because they got crosswise of his, you know, interest in terms of the Ukrainian war effort. So I do think that that's interesting. I mean, look, I just generally think that running, you're never going to play the human

rights game whenever you're buying oil. Let's just all be real about that. So we might as well just resort to hard power interests. Like, is this working out for us, this relationship? Obviously, no. You're going to screw us on gas at the same time that you're buying our weapons. Well, that seems ridiculous. I have some qualms, the fact that it's all centered on Ukraine. But I think the reality too is the Saudis and the UAE, they basically are going to say, we don't believe you, Bob Menendez. So it is true, Bob Menendez does have the capability in order to hold up all weapon sales. Here's the issue. He's a Democrat. Republicans are probably going to be back in power, likely, what, at least a 50th percentile chance of doing so in a couple of months. You really think

they are going to hold up Saudi weapon sales? They're just as bought as everybody else. Similarly, all signs- They're actually, I would say, more bought at this point. Yeah, sure. Probably more bought as everybody else. Similarly, all signs— They're actually, I would say, more bought at this point. Yeah, sure, probably more bought. Let's ask Jared Kushner. Okay, and then put also on top of this, how are the people in the Gulf reacting? They're laughing at you. They don't believe you.

Look, the UAE president is visiting Russia today. One week after voting against the United States in OPEC+, directly contravening the interests and ask of Anthony Blinken, he is not visiting America. He is visiting Russia to go meet with Putin. Why? To celebrate the United Oil Union or whatever and basically stick a middle finger up to Washington and just be like, yeah, I don't believe you. Like at the end of the day, we have most of you people bought and paid for. We're going to do whatever is good for us. And there's no question this is good for the UAE and for Saudi Arabia.

No question. They're making a ton of money. They are selling oil black market or black market Russian oil to the, you know, hundreds of billions of hundreds of millions of dollars. Relabeling barrels and kind of mixing it with their infrastructure. A lot of Russian money, from what I have read, has fled to the Dubai, the Dubai banking system. Dubai is like the banking capital of terrorists and Russians. If you've ever been there, it's a crazy place. But my point is that this has been a great thing for their economies. And they know that at the end of the day, Washington will come

to their, not only their defense, but will probably buckle and sell them the weapons anyway in the long run. They have this whole town wired so that a single senator's objection is probably just not going to do anything, but it is noteworthy nonetheless, and we should celebrate it. Yeah. That somebody is going to come out and say it. Well, and he's not just a single senator. Right. He's the chair of the SFRC. He is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,

and he's the guy who can veto any and all arms sales. So it does have a lot more teeth and a lot more credibility when it comes from Bob Menendez versus when it comes from basically anyone else. I mean, the only other person who would be as significant in terms of his words here would be the president himself. So, yeah, it's a coin flip, I would say, at this point, whether Democrats hold on to the Senate and Menendez holds on to this position. But, you know, for my entire life, there has been a nearly lockstep relationship between both parties in the U.S. and the Saudi government. And the fact that you have now a significant divide among a, you know,

mainstream and fairly hawkish Democrat here in Menendez who, you know, is this guy's very interested in those sort of like hard power relationships and he's not a particularly noble character. The fact that someone like him is now saying that's it, we're done. Very, very noteworthy

and a remarkable departure from the way things have been for a long, long time. I totally agree. All right. We wanted to bring you an update on a story that I think is really important and which has been, you know, it has actually gotten a little bit of mainstream coverage, but mostly kind of falls under the radar. And I think it's an important one to highlight here. So let's go and put this up on the screen. This has been reported out by The Intercept. They've done a good job in covering this trial of animal rights activists. Here's the headline.

They say activists acquitted in trial for taking piglets from Smithfield Foods. The nation's largest pork producer argued the removal of two sick piglets was a case of theft and burglary. And this activist organization called Direct Action Everywhere called it a rescue. So let me give you the backstory here. Basically, you have this group, Direct Action Everywhere, and they take really quite courageous actions, direct actions, as the name implies, to expose the horrors of factory farms. In particular, they were able, they gained access to this farm in Utah. It's a pig farm where you had the female pigs, the sows, put into these crates that are so small they can't even move or turn around. Okay, this is after they supposedly were getting rid of these crates and they weren't doing that anymore.

Well, they go into this farm and all of the female pigs are in these types of crates. But it gets so much worse. The horrors of this place, which they were able to video and document, are so extreme. You had dead piglets piled up behind the mothers. You had mothers and just sitting there,

you know, rotting and live ones there amongst their dead litter mates. You had mothers whose teats were ripped apart and bleeding because they were unable to produce enough milk. And you have these starving piglets trying to nurse and suckle. I mean, just absolutely disgusting, filthy, horrific, inhumane things that were happening there that they were able to document. So as part of this action, they saw these two piglets that were close to death, dramatically underweight. They're amidst their dead siblings. And they decided they were going to rescue these two piglets.

Now, for Smithfield Farms, and this particular farm is part of the larger Smithfield brand, which, side note, is now owned by China. Interesting part of the story, but that's another story for another day. So they ordinarily, you know, they have apparently a lot of these dead piglets, which is horrifying in and of itself, and they dispose them, and they have no commercial value to them. But they wanted to argue that this was a theft and a burglary and that these activists should be charged and they should be thrown in prison for rescuing the two piglets that have zero commercial value ultimately to Smithfield Farms. The activists said, no, this is like if you have a dog in a hot car that is in distress and you go save it. Yes. That's what this is akin to. And their strategy here is actually to sort of provoke these legal conflicts so that they can establish by precedent

that there is what they call a right to rescue, where if you see these animals that are in clear distress and on the verge of death, you're actually allowed to rescue them from this facility. And as the Intercept points out here, ultimately, they were victorious. Now, the crazy thing also about this story is the fact that the amount of federal government resources that were dedicated to returning these two piglets across state lines, you had multiple FBI agents on this. I mean, think of all of the crime and the things that are going on in the country. And the federal government was devoting massive resources to tracking down these piglets and DNA testing them and putting, taking this thing to trial. Why? Well, because, you know, they're looking out for the interests of the, of big

business, of the factory farm industry. And so that's why they care. Even in Smithfield Farms' estimations, even at maximum, they said these pigs were worth like $40. And you have these huge FBI, federal government resources being spent on this case. So there's a lot of elements here. I mean, the creativity and I think the bravery of the tactics, the novel legal interpretations, and the fact that they were able to win in court in Utah, a very conservative place, of course. And then the fact that you have the federal government just siding with big business in such an overt and egregious way makes it, I think, a really interesting and revealing story about the way the country works.

Yeah. And we actually interviewed some of the people involved. So let's go and take a listen to our old interview. As to my prosecution, I was charged with multiple charges, felony burglary charge for, at one point I removed a sick, dying piglet. It was of no value to this company. And I faced up to five years in prison for that. I was also charged under an ag-gag law. Yeah, and as I mentioned, there was an FBI investigation. At one point, they approached this truck driver who had came to us and they threatened to prosecute him.

Ag-gag laws are completely insane. And, you know, that also just highlights, like, the collusion between big food and specifically the factory farming industry and the state to have them basically be their goon enforcers to cover up what our whole food supply chain is. I mean, just think, look, factory farming, you could debate it for a long time, but let's all just be real about what it is and what's going on here. Where does your food come from? A lot of people should know. It doesn't just magically appear in the grocery store. And here's what I think is

important as well. They're called what I think is important as well. Like these, they're called, I think, gestational crates. These sows are being kept in, which are so unbelievably cruel and torturous for all the moms and the babies that are involved. Those have been banned in a lot of countries. They've been banned in some states as well. So not all factory farming is created equal. There are more and less humane ways that you can go about this. So, you know, sometimes it feels impossible in these sorts of situations to make any sort of positive change because you're like, well, some people are going to eat meat.

It's going to be an ugly process. Like, ultimately, you know, it's going to be horrible for the animals that are involved. But there are better and worse ways that this can be done. Smithfield had said they were getting rid of these crates. They clearly had not done that. And these activists were very courageous in ultimately exposing what was going on here. Just on the government piece of this to underscore some of what we were saying, this is from the Intercept article. One of the activists involved here said that approximately eight FBI agents had been on this case. Now, during the trial, one of the activists pressed the government on whether any other theft cases

involving less than $100 worth of property had multiple FBI agents working on them. The government acknowledged they could not think of a single one in which the FBI had devoted eight agents to tracking down goods worth less than $100 at best. And ultimately, you know, what the jury decided was that these were of zero commercial value to Smithfield because these piglets were going to die and they were just going to get tossed in the dumpster. So anyway, government, you know, shilling for big business as per usual and a rare win for the activists who took this to trial and really exposed something important here. All right, Sagar, what are you looking at? Well, one of the problems with the tentpole news events like nuclear war or Ukraine, by definition, they have the biggest stakes. They need the most attention. But of course, many other stories are also important, not only immediately,

but in what they portend for the future. In fact, you'll recall one of the biggest stories in the world before the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a situation taking place north of our border, in Canada, where anti-COVID restriction protesters in Canada were experiencing wholesale financial deplatforming by a nation-state and tech companies. Obviously, the world turned its head away. But as we said at the time, those moves, they can't just be undone. When the Canadian government showed that it will freeze bank accounts, seize assets with impunity,

and even target cryptocurrency donations to a political cause that it simply doesn't like, it was a watershed moment of just how free much of the non-Western U.S. really is. And while perhaps the same thing may not happen here in America, you may still at least have the First Amendment in the U.S. We have a similarly pernicious problem, though. We may fear the state less, but we must fear the big corporations more. We have watched in recent months as figures like Andrew Tate or the website Kiwi Farms have been effectively disappeared and unpersoned from the internet as we know it, at the behest of cancellation campaigns by questionable activists. The precedents that we have set are clear. If you can get enough whiny journalists on Twitter who are all effectively

left-wing activists, then you can set internet policy for the entire Western world. Yet, as crazy as it sounds, that type of censorship is not even the one that I am the most worried about. Speech obviously is a fundamental right, don't get me wrong. But as the crowd who likes to claim cancel culture isn't real often says, if you can still make a living and exist in society after supposedly being canceled, then you aren't really canceled. So full cancellation looks like what Canada did to those truckers, or how China wields its social credit score system. If you piss off the regime, then you can't even make or send people money. Here, in the last 48 hours, we've seen a small glimpse of what that might look like for us. PayPal, the online payments juggernaut and owner of the commonly used apps like Venmo,

published a new terms of service over the weekend that said that service reserves the right to levy fines up to $2,500 for violating, including, quote, sending, posting, or publication of any messages or content or materials that promote misinformation. Yikes. As we all know, misinformation is whatever the establishment decides is inconvenient for them. The two classic examples of the last two years are the Hunter Biden laptop story censored for being allegedly misinformation after turning out to be 100% true, and then the lab leak theory, which was considered outright misinformation until it too was proven to be almost certainly true. The point is, penalizing people for what might be inconvenient or unpopular is now what it means to censor misinformation. In which case, financially penalizing them is patently insane. Now, interestingly enough, PayPal did reverse course after people began to take

notice of this and their update. They terminated their PayPal accounts in response. The company came out and said, though, that its misinformation policy was, quote, posted in error and claimed, quote, PayPal is not fining people for misinformation. This language was never intended to be inserted in our policy. Yet, as PayPal should know, the internet lives forever. Their claim that it was inserted in error is absurd. A random Twitter sleuth immediately pointed out they uploaded that new terms of service to their website on September 27, 2022, which was including in the language and inserted the date that it was supposed to go into effect on November 3rd. In fact, metadata from the document pulled by said sleuth shows that the document has been worked on and updated constantly by senior staff since early September. In other

words, something doesn't quite track with the PayPal explanation. In fact, the only thing that does track is a company that appears terrified to be caught, who not only aggressively claimed they didn't mean what their terms of service said, but then suffered major consequences on their stock price. The stock fell a full 6% on the backlash alone yesterday, investors noting that the active cancellations of the service and bad press were hurting the company bottom line. But look closer, and it's not the David and Goliath story that some people are making out to be. The truth is, PayPal really only reversed course because Elon Musk, who literally founded the company, got involved along with David Marcus, their former

president. In other words, it wasn't until the richest person on the planet spoke out about the company that he literally founded did they actually come out in reverse course. The actual users canceling and raising a stink on Twitter didn't really penetrate the elite discourse. So if you're banking on your war against censorship to rely on the whims of Elon Musk, I got bad news for how that's going to go in the future. Furthermore, if you take a look at the rest of PayPal's policies, it still gives them the ability to fine users $2,500 if they, quote, promote hate, violence, racial, or other forms of intolerance. Given the way that language is used by the corporate execs these days, it's obvious they can still fine you if they want to, which belies the point that we started with. In this country,

financially deplatforming may not necessarily happen at the hands of the state, but instead by enforcers of this ruling ideology. And while PayPal isn't the same as aatforming, it may not necessarily happen at the hands of the state, but instead by enforcers of this ruling ideology. And while PayPal isn't the same as a bank account, it comes pretty close to a necessary financial infrastructure for a lot of people. Ten years ago, it wasn't even a question that these systems would be vulnerable to debates about censorship. And it underscores that censorship in the West and in the United States is moving at a dizzying degree. It started out with deplatforming users. Then it moved on to platforms themselves, like Parler. Then it went to deplatforming users at the same time across multiple platforms. Now, moving in the direction of doing all of the above

while also cutting off people's ability to even make money or pay people. This is taking it to an entire new level, one that exists today, really only in communist China, which after all is the envy of real authoritarians. And it's why we need to resist this troubling turn as hard as we can, because the speed of the campaign has shows us if we start, if we start and sit by while these things move so quickly, you may never have a chance to actually speak out again. And I think that's the crazy part, which is that, look, they only reverse court. And if you want to hear my reaction to Cyber's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com.

Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, guys, we are less than one month out from the midterm elections now, and the landscape has increasingly come into focus. Now, in some ways, it has a certain logic to it. Democrats are overwhelmingly running on abortion. That is an issue, of course, where they have a huge and commanding lead. Republicans are overwhelmingly running on crime, an issue where they also have a large and commanding lead. We talked to Kyle Kondik yesterday, who watched hours of midterm election ads so that you don't have to, and he found an overwhelming focus on these two topics to the near exclusion of everything else. Now, crime and abortion do

seem to have some salience with the public. Democrats were able to short-circuit a coming red wave of epic proportions by seizing on the overturning of Roe versus Wade. Republicans have been able to regain some of their ground, regain some momentum in recent weeks by leaning hard into crime as part of a backlash to the George Floyd protests and calls to defund the police. But on another level, it all looks kind of insane because no one is actually running on the issue that voters tell pollsters over and over and over again is actually the most important to them. That would be the economy. Now, here are the numbers. They're visualized quite well by Pew Research.

You can take a look at this. At the very top, that line that you see there, standing alone, that is voters overwhelmingly saying the economy is very important to their midterm vote. Now, those numbers up at the top are essentially unchanged from March through the summer, with nearly 80% of voters saying the economy is key to winning them over. Below that, you see a whole cluster of a bunch of different issues. You've got post-dolls with Democrats leaning into abortion. That issue, salience, has spiked. Same with crime, which has seen a jump in interest as Republicans and their media apparatus have increasingly focused in on that issue.

But both abortion and crime still completely dwarfed by concerns about the economy. And of course, that makes a lot of sense. The Fed is determined to crush wages, determined to spike unemployment. Gas prices are ticking back up as OPEC Plus has instituted a new production cut. And CNBC is highlighting new signs that all of this stress and strain

is in fact making it very difficult for Americans to make ends meet. New data from LendingTree shows that one third of Americans failed to pay a bill in the last six months. 61% of those said it was because they simply didn't have the money. Most of those who fell behind on a bill said they failed to pay a utility, credit card, cable, or internet bill. As a LendingTree analyst put it, quote,

Life is getting more expensive by the day and it's shrinking Americans' already tiny financial margin for error down to zero. Now, you might think that one of our two major parties might see this pain and uncertainty and offer some sort of an affirmative agenda that would help ease the burden for working people. Sure, Republicans, they'll inveigh against inflation and cable news hits, but they've offered literally nothing in terms of actual solutions. And the vacuousness of this message apparently led to it falling flat with voters, which is why they switched focus, leaning in recent weeks into visceral ads about crime to try to regain the upper hand. As far as Democrats go, they just don't seem to talk about the economy really at all. Even immediately memory-holing the big economic program Biden just announced

weeks ago, which was to cancel large amounts of student debt. Now, this landscape of neither party promising anything on the economy by default is going to benefit Republicans. If people are struggling, they're understandably going to blame the party that is in power. So really, the onus is on the Democrats to offer some compelling solutions for working class pain. This looming political disaster where Democrats de facto give Republicans the upper hand on the economy, again, the number one issue, is when exasperated Bernie Sanders is now calling out his Democratic colleagues for their single-minded obsession

on abortion. In a new op-ed for The Guardian, Sanders writes in part, quote, as we enter the final weeks of the 2022 midterm elections, I am alarmed to hear the advice that many Democratic candidates are getting from establishment consultants and directors of well-funded super PACs that the closing argument of Democrats should focus only on abortion. Cut the 30-second abortion ads and coast to victory. Bernie goes on to bash Republicans for standing in the way of living wages, taxing billionaires, universal health care, and paid time off, before lamenting that in spite of Republicans standing in lockstep against this popular economic agenda, quote, in poll after poll, Republicans are more trusted than Democrats to handle the economy, the issue of most importance to people. He says he believes that if Democrats do not fight back

on economic issues and present a strong pro-worker agenda, they could well be in the minority in both the House and the Senate next year. Now, Democrats have a recent example, the power of this sort of material politics that Senator Sanders is advocating for. During the Georgia Senate runoffs, you'll recall Democrats were severe underdogs, but they managed to pull off a clean sweep on the clear and compelling promise of $2,000 checks, with a little assist from Donald Trump as well, I might add. Now, Biden has already promised that with two more Democratic senators, he would codify Roe versus Wade. Okay, that's good.

But he can and should do a whole lot more. He should promise to use the Democratic majority to ditch the filibuster and pass a populist working class agenda that will help ordinary Americans and will punish the corporate price gougers and economic royalists. Wall Street types would throw a fit. Great. That would only would throw a fit. Great. That would only make it better politics. It defies all political logic to cede to Republicans what is undeniably the most important issue for the largest number of voters. The only possible explanation for such political malpractice is a desire to avoid making any promises that they

may then have to keep. And it's a testament to just how screwed up our politics is that on the most important issue for ordinary voters, our political class has literally nothing to say. Their silence speaks volumes. And so I was looking at the numbers. This is going to be the most. And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints.com.

As you all know, we have been closely following become a premium subscriber today at a Chipotle in Michigan. We have Atulia, Dora, Lasky, and Harper McNamara. Welcome. Great to have you both. Thanks for joining the show. Hi. Thanks for having us on. Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. So let's go ahead and put this tear sheet up on the screen. Our friend Jonah Furman over at Labor Notes wrote up what you all have been up to. The headline here is how Zoomers organized the first Chipotle union. You all formed the fast food chain's first recognized union in the U.S., voting 11-3 on August 25th to join Teamsters Local 243. Atulia, let me start with you. What made you all decide that you wanted to unionize?

What was sort of the inspiration for this project? Well, it's kind of a classic issues that happen in any workplace. We were being underscheduled pretty severely at work. We were being paid quite poorly for the work we do. And then we felt like that we didn't really have enough control over our working conditions or workplace. So classic reason, but you'll find that they're applicable in any workplace. And they're definitely applicable at Chipotle, as we found as we worked there the longer. And so that's when we decided that, you know, we needed to fix these issues. And a couple of us went, you know, individually to try to fix these issues um and a couple of us went you know individually to try

to get these issues fixed but we realized that there was no reason for a triple a to listen to us um if we were just coming to them individually hat in hand um because they could just either ignore us or in one situation um fire a worker the day they asked for a raise uh the day after they asked for a raise um and so after that point, certainly we realized that the only power workers really have is collectively. And that's when we started talking about forming a union. Interesting. So, Harper, you mentioned in this piece with Jonah Furman, you've actually worked there for two years. Jonah points out that the average Chipotle worker stays only four months.

Was that a challenge for you guys when you were doing your organization? How are you thinking about that as you look forward? Yeah, so the turnover of our store was like something we were kind of constantly having to account for. There were different points where we would like build the percentage of the crew up pretty high and then work from there with that in mind and then kind of fall behind on making sure that percentage stayed high

with the turnover. But really just like constantly talking to people and having other people talk to people creates the movement. Got it. We found that once you get in the swing of things, you usually are recruiting faster than people are leaving. So we would recruit people and then one person would leave. Yeah, that's normally how it went. And actually, you talked about a sort of radicalizing event where the owner of this particular Chipotle was trying to go for this like special status with corporate, this designation of restaurateur and really, you know, was working

things to make that happen and eventually accomplishes this, brings all of you out for a photo op with a cake that they then proceeded to eat and sent you all to the back. Talk about how that particular incident and indignity factored into your decision-making here. Yeah, so a bunch of us had been organizing at that point, but in a way that moment was really useful because a lot of the crew members got to see what corporate really thought about them in that moment. We kind of considered it not even a let them eat cake moment. It was a very simple moment where, you know, they brought us all together,

like you said, to take a picture in front of a cake, but they didn't even really buy a second cake. And I mean, this is just like a pro tip. If you want to keep your workers like less agitated, maybe buy the second sheet cake. I don't know. Probably would have been a worthwhile investment for them in hindsight hindsight's 2020 though um and Harper obviously go ahead oh sorry yeah so during that moment um we all all the crew members got sent back away from the managers to wash their hands um and famously

one crew member who hadn't really been talked to about the union stuff went, they had this like orb balloon for restauranteur. And she went, oh, I thought the orb was going to be for Rays. And I think that made the union discussions a lot easier after that. Harper, were you all inspired at all by the example of like the Starbucks workers, the REI workers, the Amazon workers, you've been following all of these things here really closely. Was that, did that factor into this whatsoever? Yeah, for sure. So when we were initially talking about everything,

there was a group of us that was like, this could actually work looking at the Starbucks stuff. But this was also at a point when there hadn't been any Starbucks elections yet. So it was really like the start of that moment we were seeing that. And then we were seeing like our own store and being like, well, if it's possible to like create a movement there, then we can leverage those same factors here. And now you all have joined up with Teamsters Local 243. I know Teamsters International has new leadership in charge.

They have positioned themselves to be a lot more aggressive, a lot more interested in organizing new shops, a lot more sort of militant. What were the factors, Atulia, that led you to join up with the Teamsters as opposed to going the route that, say, Amazon went and forming their own company-specific union? Yeah, so we really felt that we did need quite a bit of legal support and organizing support from people who did have union organizing experience. We were lucky enough to get recommended labor notes

and get help from our local DSA chapter, but none of us had really had union organizing experience before. So we decided that it was probably better to get a more seasoned and militant and dedicated union organizer on board. And so we all voted in a general meeting with all the union membership. We voted on what union to go with. And we ended up voting overwhelmingly with the Teamsters. We can't speak to TDU too much specifically,

but what we did find really fascinating about the Teamsters is how much of a democracy they really were to the point where you could have like a corporate-owned stores. That's not the case with a lot of fast food franchise where you have the franchisees, and that can make things a little bit more difficult. So have you had other Chipotle workers in other cities across the country reach out and say, hey, we want to do this too. So, yeah, so Chipotle is not franchised, which does make it a lot easier to spread as a movement. And we are excited to work with um like a lot more stores and like turn it into a very powerful union cool yeah so right now if we can talk about this we are working with ewalk uh the emergency worker organizing committee um and so if you are at a Chipotle that you think could be improved or maybe isn't going so well, and if you would like help or support or advice,

talking to your coworkers, you can go to workerorganizing.org slash support slash Chipotle dash workers and sign up there. We'll put a link in the description for you. I think it'll be easier. Yeah. slash chipotle-workers and sign up there. We'll put a link in the description for you. I think it'll be easier. Yeah, but absolutely, if there are Chipotle workers out there who are interested in following this path, definitely go check out that link,

and Atulia and Harper can help you with advice on what they learned throughout this process. Both of you, please keep in touch. It's great to have you on the show, and I know it takes a lot of courage to band together, learn throughout this process. Both of you, please keep in touch. It's great to have you on the show. And, you know, I know it takes a lot of courage to kind of band together and unionize, especially the first one in the country. But here's hoping it starts the same sort of firestorm that the Starbucks workers were able to ignite. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Thank you so much for having us again. Yeah, absolutely. Our pleasure. All right. Thank you guys so much for watching. We

really appreciate it. Man, I love talking to those guys. I know. It really warms my heart. It's like expert or people actually in the field, living their lives just trying to not get treated. Can you imagine that cake situation? Oh, my God. I don't know what I would do. I honestly, yeah, I don't know.

Have them all out for a photo op, and then you all go to the back. We're going to eat this cake. I'd probably quit. But if you need the money and you're sitting there like boiling in rage like man then well one of the thing that is interesting is that atulia said in that article is there was another chipotle that uh voted to union as they just shut it down and so they were having to speak with their co-workers about like well what if that happens and initially they were like yeah we don't think they do that and they were trying to come up with the about, like, well, what if that happens? And initially they were like, yeah, we don't think they'd do that. And they were trying to come up with reasons why they didn't think Chipotle would close this store.

But then they were like, actually, the more effective and more accurate messaging was like, if you lose this job, is it the end of the world? Because, and that's where the tight labor market comes in. Because they're like, hey, we could go to Qdoba and get $14 an hour and basically make what you're making here a little bit more. So that also helped to, you know, make this all possible. So it's important then in context of what we talk about with the Fed and the overall economy that we understand this is partly, you know, bolstered and enabled and their, you know, their courage is not to be understated

here, but bolstered and enabled by the unique economic circumstances we have right now here too. That cake thing is going to stick with me for a little bit. Yeah, it's really something. I can't even. Really something. Anyway, thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it. We really appreciate your support so that we can highlight stories like theirs, put it out there.

I mean, a lot more people are going to listen to that, possibly even Chipotle workers, knowing the demographics of our audience. So anyway, it means a lot that you support our work, our expansion. As I said, we got the CounterPoints discount. It's going to be for the last week. And for those of you who want to add more to your membership, you're more than welcome to. You can adjust it now on the website.

We're not going to stop you. Thank you, SuperCast, for building that technology. Seriously, they are such an amazing company. We love working with them. And then Chicago, come see us in Chicago. I promise you it's going to be a fantastic time, and we will have a great show for you, friends, family, and anyone else that you choose to bring. We promise

to keep it all lighthearted. If the world is going to end, we might as well all end together. Might as well enjoy ourselves together before that happens. We'll have a good segment tomorrow and then we'll have a show for you on Thursday and then of course Counterpoints on Friday. Only one day off for Breaking Points. Look at that. It's amazing.

Filling up that calendar. We'll see you guys later. This is an iHeart Podcast.