The Young Turks - Desantis Dramz

Episode Date: December 15, 2022

Ron DeSantis just can’t seem to let the anti-vax movement go. Democrats have gained no momentum to bring cash in for struggling parents. A spokesman from FTX says he lost a $15M paycheck. Almost half the young adults are still living with their parents causing a “luxury boom.” Host: Ana Kasparian Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Woo! It's up! Welcome to TYT folks, I'm your host Anna Kasperi, and Elon Musk has decided, I'm going to be a deadbeat and not pay my rent over at Twitter headquarters, one of my favorite stories of the day, not only because of the story itself, but because of the way

New York Times decided to frame it, a week after they went on strike for better pay and working conditions, it is incredible, it really is. That story will be done in the second hour of the show. If you're not a member, you're really missing out today because John and I decided to really follow through on something we promised to do for our members, which was have our dogs engage in creating art. And we're going to show you the art that our dogs created. We'll give you the backstory. We'll compare the art. You guys can maybe even decide which one you like more. I don't know, I got to talk to John and see if you wants to do a poll on it.

But nonetheless, it's going to be a super, super fun bonus episode. So if you are a member, don't miss it. If you're not a member, you can become one by going to t.yt.com slash join. or you can just click on that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. A lot of great stuff to get to today, a lot of important stories as well, including the latest political stunt by Ron DeSantis. It is very clear to me that he is planning on running for president in 2024, and I'll explain why in just a bit.

We'll also talk about how the economic populists in the right wing are really, really proving how much they care about the financial stability of Americans as they actively block any effort to pass a permanent child tax credit that would, you know, lift children out of poverty. We'll talk about that as well. And later in the show, we'll have some fun to talk a little bit about what Elon Musk has recently banned on Twitter as a free speech absolutist, of course. Now, before we get to that, fun stuff, we should talk about Ron DeSantis and the political stunt that he pulled this week. It's incredible. Let's get to it.

Today, I'm announcing a petition with the Supreme Court of Florida to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate any and all wrongdoing in Florida with respect to COVID-19 vaccines. Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida is asking the state's Supreme Court to get involved and issue a statewide grand jury investigation into the coronavirus vaccines. He wants an investigation into any and all potential wrongdoing by the vaccine manufacturers. Now that's incredibly broad and the lack of specificity should make you a little suspicious about what he's really trying to do here.

Is this an effort to protect the people of Florida or is this an effort to differentiate himself from Donald Trump because he's planning to run for president in 2024. Now, I know what I've decided about this story, and now I want to make my case. Now, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis asked his state's Supreme Court to greenlight an investigation of, again, any and all wrongdoing in Florida with respect to COVID-19 vaccines. Okay, again, that seems incredibly broad. And if there were any wrongdoing by these vaccine manufacturers, if there was any proof that this needed to be investigated, typically the state's attorney general would get involved.

But to be fair, in the state of Florida, the law is broad enough to allow the governor to launch these types of investigations, to petition the Supreme Court to essentially get the grand jury panel involved in this investigation. But there are some requirements in order to do so as a governor. For instance, he would have to have a good and sufficient reason for pursuing the statewide grand jury. I mean, he wasn't very specific, it was very broad. So it's unclear whether he has fulfilled that requirement. He would have to show or deem that he is doing this in the public's interest.

And finally, it has to be a crime or wrongdoing. that has been committed across multiple counties within the state. So his argument is that the manufacturers had misled the public about the efficacy of the vaccines and that there should be an investigation into that. Now, to be fair, and I want to be fair on this, there was some misinformation in the very beginning, in the very beginning of the rollout of the vaccines, that made people think that if you get vaccinated, the likelihood of you, getting sick, getting COVID at all is nearly impossible.

I remember thinking that in the very beginning. And it turns out that's not the case. Breakthrough infections do in fact happen. It's a little more difficult to get a breakthrough infection if you're fully vaccinated. But nonetheless, people were still testing positive for COVID. But in terms of its efficacy, it was effective in preventing people from getting hospitalized or dying from the coronavirus. That was of course, not only spreading then, but continues to spread today. Now, keep in mind that, again, if there was any wrongdoing, usually the state's attorney general would get involved.

That has not happened. Does DeSantis have any proof of any wrongdoing by the vaccine manufacturers? Let's watch this next video. You judge for yourselves. You mentioned they have to show that there was a crime or wrong. Is he going to have to show that to the Supreme Court before this grand jury is impaneled? And what kind of evidence would you have to present? I read the application. There is no evidence. He's just alleging that there's a wrong.

He said it's obvious that there are people who did things wrong here and look at the history of the pharmaceutical industry. They're rife with misrepresentations. One of the other things that he's trying to do, by the way, is appoint an oversight board over the practice of medicine in the state of Florida. And look, all of this vaccine denialism is really, really interesting stuff, because why is this popping up now out of nowhere? Like, what is he really trying to do? Because again, the lack of specificity in the documentation or the documents he filed, the lack of specificity even in the context of the press conference he had, really makes you wonder what he's actually trying to do here. And there are other issues with DeSantis' announcement about this effort. And I want to show you exactly what I mean in this next clip.

In Florida, you know, it is against the law to mislead and to misrepresent, particularly when you're talking about the efficacy of a drug. We see just the other, just recently, Florida got 3.2 billion through legal action against those responsible for the opioid crisis. And so it's not like this is something that's unprecedented. It is ironic in that press conference that he brought the opioid manufacturers. Do you know what did not result in a statewide grand jury? The lawsuits against the opioid manufacturers, the governor did not go to the state Supreme

Court to get a grand jury against the opioid manufacturers. So here we're doing something totally different than we've done before. And that is exactly correct. The analysis you heard at the end of that clip, the governor, meaning Ron DeSantis, did not call on the Supreme Court or petition the Supreme Court to have a statewide grand jury investigation into the pharmaceutical companies behind the opioid crisis. When he referenced the amount of money that Floridians had received, he was referencing the settlements that the pharmaceutical companies had made with the victims of the opioid

crisis through these lawsuits, right? So the lawsuits happened. Ron DeSantis had nothing to do with those lawsuits. And Floridians who were deemed victims of the opioid crisis and the wrongdoing of the pharmaceutical companies received some money as a result of the settlement that was agreed upon from those lawsuits. Now, what DeSantis is really doing here, and I think it's very clear for anyone paying close attention, is he's setting the stage for the battle between himself and Donald Trump. And the reason why that's clear to me is because, again, this kind of came out of nowhere. He's really posturing as someone who is questioning the efficacy of the vaccine, someone who really took a stand against vaccine mandates.

And if you think Donald Trump is the same flavor of vaccine denialism, you would be wrong because he has not only taken ownership for the creation of the vaccines, even as vaccine denialism was alive and well within the Republican Party, he's He was encouraging people to get vaccinated. And if you're wondering what I'm talking about, here's a video to prove it. It works incredibly well, 95%, maybe even more than that. It works incredibly well. When you have the vaccine, people that do, and it's a very small number relatively,

but people that do get it, get better much quicker. That's a very important thing to know. They don't get nearly a stick and they get it. Do they get better? Lindsay Graham's an example. He said, if I didn't have this vaccine, I would have died. So what Ron DeSantis, again, is doing here is setting the stage. How does he differ from Donald Trump?

And he knows full well how the Republican voters feel about the vaccine because of the fact that the vaccine, along with pretty much every other element of the coronavirus pandemic, was politicized like crazy. The coronavirus mask, the masking mandates ended up being a symbol of the ongoing never-ending culture war. And the vaccines, unfortunately, got bundled into that entire battle. And so what Ron DeSantis is doing here is saying, no, I'm taking a stand against the vaccines, knowing full well that Donald Trump is on the record taking ownership of the vaccines and even encouraging people to get vaccinated. Now, it could be a smart political move. And to be quite honest with you guys, look, you got to differentiate between the morality

of it, which I would hope you guys know. where I stand on that, right? I think it's pretty gross to play with people's lives and politicize something as important as a vaccine that was saving people's lives in the middle of a pandemic. But then there's the political element of it. And politically, in terms of a political strategy that is likely to appeal to Republican voters, this might be a very smart strategy for Ron DeSantis. In fact, this is the first example I've seen from Ron DeSantis carrying out something strategic against Donald Trump in a very smart way that isn't going to immediately draw attention from Trump or draw his ire. And look, if you look at the polling, I mean, we shared a poll with you

guys earlier this week that showed that the majority of Republican voters, this is a USA Today Suffolk University poll, shows that the majority of Republican voters are now on Ron DeSantis' side. They're more willing to vote for him as opposed to Donald Trump. And now there's a new poll, A new Wall Street Journal poll among GOP primary voters reveals Florida governor Ron DeSantis holds a 14 point lead over former President Donald Trump for the 2024 run for the White House. So when DeSantis says, no, I'm not planning on running, he's lying. Because if he does have the goal to eventually become president of the United States, now's the time to do it. And there ain't any way he's going to squander that opportunity. He's going to go

for at full force. And to me, this is the first example of him really setting the stage for that. Now, I want to also address the morality of all of this, okay? Because this is also something I see happening with the Republican Party over and over again. Publicly, they have no problem playing with the lies of ordinary people. They have no problem, you know, putting out misinformation that leads to skepticism over the vaccine. No issues, as long as it's politically beneficial for themselves. But you should also know what was going on behind the scenes. Because in December of 2021, when the first doses of the coronavirus vaccine were being rolled out, there were certain people in the state of Florida that Ron DeSantis insured would get to

skip ahead of the line. Okay? They got vaccinated before elderly people. They got vaccinated before essential workers. And all those people ended up being, oh, that's right. Ron DeSantis is incredibly wealthy donors. Let's watch. In Manatee County, Florida this week, thousands of people got the call they'd been waiting for. Come to the affluent Lakewood Ranch development and get a COVID vaccine. We were very fortunate. We got the coal. We came right down. It was more than good fortune. They all lived in two specific zip codes, and their doses came through a deal struck by Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis and the CEO of Lakewood

Ranch's parent company. owned by major Republican donors. It just was inappropriate. Commissioner Misty Serbia says the deal bypassed county protocol, allowing a select group of residents to go to the front of the vaccine line. So rather than this randomized pool where everybody gets a fair shake, these two zip codes were going to receive preferential treatment. This was done strictly by the governor.

At a county meeting, Serbia, also a Republican, voiced her concern. You have to understand, though, the optics are horrible. The zip codes are two of the wealthiest and whitest in the county. Yeah, the optics were pretty disastrous, and this is how corruption works. So again, while Ron DeSantis has no problem publicly spreading misinformation that leads to vaccine skepticism among ordinary Floridians, behind the scenes, oh, he knew how important the vaccine was. He especially knew how important it was to his wealthy donors, which is why he created a situation in which they were able to skip ahead of the line as soon as the vaccines were first rolled out. And by the way, that wasn't the only example. I have more examples for you because you know I like to provide the receipts.

So Mary Ellen class wrote at the time, as most of Florida was waiting for COVID vaccines in January, meaning January of 2021, the wealthy Keys enclave of Ocean Reef was vaccinating. more than 1,200 residents. A month later, a prominent resident sent Ron DeSantis a $250,000 check. Fascinating. I'm sure that was all a coincidence. I'm sure. But let's keep going. Let's dig a little deeper. The Washington Post even reported about this at the time, writing, statewide, DeSantis has taken a personal hand in directing pop-up vaccination centers. Critics have accused DeSantis of using the vaccine distribution plan to appeal to donors. He has raised more than $2.7 million in February of 2021 alone since he began the pop-up clinics.

DeSantis has disputed those allegations saying his office is just simply prioritizing getting vaccines to seniors, incredibly wealthy seniors. So who was that donor that the tweet earlier had referenced? $150,000 check that was written to Ron DeSantis, who exactly sent that to him? It was a former governor of Illinois, a guy named Bruce Ronner, and he happens to live in this incredibly wealthy enclave, referred to as the Ocean Reef Club. Okay, so let's learn a little bit more about that. That vaccine access at the time when many other elderly Floridians struggled to find doses

combined with donations to DeSantis by Ronner and more than a dozen other residents in the Ocean Reef Club have raised some concerns, just some, some concerns. So Ocean Reef Club, by the way, is a high security gated community filled with luxury vacation homes. Homeowners pay an annual membership fee just to live there and to get a condo in that area at the time. I'm sure the prices have gone up since. It cost about 900,000. nearly a million dollars for a condo in that area. So very well to do part of Florida. By January 22nd of 2021, get this, 75% of the club's 1,600 homeowners had been vaccinated according to a community newsletter that had been obtained by the Herald. The club acknowledged in that

letter that it had received enough vaccines to provide two doses to each of the 1,200 members eligible to receive the shot. And guess what? Everyone in that area was eligible. The donors to Ron DeSantis ensured that would be the case. So vaccine apparently real important for the wealthy. And at the same time, Ron DeSantis is publicly saying things that lead to skepticism over the efficacy of that same vaccine. This is how politics is played.

immoral, disgusting, but as long as it's politically beneficial for Ron DeSantis, he'll do it. And he's not the only one. This is how corruption works in America. This is how the game is played. That's what needs to change. All right, we've got to take a break. When we come back, we've got more news for you guys, including why Republican lawmakers blocking the child tax credit are trash.

Come right back. Welcome back to the show, just want to encourage you guys to like and share the stream if you're watching us live. That always helps to get the message of TYT out there into the world. And thank you for your support. Let's move on to our next story. Believe it or not, Democrats are still trying to pass legislation that would make the child tax credit, which has since expired permanent. That would be great because the child tax credit was actually incredibly useful to American families that have been struggling financially. It lifted half of the children living in poverty, out of poverty.

Wouldn't it be so wonderful if they could just do, you know, the bare minimum, pass this legislation? and help American families out. There's just one problem though. Oh, you know, those economic populace in the right wing, the ones who pretend like they hate corporations and they really, really want to take them to task, yeah, they're stepping in the way, serving as a massive obstacle because in lieu of a child tax credit, they would like to pass another round of business tax cuts. Yeah, that's the way they work, that's who they really are.

So when you hear Republicans claim that they're disgusted by corporations in this country, it's just theater, it's just posturing. Because when push comes to shove, they love giving their corporate donors all the cookies. And this story is yet another example of that. Now, the child tax credit unfortunately expired. Democrats promised to make it permanent, but they failed to do so because there were some Democrats in the Senate, people like Kirsten Cinema, Joe Manchin, who stood in the way. So there are some corporate Democrats who certainly deserve a lot of criticism for their role

in serving as obstacles for this incredibly important legislation. But nonetheless, when the child tax credit was available, when people were getting about $300 per child, you know, as a result of that child tax credit, it really helped families. In fact, there was a report, there were multiple reports showing just how beneficial it was to these families. And I want you to watch this video because not only does it profile a family that benefited from it, also talks about some of the results of a study into the impact of the child tax credit. Since those payments stopped, food insecurity has increased by 12%. Those payments ended because Congress did not pass an extension of the child tax credit.

is a single mom to three boys. Her youngest, George, is four. I just want him to know and to have the same opportunities as everybody else. Last year, Kristen felt like she had some room in her budget to give George those opportunities. Today, she says, is a different story. So all of our bills keep going up. Gas, right, utilities, water, like everything. My rent went up $75 a month in January, food. And so then they take that $300 away. Chris and George are among nearly 36 million families who received the expanded child tax credit in 2021. When those payments stopped in January, the struggle started. We've been finding clothes giveaways. You took advantage of some food pantries.

Yeah, took advantage of food pantries. Was it your first time going to food pantry? Yes. And I've struggled before, right? I've been a single mom almost my whole life, 24 years. Can we just acknowledge the relatively small amount of money. And when I say relative, I mean relative to the subsidies that corporations get. Okay, so we're talking about $300 per child. And the child tax credit, to be sure, was means tested. Okay, so it's not like everyone, even millionaires and billionaires are getting a $300 child tax credit. No, it was means tested. Democrats did everything they could to try to get Republicans on board, I mean, the same Republicans, by the way, who believe in forced pregnancy

and forced births, okay, forcing you to have children that you might not have the economic means to take care of. They want to abandon you as soon as you get pregnant, because they don't want to help you with health care. They don't want to help you when the child is born with something as small as $300 in a child tax credit per kid. It's just so gross. But Democrats have a little bit of a strategy at play here. We'll see how it actually works out. But the Democrats have taken hostages, according to HuffPost, a beloved tax break for research and development costs, as well as several other corporate write-offs that will expire unless Congress acts. Now, the idea is we're not going to extend these tax breaks unless we get the child tax credit, which

Which is cute because they're kind of positioning themselves as the ones who are taking a stand against the corporations and the tax breaks that they've gotten. But they want the tax breaks for the corporations too. Like let's not make the mistake of thinking that corporate Democrats aren't in cahoots with Republicans on tax breaks for the rich. Like they love it because they're paid by the same corporate interests. But if they're genuinely willing to hold those tax breaks hostage, with Will Republicans relent?

Will they do the bare minimum in helping American families out with what I think, again, relative to corporate subsidies, relative to tax breaks for the rich, is a small amount of money, but has a big impact. Will they be willing to play ball and negotiate? So far the answer is no, they're not interested in that. So I want to give you a few statements from Republican lawmakers, beginning with Representative Kevin Brady, who says, quote, the country frankly doesn't have the country, frankly, doesn't have the time or the money for the partisan expensive provisions such as a child tax credit.

You don't have the time or the money. Do I need to bring up the Defense Authorization Act that you guys pass in a bipartisan vote every year with no problem? I mean hundreds of billions of dollars year after year for the defense budget. No questions asked, no debate, no problem. Okay, I mean, that's what the reality is. Clearly, we do have the money. We do have the money. And Brady is lying.

Other Republicans are refusing to even entertain a negotiation on this matter, including Senator John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota. He's actually the number two Senate Republican who said that he hoped law could reach an agreement to extend business tax breaks, but that he wasn't getting good vibes on a deal with Democrats because the cost of the child tax credit was too high. It was too high. Now, do corporations, do businesses need a tax break? I mean, are they suffering right now? Are they really struggling? Do they need a little bit of a, you know, cushion from the federal government in the form of tax breaks? I don't know. I mean, why don't we look at this next video

and see how they're doing. Some companies are taking advantage of expectations and increasing prices even further than is necessary. According to the New York Fed, the more inflation and industry saw, the more gross profits increased. Now most U.S. companies are recording their largest profits since 1950. How can companies so simply raise prices and still have customers? We can Thank in part the consolidation of market power by a few large firms leading to less competition. More than 75% of U.S. industries have concentrated since 1990. So some economists suggest that fighting corporate greed should be part of the broader inflation response. Yeah, that should definitely be part of the broader inflation response.

and rewarding companies, rewarding corporations by extending tax breaks while they're price gouging American citizens at this incredibly unstable economic time is insane. But that is what Republican lawmakers are calling for. They're demanding it in lieu of a child tax credit, a $300 per child tax credit. That is what they're calling for. Hey, guess what? Since these corporations are making record profits, how about they pay taxes on their research and development? How about they invest in their own companies? And when I say invest in their own companies, I'm not talking about corporate stock buybacks and dividends for

shareholders, okay? The idea that these companies get to treat us the way they do, price gouge us the way they do, and then turn around and demand more tax breaks from Congress is disgusting, but the problem is they've captured Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. Okay, they have bought their way into complete control over our lawmakers, and that's the reason why, even after making record profits, they still end up getting tax breaks. It is disgusting. This is what corruption leads to, and it needs to stop. And federal reserve, or federal data, I should say, released by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that non-financial corporate profits in the United States

searched to an all-time record of $2 trillion in just one quarter, guys, in the second quarter of 2022, as companies continue jacking up prices, pushing inflation to a 40-year high, to the detriment, of course, of workers and consumers. Republicans look at that and they think, let's give them tax breaks. Tax breaks for the rich. way more important than a child tax credit for American families. By the way, as they pretend to give a damn about American families. And let's go back to Senator Thune for a second, okay? Because Thune thinks he's pro-life, even as he is fighting for policies that keep children in poverty in this country. He brags about this on his own website. As a member of Congress,

I have a 100% pro-life voting record and have consistently supported a ban on abortion. For my work to promote a culture of life, I have consistently received an A-plus on the Susan B. Anthony list pro-life scorecard. I'm so pro-life that I like to push for policies that keep children in poverty. I like to push for policies that keep children hungry in this country. I'm so pro-life. Now, you're a pro-corporate goon who uses the anti-abortion rhetoric to earn some political brownie points from evangelical voters.

But the second, it's not politically beneficial for Republicans, by the way. They scrub that anti-abortion language right off their campaign websites. We saw a lot of that leading up to the midterms, didn't we? These politicians are garbage. And I'm just wondering, when are we going to take the trash out? All right, let's move on. Even that you were the spokesman, an even that you were the spokesman, an ambassador for this. Yes, because we-

What kind of diligence did you do around this issue of compliance, even where we sit today? I obviously know all the institutional investors in this deal. Mr. Wonderful, Kevin O'Leary is about to say something brutally accurate about himself and others who promoted FTX. Let's listen. We all look like idiots. Absolutely correct. Kevin O'Leary and other celebrities who, promoted FTX, which is now collapsed, look like idiots, especially considering the fact that they did not do their due diligence and just shamelessly promoted this scammer who is now

facing multiple investigations. And the scammer I'm referring to, of course, is Sam Bankman Freed. Now, what's amazing is that Kevin O'Leary just testified before the Senate today about this whole matter and continue to look foolish. And I'll make my point and prove my point on that in just a minute. But first some context, let's back it up. In August of 2021, it was announced that O'Leary would take an ownership stake in the parent companies of FTX.com and FTX.US as part of his compensation for becoming a spokesperson for FTX. Now, FTX subsequently went bankrupt due to Sam Bankman-Fried's behavior. He was secretly using client funds allegedly to make speculative bets that didn't work out so well.

Now, what ended up happening after that? Because Kevin O'Leary was supposed to get paid a ton of money, right? He's a spokesperson for this crypto exchange. Kevin O'Leary said Thursday, he's lost all of the $15 million FTX paid him to act as a spokesman for the now collapsed crypto exchange that some have called fraudulent. And the people who have called it fraudulent, by the way, are prosecutors. And we'll get to that in just a moment. O'Leary and other celebrities such as Tom Brady and Larry David were sued by FTX investors. These are people who deposited money into the exchange, who say the exchanges ambassadors should have done more due diligence and exercised a greater level of care before promoting the crypto empire.

Look, the thing about Mr. Wonderful, Kevin O'Leary, is that he has branded himself and positioned himself as a bit of a financial advisor, a bit of an expert when it comes to investing. And so when you do that, unfortunately, people end up trusting you and the advice that you give as a public figure. And all these people, in some cases, lost their life savings as a result of FTX and the alleged fraud that was committed here. And so the lawsuit, I think, is an important one. We'll see how that plays out the lawsuit against O'Leary and other celebrities who promoted it.

But O'Leary, again, really stands out for multiple reasons. Again, one, because of the way that he has branded himself, but also the way that he has kind of communicated about this, as recently as two weeks ago, by the way. So he had written on LinkedIn and Twitter, he's deleted his tweet since then, but on LinkedIn, you could still find that a year ago he posted this finally solved my compliance concerns with crypto assets. I'm increasing my allocation on the FTX platform. So all of this public messaging made it seem like he had done his due diligence, made it seem like Sam Bankman Fried and FTX was a good place to park your money to invest in crypto. And it didn't really work out that way, as we all know now. Eventually,

Delaware bankruptcy protection filings by new FTX CEO John Ray the third. Would term FtX's risk, audit and compliance procedures a complete failure? On July 18th, get excited. This is big. For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs. Only dinner's July 18th. Of corporate controls. And just two weeks ago, O'Leary was asked whether he still believed in Sam Bankman-Fried, whether he would still invest in something that Sam Bankman-Freed was behind. What did he say? If SBF knocked on your door again and said, look, I failed in my last venture.

I have a new crypto venture. I need money. Would you back him? That's a great question. No one's asked me yet. I think we can all admit, you can love him or hate him given what's happened, but he was one of the most brilliant traders in the crypto universe. He also built one of the most robust platforms. We used FDX actively.

It was a very robust platform that allowed us to get information on a compliant basis. So I really like what he built. Would you back him? The answer would be yes. He gives people advice on personal finance. He has a segment called millennial money, which we'll get to in just a moment. That was that was two weeks ago.

By the way, we had already known two weeks ago what Sam Bankman-Fried was accused of. He was accused of taking depositor money from FTX, the crypto exchange, and gambling with it. With Alameda research, which was a hedge fund, he also founded. But what was so fascinating about O'Leary's testimony before the Senate today was that he seemed to continue being incredibly delusional about what actually transpired with Sam Bankman-Fried and FTCS. Here's what I mean. why do you believe fdx failed i have an opinion i don't have the records here it is these two behemoths that own the unregulated market together and grew these incredible businesses in terms of growth

we're at war with each other and one put the other out of business intentionally now maybe there's nothing wrong with that maybe there's nothing wrong with love and war but finance is a massive unregulated global monopoly now, they put FTX out of business. Okay, so listen, I think there's a huge problem with the unregulated crypto situation. I really don't have any specific thoughts on Binance other than to say, Blaming the collapse of FTX on Binance, intentionally, in my opinion, clears Sam Bankman Freed of any wrongdoing, right? It makes it seem as though, oh, poor Sam Bankman Freed, he's just part of this insanely

competitive crypto market and the evil guy behind Binance destroyed him. But that's not what prosecutors are alleging. In fact, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York made very clear what they're charging Sam Bankman-Fried of. Let's watch. First, we charged that from 2019 until earlier this year, Bankman-Fried and his co-conspirators stole billions of dollars from FTX customers. He used that money for his personal benefit, including to make personal investments and to cover expenses and debts of his hedge fund, Alameda Research. Secondly, and relatedly, we charged that Bankman Freed lied to Alameda's lenders about the source of the money that he was using to pay those debts. Third, we charged that earlier this year in the midst of the crypto crisis, Bankman Freed lied to investors in FTX about the fact that he had sent billions of dollars in FTX customer money to Alameda.

And fourth, we charged that Bankman Freed violated federal campaign finance laws by causing tens of millions of dollars in a legal, campaign contributions to be made to candidates and committees associated with both Democrats and Republicans. Yeah, it seems like your buddy, Sam Bankman-Fried, a little bit of an issue when it comes to the collapse of FTX, a little bit of an issue when it comes to accusations of fraud and using depositor money to make risky bets and gamble with. I mean, look, I respect when people can admit when they're wrong. So there was a moment of clarity for. Leary when he says we look like idiots. Yeah, that was true. But instead of looking out for

your friend and making it seem like he was the victim of a super competitive crypto market where his top competitor destroyed him, acknowledged that there's potentially some serious fraud and serious wrongdoing here. Again, taking depositor money, allegedly, and investing it in risky ways through his hedge fund. There was a massive conflict of interest there, by the way. Having a crypto exchange and a hedge fund was such a conflict of interest that Sam Bankman-Fried decided to go live in the Bahamas to skirt certain regulations. And he also made abundantly clear that the reason why he was donating a lot of money to both Democrats and Republicans, through dark money donations for Republicans, of course, is because he didn't

want regulations. He even said F regulators in the context of one of the recent interviews he did. Because he wanted to rob people, in my opinion. Just saying that to cover my ass legally. But let's just keep it real. Based on what we've seen, that's what it appears to be. And what concerns me the most, the reason why I'm focusing so much on O'Leary, who again calls himself Mr. Wonderful, is that he positions himself as an expert,

as someone who knows exactly what you need to do to have a healthy financial life, a healthy financial future. He comments on a segment for CNBC called Millennial Money. Here's a little taste of that. We bought this apartment three years ago. In 2017 of May. And it was originally listed at $349,000. Actually, we managed to get it for $338,000.

So they bought a condo together. You know what I don't like about the story right now? I didn't hear they got married. I heard they were dating. And yet they've bought this mega asset undoubtedly have debt together and there's no legal union. You know what I mean? I mean, I love romance. I'm a romantic.

I love dance. Dance and romance are even, you know, it's a fairy tale. But what happens if this relationship doesn't work out? What happens if one wants to stay in the other doesn't? I don't know, Kevin, are both of their names on the loan and the deed? because if their names are on it, then they've got legal means to ensure that they divvy up whatever resources they put into that apartment. You don't necessarily have to be married.

But anyway, look, whether he gives good advice in that context or not, doesn't really matter. What does matter is that you as an individual who might be seeking financial advice should not rely on some person on television to tell you what you should do or where you should invest your money. I think that's a recipe for disaster. Look specifically for a fiduciary. Feduciary is someone, a financial advisor, who has to give you the advice that actually helps you, right, as opposed to like a broker who makes a commission off of selling financial instruments to people. A fiduciary has to have your best interest in mind when giving you financial advice. John Oliver did a great segment on that years ago.

But nonetheless, all the people who get paraded around as the financial experts, turns out not experts, turns out they've lost a lot of money, investing in things that they've encouraged other people to invest in. So be smart, don't rely on these folks. Go to a fiduciary if you genuinely do need financial advice. Don't let these hucksters sell you on garbage investments like FTX. All right, we got to take a break. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to the show, everyone. Just want to give Jason Young 84 some love and a shout out. He writes in and says, wow, I'm so happy to support TYT in any way I can. Love you guys so much. This community is my home on the internet. And if you can carve out your own little home on the internet, I think that's a wonderful thing. I love seeing how the TYT community online interacts with one another, how they share ideas, how even when there might be points of disagreement, it never gets nasty. And it's all about really respecting each other.

You guys are wonderful and I'm so, so grateful for you. So thank you, Jason, for writing in. Let's get to our next story because this really caught my attention. And to be quite honest, I couldn't believe it. But I did some digging and it's true. So what's going on? A shockingly high percentage of young adults in America are living at home with their parents. Now, this is an ongoing trend, as we know, following the 2008, recession.

more and more young people had to stay living with their parents because they couldn't make ends meet and make enough money to afford rent, afford a mortgage. And that trend, unfortunately, has only been exacerbated in recent years. Housing is incredibly unaffordable. And Morgan Stanley says, this is actually a good development for luxury brands. their argument is, well, I mean, young adults are now living with their parents because they can't pay rent. That means they're saving money on rent, and they're actually spending it on luxury items.

And I was like, no, they're not. That's not true. But they have a point. So let me give you the details. U.S. census data shows that nearly half of all young adults from ages 18 to 29 still live at home, the highest level recorded since the end of their kids. the Great Depression in 1940. Morgan Stanley attributes this growth to the rising cost of rental prices.

Wow, great analysis, well, really took a genius to figure that one out. The greater enrollment in higher education and the delaying of marriage. Now according to the analysis led by Edward Aubin, the structural trend has been overlooked in the context of rising luxury spending over the past decade. As older Gen Zs and younger millennials have their rent and food paid for by their parents, their discretionary spending increases allowing them to buy up more designer handbags, watches, and jewelry. Okay.

Listen, if you're living at home with your parents, I just, for me personally, love you, Mom, I know you're watching, you're the best, you're a great mother. I'm very happy I don't live with you, okay? Like, mom was all up in my business. Where are you going? When are you coming home? Why aren't you wearing slippers? Your feet are going to get cold? Like, I can't do it.

Like, I can't do it. And I'm pretty sure these young adults are feeling that pain too. Put your money in a savings account with interest. Okay, but I'm not judging. You want the watches, you want the luxury items. Do you booze? But is it true? Are they really, like, sparking this increase in luxury brands?

Yeah, yeah, it turns out it's true. So first, I'm going to give you the Morgan Stanley report. They argue when young adults free up their budget for daily necessities, they simply have more disposable income to be allocated to discretionary spending. That's true. This is, of course, not the only reason luxury goods consumers are getting younger in the West, social media playing also an important part, but we see it as fundamentally positive for the industry.

So what are the numbers, right? Let's take a look at the luxury item market and what percentage of young adults make up that market of consumers. The average age of luxury shoppers also is dropping with half of all purchases by people in their mid-20s to early 40s, while up and coming. Gen Z, now in their teens to mid-20s, account for nearly 20% of luxury sales. Gen Z, by the way, are expected to account for 40% of the global personal luxury goods market by 2035, which by the way makes a lot of sense, because by 2035, which is quite a long

time from now, they're going to be more established with their careers, they're going to have more money to spend on whatever they want, assuming that things don't completely collapse. And so, yeah, they probably will spend more money on luxury items. And that includes brands like you know, Dior, Tiffany, Chanel. You guys get the point. Okay, so it's true. The Morgan Stanley analysis ended up being true. And I'm going to try really hard to not sound judgmental because I'm not trying to judge anyone for how they're spending their money. But I am concerned about people getting hoodwinked by these brands that are actually just kind of giving you this illusion of being better than other brands. Because I got news for you guys. Most of the stuff that

you buy is being manufactured by the same people and the same companies. They're just giving you the illusion of choice and the illusion of different brands, right? Like, sure, the brand is different, but the product, the actual item is pretty much the same. They just slap different labels on it. And if you're wondering what I'm talking about, if you think I'm crazy, get a load of luxotica. This story blew me away, and I think it's indicative of what we're seeing throughout our economy, not just with the luxury items, you know, industry. Let's watch. If two women walk down the street with these on. Yes, they almost

look the same. Almost looked the same. Almost. It's not the same. Not the same because of details on the frames like the little Chanel Cs, polo ponies, or Tiffany Blue. Luxottica wouldn't tell us their markup,

but glasses like these can sell for up to 20 times what they cost to make, and all the glasses are designed by Luxottica. So you design thousands of pairs of glasses. That's what I know. We do. Yes. Down on the factory floor, you can see the work that goes into differentiating the brands.

Plain plastic temples go through a painting machine and come out Versace. Stones are inserted one by one into the Dolce Gabana. And leather is carefully threaded for that Chanel bag look. SmartMoney.com columnist Brett Arons says the appearance of variety is a lot of variety is a an optical illusion. The reality is it's like, you know, it's like pro wrestling competition. It's actually fate competition. That's right. It's fake competition. So if you're into buying brand name luxury goods, it's like let's say you want Chanel glasses. Just understand that you're buying Chanel glasses for, I mean, there are hundreds of dollars for the Chanel glasses. But the

Chanel glasses are the same as a cheaper brand because they're literally made by the same people in the same factory and the same company. So you're needlessly spending money on something just because it has a brand on it that you think is going to impress others. But I'm just being real with you, it's not going to impress others because others don't care. Okay, ladies, I know you want to make other ladies jealous because you've got all the goods, right? No one cares. But you should care about your life and your living conditions. And what I would do right now instead of spending thousands of dollars on a designer bag is I would take that couple thousand dollars or however much you're planning on spending

on a designer bag and I put in a savings account with a high interest rate because right now the other side of the Federal Reserve increasing interest rates, the side that you probably haven't heard much about because all we hear about is the negativity, right? savings accounts have started applying higher interest rates to the money that you deposit in the savings account. No risk, right? It's not the stock market. So the bank that I'm at, I don't put my savings account in a big bank because they don't pay any interest. But you can find online banks that are FDIC insured and they pay you an interest rate. In my case, it's 3.60%. Nice. Nice. And look, you chip away a little more.

by little, this isn't a conversation about don't eat avocado toast, right? It's not. But if you've got the disposable income, and if you have the privilege of being able to live with your parents rent free for a while, you should be saving that money up for a home one day. I'm just trying to give you guys some advice. You could totally discard it. Know that I'm not judging you in any way. So if what makes you happy is the designer bag, go for the designer bag. I just don't want you to get hoodwinked by these companies and these brands that are getting rich off of you as you live at home with mommy and daddy. Just keeping it real. All right, we got to take a break. John Iderolo will be here for the second hour. Don't miss it. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the

young Turks, support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.co slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.