The Young Turks - Gun Country

Episode Date: May 2, 2023

Episode summary: Five dead in Texas "execution-style" shooting, suspect armed with AR-15 is on the loose. First Republic Bank is seized by regulators and sold to JPMorgan Chase. 14 million jobs worldwide will vanish in the next 5 years, new economic report finds. Chris Wallace pushes back when Bernie Sanders slams companies: "I happen to know about it because my son works there." Bernie Sanders on why he’s endorsing Biden, discourages progressives from primarying Biden. HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@CenkUygur) & Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com 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. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too. When they fall out of balance, everything feels off.

But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. hormone harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves. A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again.

Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. Woo! It's up! We're going to be able to be. All right, well, my young Turks, Janky, Rana Kasparian, with you guys. Look, we've got the normal news, okay, and we have the abnormal news. Later in the program, a Republican who might be sky high, and, you know, all this alarmism about artificial intelligence, I never really believed it.

Until I read one line in today's story, and I was like, uh-oh, okay, so that's coming up a little bit later. But first, Casper. All right, so I wanted to begin the show with a correction on a story that we covered on Tuesday and Wednesday of last week. It was a lighter news story about an app called RIS. And it turns out that there are two different AI-based technology products on the market right now that have the same name. And so as a result of that confusing situation, we mixed up the developer. of the dating app we were referring to. So the people behind RIS reached out to us to clarify the situation.

I want to read a quick excerpt from their email so you guys get the point and get the correction. There's a lot of confusion happening after the Washington Post made a mistake about who started the app RIS, spelled R-I-Z, in all caps. It wasn't started by four college students who created another app called RIS, Riz, and that's with a capital R, lowercase IZ, with an exclamation mark, which is an AI keyboard extension. Riz, meaning the one that we were talking about, was actually started by two hardworking guys from New York by the name of Roman, Caves, and Joshua Miller, not the four college

students. So important correction, they don't want to get it twisted, they want to make sure people know who the actual creators of the dating app happened to be. And so I wanted to make that correction real quick at the top of the show and inform you guys of that. So sorry about the mistake. It was an honest mistake. Obviously, it's a very confusing. But nonetheless, now you know. Yeah. And look, guys, yeah, that's mistake originally is from the Washington Post. But we, you know, want to make sure you're correct on it because you heard it here. Okay, and that's all. So now you know the right app makers. Okay, Casper. So now we move on to what you can expect

America, another shooting. child is growing more urgent by the minute. Is there any danger to the community right now? There's always a danger when you've got a guy that's just shot five people in the head, execution style. Five people were shot and killed by their neighbor in Cleveland, Texas. And the shooter who used an AR-15 style rifle is still out on the loose. Authorities are still looking for him.

He is a Mexican national, which leads some to believe that he has fled the country. country, although there is no confirmation of that at this moment. Now some more information about the massacre and the tragic events that took place. The shooting happened after the neighbors asked the suspect, a 38-year-old man by the name of Francisco Oropa, sorry, Oropeza to stop shooting his gun in the yard. Okay, so here are some more details about how it all started and what transpired afterwards. The shooting happened Friday night after the father and husband of two of the victims, Wilson Garcia, says that he, along with two other men, approached Francisco Oropesa and asked

him to stop shooting his weapon so close to their property because their baby was sleeping. Garcia says they called 911 five times to report Oropesa shooting his gun. The suspect then allegedly approached the house with his rifle about 10 to 20 minutes after the encounter. From there, the home turned into a scene of carnage that left four adults and Garcia's nine-year-old son, Daniel, all shot dead. So I want to name the victims here, the people who died as a result of this heinous shooting. Sonia, Argentina, Guzman, 25 years old. Diana Velazquez, Alvarado, 21 years old. Julisa Molina Rivera, 31 years old, Jose Jonathan Cesaris, 18 years old.

And then of course the youngest victim, Danielle Enrique Laso Guzman, nine years old. Some outlets reported that the youngest victim was eight, but the father of the victim clarified that he actually turned nine in January. One of the most horrific details of the story involved three minors who were located uninjured, but they were covered in blood. They were transported to a local hospital. Two of the female victims who were found dead in the bedroom were actually laying on top of two of the surviving children indicating that they acted as human shields to protect the kids.

I have more details on the story, including the Texas governor's disgusting tweet about this situation. before we get to that, Jank. So there's a couple of issues here. We're going to get to Republicans trying to take advantage of this mass shooting, which is disgusting. But first on the guns. In the old days, this would have led to a fight, okay? The woman on the porch said to her husband, it's okay, go inside.

I'm a woman, he's not going to shoot. And in the old days, this guy being the monster that he is, would have come and punch that woman in the face and it would have been a horrific fight, etc. But five people would still be alive today. But now every deranged person has a weapon, every drunk person has a weapon, every person on drugs. I have no idea if he was on drugs, but it's kind of rash action sometimes human beings take on drugs, right? They all have weapons. So they're not going to come over and do something stupid like punch you. They're going to come over and murder you. And so good luck America.

There's no one in government who's ever going to do anything about it. In fact, that's why Abbott was trying to distract you with the immigration issue instead of the gun violence issue. But there's an unhinged neighbor next to you who probably has a weapon. And so now you can't even communicate with anyone, make the most reasonable request of all time. Hey, can you please stop shooting in the front yard because we have a baby that can't sleep, let alone the fact that you're shooting in the front yard. No, that'll get you murdered today in America. This place is absolutely nuts, and our leaders are even more crazy because they're never going to do anything about it.

It's amazing. So the sheriff, Greg Capers, I'm sorry, Kappers has said that he believes that the shooter was likely intoxicated at the time that he committed this shooting. Just a few more details I want to get to. As I mentioned earlier, the shooter is still at large. So the authorities are looking for him. There are 200 law enforcement officers in Texas still searching for him. They're using canines, they're using drones, and so far their efforts have failed.

We've got more on that. Let's take a look. Late Saturday night, investigators were saying that they had found the suspect's clothing and a cell phone that it had been discarded. They also said they believe that the suspect has communicated with friends a couple of times, whether or not that has continued. We don't know at this point, but they are saying this morning and yesterday afternoon that the trail has gone cold. They can't really say if they believe he's still in the area or perhaps somewhere else

in the state. Now, the father of the victims spoke to the press and talked about the number of times he called the authorities. There isn't enough clarity to give you details on that yet, but he says that he called repeatedly. And I want to know how long did it take for the authorities to show up? What was their response? How many times did, you know, did they get that call for help? There's just a lot of a detail that's missing in the reporting right now. And I'm sure we'll fill you guys in as we learn more. Go ahead, Jake. So real quick to fill you in on that,

the father says they called five times. And but they are 15 minutes outside of town and it's only a town of 8,000 people. So it's small town. So that's why it's really open. we don't know yet what really happened because it's possible that they got those five calls back to back and it took them 14 minutes to get out there. It's also possible that they didn't hurry out there maybe because of the immigration situation of these folks. But that's not fair to the cops because we really, really don't know. And the cops are really pissed about this and they're not taking it lightly at all.

And I think they're like 200 person manhunt right now. Right, exactly. 200 law enforcement officers in Texas are looking for this guy. Now, more on the shooter. So he has been deported, as I mentioned. He's a Mexican national. He has been deported at least four times by ICE since 2009. And I'm guessing that is the detail of the story that the right is kind of exploiting for their own political purposes. Before we get to that, though, I do want to read Texas Governor Greg Abbott's statement about this on Twitter where he wrote, I've announced a $50,000 reward. for information on the criminal who killed five illegal immigrants Friday, also directed Operation Lone Star to be on the lookout. Anyway, I read the relevant part of that tweet, which is for some

reason, the governor of Texas felt the need to label the victims of this horrendous, horrific shooting as illegal immigrants. There's evidence, contrary to what he's saying there, at least one of the victims is not an illegal immigrant, or here in undocumented status, I should say. Why is that relevant? I mean, it's just such a strange thing for him to include in the context of releasing a statement about this story and about this tragic event. And it's about the victims, too. It's not about the perpetrator here. So two things about that, and we have breaking news on it right now. But first, look, if he's says that about the guy who did the shootings. I get it. That's one of the issues here.

He's deported four times. He comes back in a fifth time and then does this horrific murder, right? So, and that is super frustrating to everybody. But note, by the way, apparently there aren't open borders because he was deported four times. It's not like they're like, oh, just stay. Take a seat. It's totally illegal. No, it's illegal. They kicked him out of the country four different times. Sometimes you have a repeat offender and there's nothing you could do about it. It drives the cops crazy. In this case, the border agents, et cetera, right? But why are you talking about the immigration status of the victims? The victims. So there's only a couple of explanations here. One is they just think that their base is so vicious

that they're going to look at that and go, you know what? They shouldn't have been here anyway. It's not that big a deal. They were illegal immigrants. Man, if that's what they intended, They're even more immoral than I imagine. Jesus. But when I saw it in the morning, I thought, no, somebody overstepped here. It's some, look, the governors don't write this stuff, right? The governor does send it, so he's responsible. But somebody was probably thinking like, oh, we want to distract from the gun issue.

We all hate undocumented immigrants, meaning all as in all the Republicans do. So we'll just direct it in that way. But this morning I said, this is a bridge too far. Like even Republican voters are going to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, okay, we don't like undocumentaries, maybe half of them, but some portion of Republican voters are going to go, no, don't blame these victims. Are you nuts? Right? So the breaking news is Greg Abbott just released the statement walking it back. And that's because it was a bridge too far, even for Republican voters. So let me read that to you. He says, or the statement says, following the horrific shooting out Friday night, federal officials provide the state of Texas information. on the criminal and the victims, including that they were in the country illegally. We've since learned that at least one of the victims may have been in the United States legally. We regret if the information was incorrect and detracted from the important goal of finding and arresting the criminal. So they realize they screwed up.

Yeah, but I mean, so it does turn out that one of the victims is a permanent U.S. resident, right? So they're correcting that because I'm sure all the backlash that the governor has received, keeps mentioning that point. I just, and then of course, whether it's members of the press or other people on Twitter, activists, whatever, they're like debating Abbott, right, based on that framing. Like, oh yeah, well, at least one of them was actually here legally. It doesn't matter. These are humans, these are humans, these are human beings.

Okay, two of the women who were shot to death with an AR 15 style rifle were found with their bodies on top of the surviving children, they shielded the children with their own bodies, they died saving those kids. I don't care what their freaking immigration status is, period. 100%. What kind of a monster notes their immigration status? Are you insane? And those women, one of them, by the way, pushed out the father from a window, according to the father, saying, you've got to stay alive because the mother is dead and there's two

young kids. There's a two and a half year old and a kid that was a couple of months old. So Wilson Garcia, who is the father of the murdered nine-year-old boy, spoke to reporters. I actually want to go to his video if you don't mind, Jake. Let's take a look. Now telling NBC news, his son died because he was trying to protect his mom, saying that the child saw her fall and ran toward her. Garcia says one of the women who was killed urged him to flee out of the window, so his two other children would not lose both of their parents that night. That was my nine-year-old son and my wife too, and two people who died protecting my two-and-a-half-year-old daughter. My one-and-a-half-month-old son was protected with a lot of clothes so the killer wouldn't kill him too. Yeah, but what was their documented status?

I mean, I can't imagine anyone's brain working that way, but those people exist, right? Whether it was Greg Abbott himself or someone in his staff who overstepped and put that tweet out, I can't believe that that was top of mind for them as they hear the details of this, this heinous crime, this horrible shooting. Yeah, and one more thing for me on this, they're so desperate to protect. gun manufacturers, that they'll do anything. I think that was the main genesis of that tweet. They'll do anything to distract you.

Oh, it was a trans person this time. It must not be the guns, even though 99% of the time it's not a trans person. It must be the trans person. Oh, it's undocumented immigrants that were the victims. It must not be the guns. Are you insane? But people fall for it. Like I said, this one was way too far.

They must have gotten blowback, not from Democrats, who they couldn't care less about, or independence, but from their own base for them to go, oh, okay, I guess you guys aren't as vicious as Republican leaders are, because Republican leaders would do anything to cover up their corruption and the bribery and the bribes that they get from the NRA and gun manufacturers. Guys, we have so many guns in this country, these mass shootings are never, ever going to stop unless we just vote out all the bums. And in this case, it's a rare, rare case where it's just Republicans. Most of the time Republicans and Democrats work together on corporate issues to screw us all,

but on gun issues, and it used to be that way too. Now it's only Republicans. And they say we don't, we care a lot more about the checks we cash from the NRA than we do about your kids. Don't care about them at all. You know how many mass shootings there have already been in four months this year? 184. I mean, you have Christy Knoem, Governor Kristy Knoem going to the annual NRA conference to brag about arming her two-year-old granddaughter, I think?

Or was a daughter? Yeah, granddaughter with two weapons, two-year-old. I don't know. I think one of them was a shotgun. Yeah. Because look, the Republican leaders have become totally and utterly deranged. I mean, what kind of a literal psychotic person says, I gave my two-year-old granddaughter a shotgun?

Or whatever freaking gun that she was bragging about her two-year-old having. No, literally you should be locked up and in mental asylum totally with one of those straitjackets. Instead, she's a, she's a governor of one of our states. You have other lunatics like Lauren Bobert posing with guns and their Christmas albums. Tons of Republican congressmen doing that. They think it's so cool. Look, these are the weapons used to murder your children. Let's take a Christmas picture.

By the way, I'll give my kids, tiny little kids, the same assault weapons in the Christmas picture. No, if you believe that that is safe, you are psychotic. It is not a political debate. Go get mental health counseling. You desperately need it. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we've got lots of news related to the economy, another bank collapse. But J.P. Morgan Chase comes in to save the day, kind of.

That story and more coming up, don't miss it. All right, back on TYT, Jane Canana with you guys also grinded 77. Okay, good for you. They just became a member. You can do likewise by hitting the join button below the video on YouTube. We appreciate it. And tYt.com slash join. to become a member on our website, which makes all difference in the world. Thank you to the members. Casper. Well, we've got some big news regarding yet another bank failing.

So let's talk about it. I think the upside all goes to J.P. Morgan. That's fascinating, Bramow. Well, especially fascinating. Especially because in the stories, it actually said they shared the upside as well as the downside. So it's confusing that basically J.P. Morgan ends up with the entirety of the upside at a time where the FDIC wants to mitigate socializing the losses and privatizing the gains. You heard that right.

J.P. Morgan Chase, which has agreed to purchase First Republic Bank. We'll get all of the upside of purchasing the bank while we get to share the losses. So we'll get to the details on how that works in just a moment. But before we do, some context about First Republic Bank and how it was flailing. So it will go down in history as the second largest U.S. bank to collapse after Washington Mutual back in 2008. That was during the economic collapse of 2008. Now, 84 First Republic Bank branches in eight states reopened this morning as J.P. Morgan Chase branches. The federal deposit insurance corporation or the FDIC seized control of the troubled First Republic Bank and sold it

to chase. So what exactly happened? What transpired here? So their assets were apparently battered due to the rise in interest rates. Similar to what we saw with Silicon Valley Bank, they struggled to stay alive after the two other lenders collapsed last month. So remember, there was like some concern that the Silicon Valley bank collapsing would lead to like a snowball effect and more of these regional banks would collapse. And so the FDIC estimated that its insurance fund would have to pay out about $13 billion to cover First Republic's losses. J.P. Morgan also said that the FDIC would provide it with $50 billion in financing. So First Republic failed despite having received some money recently, a $30 billion lifeline from 11 of the country's

largest banks in March, J.P. Morgan said the 30 billion would be repaid after the deal. Now before I toss to you, Jank, I want to go to the next video because you'll get a little more of an explanation as to why it is that we get to share the losses, whereas J.P. Morgan Chase gets to privatize the benefits of this sale. Let's watch. JPMorgan and the FDIC have agreed to share the burden of losses. What does that actually mean in practice? Can you explain that for our audience? Sure.

So as JPM now has the assets and deposits, they will work through those, and particularly loans, as they collect those loans, there will be a loss-share agreement for any losses that come out, and that will be shared with the FDIC. It's very similar to what we had in 2008, 9, and 10. Typically, the assets back then were much worse. These are assets that are simply marked for interest rate risk, not for credit risk. So ultimately, I think you'll see J.P. Morgan sit with these assets and sell them and move forward.

It's possible that much of what they are holding here comes back to them in the next 12, 18 months. If interest rates change and the Fed changes policy, perhaps a quarter or two from now, that's going to have a sea change to how these assets are valued. So timing is everything, and I think that's ultimately why the bid end up being less of a discount for J.P. Morgan than the other banks. share the upside as well than Chris? They capture most of the upside. So I think the upside all goes to J.P. Morgan. Okay, so Jank, I'm curious how that works because the majority of their assets have to do with jumble loans for mortgages, right? And so I'm guessing that their assets took a nosedive

as a result of the higher interest rates. But if J.P. Morgan Chase holds on to those assets as interest rates change, maybe you get lower, then the value of those assets go up. Am I understanding that correctly? Yes, but so this one really is confusing. So I'm going to start by making things, some portions of it simple, and then we'll get to the hard stuff. Okay, and I'll try to answer Anna's question too. So first of all, the best news is that the FDIC is not does not take money from taxpayers. The FDIC is actually powered by money that it takes from bank.

to cover for insurance in case of a situation like this. So they'll use some of the assets that they have allocated for that reason in the past, and they'll rebuild those assets as they go forward in case there's another bank collapse. So that's probably the most important part of their story. Now, normally though, when there's any kind of organization that gets involved, they will get most of the upside if they finance it. In this case, it's a really weird situation because the FDIC is largely taking the losses but that's collectively a pool of banks.

So for them to own anything is kind of weird. And so, but usually when the government does a bailout, we should get at least a huge portion of the proceeds, but we never do. But in this case, it's more complicated because of the FDIC rather than the Treasury Department, which is us, the taxpayers, okay? So when you get into the details of how does, like they, for example, they say FDIC has already paid out $13 billion and J.P. Morgan Chase is going to pay out 10.6, but that is not at all clear. And I, to be honest with you guys, I'm not clear why they're paying out anything because

they could just take the deposits the First Republic and move them to J.P. Morgan, then they don't have to pay them out. Right. Right, right. So, but in this case, for whatever reason, maybe because First Republic was taken already taken over already and there was already a panic. They've already paid out the $13 billion, so it's already gone. But again, it's from the FDIC, okay? So I know that it's good for JPMorgan Chase because their stock price went up significantly today. Yeah, I mean, the biggest bank just got bigger. Let's keep it real. Oh, that's the second biggest takeaway, for sure, right? We'll come

back to that too. But in terms of the other banks, there's two other banks that were competing to pick up First Republic. Why were they competing? Because the government, along with the FDIC, was making sure the terms were so favorable that the banks would want to pick it up, right? And they're trying to incentivize the banks because the banks don't want the losses. But when the other two lost out the JPMorgan Chase, their stock price went down. So you know this was a really good deal for whoever was acquiring First Republic because basically the government is shorted. Now, in terms of why they got into trouble in the first place, First Republic, so there's a couple of factors. One is those mortgages that Anna's talking about. If you have a

fixed mortgage and it's at 2%, and now the interest rate 7%, the bank has to honor the 2% for 30 years or whatever, right? Meanwhile, their cost of money is 7%. So that's a giant problem for the banks. There's a second problem with interest rates when the banks, like especially Silicon Valley Bank, took the money and in order to have cash, bought treasuries, they bought the treasuries at a low interest rate. When they needed to sell it, it was at a high interest rate, and that caused massive losses for them. So those two things combining is what caused the problem for the banks in the first place. Finally, Jamie Diamond and government officials swear up and

down that, and take it for what it's worth, that it's over now. That it's, there's not going to be any more banks that are in trouble. So they took out two in the first round, this is the third one they've taken out. And First Republic, by the way, the second biggest bank in American history to go under. And so they say the rest of the banking system is relatively sound, so we're gonna be okay. Let's hope they're right, obviously from the outside, it's nearly impossible to determine that. But the one thing that is super clear is what Anna mentioned, which is now the big banks are getting bigger and bigger. And that's exactly what I warned about during the Silicon Valley bank collapse, especially if you didn't guarantee the deposit.

all of the money was going to go to the top banks like J.P. Morgan Chase, and they were going to be even more colossal than they already are, and now we're headed in that direction. Right, and so let's talk about the downsides of having colossal banks, like banks that continue to accumulate power, continue to get bigger. First of all, as individuals who might need to take out loans, for whatever reason, whether it be home loans, whether it be a loan, that you might need to start a business, it becomes more and more difficult to do so because there's less competition, right? So Chase can decide, no, we're going to be a lot more strict and a lot more difficult when it comes to giving loans to individuals who might

need it for whatever reason. So there's that issue. And when a bank accumulates power in a country that has corruption baked into its system, who's to say that J.P. Morgan Chase won't successfully lead to more deregulation of the banking sector and essentially pave the way for more questionable activity that leads to economic collapse like we experienced in 2008. Yeah, and they become even bigger, so too big to fail gets worse. Yes. And so that means that if the big banks have problems, we're all screwed. And we end up paying for the bailout.

100%. Because not paying for the bailout would mean even like more severe collapse. Look, we had to have fixed this in 2008 and we didn't. No, we didn't. We just dropped the ball. Obama passed some weak regulations and called it historic. And the reality is they never fixed too big to fail. Now they're way bigger than they were when they collapsed in 2008.

So that only leaves us two choices if something goes wrong with the big banks. either complete global economic collapse as there's run on banks all across the world. That's total devastation, or the American taxpayer is going to have to bail out the richest executives in the world. And by the way, the Silicon Valley Bank executives, for all these years, they took home all that salary and all those bonuses. And when they went under, we didn't get any of it back. No, we didn't.

So a few other things I want to mention, because I think it is important to add an, I add to and reinforce the point about how we didn't fix things after 2008. In fact, just last week, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC published reports criticizing themselves for failing to adequately regulate Silicon Valley Bank and signature bank. So I want to read from the New York Times on this. They write that a sweeping and highly critical review conducted by Michael Barr, the Fed's vice chair for supervision, identified lack of. Oversight of Silicon Valley Bank and said its collapse demonstrated weaknesses in regulation

and supervision that must be addressed. He further writes, regulatory standards for Silicon Valley Bank were too low, the supervision of Silicon Valley Bank did not work with sufficient force and urgency, and contagion from the firm's failure posed systemic consequences not contemplated by the Federal Reserve's tailoring framework. I should also note, by the way, that Silicon Valley Bank and smaller regional banks like Silicon Valley Bank were deregulated in 2018. So they were further deregulated after the incredibly weak Dodd-Frank banking regulations that passed in 2009, I believe it was.

So these are the consequences. We know that the lack of regulation is a huge problem here, and now we have some admissions at least from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. So one last thing about that Federal Reserve report. Michael Barr basically blamed the Trump administration for not doing any oversight. And the article noted that Barr only came in in July, I believe, of 2022. So mid-2020, so there wasn't much he could do. I thought, well, you got this report straight from Barr, because that is very favorable framing for Barr. The reality is, if you were here in July of 22, you had a lot of time to regulate them, and you didn't. Okay, so it's not like the Democrats aren't also culpable, it's not like bars

inculpable, etc. But he's not wrong about the fact that Trump deregulated and basically said, oh, these are great, rich people, they'll regulate themselves, it'll be fine. But guys, it's also, it's also really important to remember, like just simply saying Trump deregulated, I think omits really important details. This was a bipartisan effort in Congress. You had Democrats voting for the deregulation as well. The bill makes its way to Trump's desk and Trump signs the deregulation into law. That's how it worked. So did Trump want the deregulation?

Absolutely. But let's not also forget that there's a huge problem with corporatist Democrats in Congress who love the deregulation and who love to hand out cookies to members of the financial sector. And now when the Federal Reserve suggested a little bit tighter regulation just because, hey, we don't want non-stantiated. collapse, just the bare minimum, Republicans in the Senate are outraged, and they do not want more regulation of these out of control banks. What a shocker, wow. I mean, guys, if you don't know that the Republicans in mass and a huge portion of the

Democrats completely work for their donors, including the giant banks, you must be a journalist in Washington because everyone else in the country knows. Now finally, something that I'm gonna dig into for tomorrow's show, but here's a little sneak peek if you will. Unusual Wales, one of my favorite Twitter accounts, tweeted this in regard to this banking story. Breaking news, another congressman literally traded banking stock again. Lois Frankel sold FRC. So that's, I'm guessing that's the bank that just collapsed. First Republic. First Republic, yes. On March 16th, avoiding the remaining 80% drop. She then bought J.P. Morgan stock, the bank buying First Republic on March 22nd. Wow. Wow, so convenient.

So convenient. What a coincidence. God damn. I mean, look, there's polls out every day that show the American people have no trust left in media, politics, etc. They shouldn't. And the media looks at him and goes, I wonder what's wrong with the American public? No, the question is, what's What's wrong with you? Totally. Okay? I mean, look at how obviously corrupt the politicians are. So brazen, barely covered in the press, treated like heroes and honest actors who are debating issues.

Gee, should we do regulation? No, they're crooks. They took bribes from the banks, that's why they don't want to regulate them. And then they do trading on their inside information. Dude, they do insider trading so brazenly, and they do it repeatedly, repeatedly. They don't care. They know nothing's going to happen to them. They do this with impunity, whereas any other ordinary American trading on, you know,

insider information would go to prison. Just ask Paul Giamatti. Okay? Reference civilians. Anyway, all right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we're going to talk about how AI is going to destroy your life. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size.

Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca. All right, back on T.OAT, Jay and Anna with you guys. Also, Tracy Lynn. She just became a member and an American hero. You can do likewise by hitting the join button below the video on YouTube. All right, Casper. All right, well, hold on for this story, because it's not good. A new economic report by the World Economic Forum, I know, but just keep listening.

finds that as many as 14 million jobs will be lost to AI technology over the next five years. Now, how did they conduct this study? Well, what they did is they spoke to 800 companies. They surveyed these companies to see what they plan on doing with the ongoing development of AI technology. How will it impact their workplaces? Employers expect to create 69 million new jobs by 2020. but eliminate 83 million positions that will result in a net loss of 14 million jobs equivalent to 2% of current employment. So who would be impacted the most by this? According to CNN's reporting, there could be 26 million fewer record keeping and administrative

jobs by 2027, and that was cited specifically by the World Economic Forum and their study on this. Data entry clerks and executive secretaries are expected to see the steepest losses. However, the development of AI could lead to increases in jobs in certain sectors of the economy. For instance, employment of data analysts and scientists, machine learning specialists, and cybersecurity experts is forecast to grow by 30% on average by 2027. Now, before we get to more details on this, I just want to warn you all that this is a A survey, right? So the World Economic Forum study on this is based on a survey of employers at 800 companies. And really the employers here are predicting what they are likely to do

in the coming years. Those predictions could be off. So that's something to keep in mind. And in terms of AI technology progressing, it's actually progressed slower than expected. So they couldn't be wrong in their projections to some extent. But honestly, in my opinion, not by much. So look, there's a couple of different issues here. One is AI going to kill us all and some of the founders of AI saying, maybe. Hold on for that. Okay, so we're gonna come to that in a second.

But in terms of the jobs, it's crystal clear, in my opinion. So I get it, there'll be more jobs, there always is. We lost all the jobs in the horse and buggy industry. We gained a lot more jobs in the car industry. So sometimes when there's a transition, it's super painful, but you get to a better place, right? In this case though, tons and tons of jobs are going to be eliminated and it is super obvious. So first of all, data entry, gone, okay, totally gone. Eventually there'll be none of that.

And by the way, there should be none of that. I remember doing data entry when I was a young intern at a company. I was like, really? I remember thinking all the way back then, it was a long time ago, like we have human beings doing this. This is like the most work ever. Really? I found it exhilarating. Like, oh my God, I hated it.

Anyway, translators, gone. So look, in person you're going to need some translators, but the machine's going to do it a lot better eventually. Because they're going to learn even the cadence. They're going to learn the different lingoes that people use that aren't even official. That kind of learning is super easy for a computer. So there'll be millions and millions of jobs, absolutely in limiting. And that's before we get to the truck drivers and all the other jobs and the factory workers. Honestly, I'm shocked most of the factory work hasn't already been eliminated because most of that is just wrote repetition that a computer can do if you've got, you know, I don't even know that you need sophisticated AI for that one.

But obviously you do need some of it. And now we have plenty of it, which gets us to some of the danger. Right, exactly. So the danger is how this will devastate people across the globe economically. And how we do not, at least in the context of the United States, we don't have a governing body that is competent enough to regulate anything having to do with technology, much less AI technology. Like, you see some of these either House or Senate hearings where you have these relics, like sitting there asking questions that make it very clear that they do not understand simple functions of the Internet. You get what I'm saying? Yeah, 100%.

So that's my top concern, that there's really no representation for ordinary American workers when it comes to our government. And so there's that. If we had a situation in which workplaces were run democratically, then workers would have a say over how automation and how this technology gets implemented. But of course, in America, workers have no say. So we're in for a lot of pain. There's no question about it. And guys, there's one thing that's really important that people don't mention enough. They say, well, yeah, but the jobs will be replaced with other jobs.

But wait, those are two different sets of jobs. One is a blue collar job. The other is a very high-end tech job. So like the guys who are writing the code, yes, there'll be more of them. But that requires a very significant education as opposed to the guy who was working at the factory or as a data entry clerk, etc. It requires an education. that would mean that the individual getting the education would have to take out massive loans, a lot of debt. So there's that too. There's one, that's true. Second of all, it's not the same

people. Like Democrats make this mistake all the time. All the time. They make it sound like, oh, we're going to take you out of the steel factory in Allegheny, Pennsylvania. And teach you how to code. And teach you how to code. Are you serious? No, that's got to come much early. That's very unlikely to be the same people. So don't give people false promises, right? because people get super mad about that, rightfully so. And guys, the other thing that's going to happen is America's at a huge disadvantage there. Why? Because we're running out of high tech, you know, people with that kind of expertise here.

That's why Silicon Valley is filled with, I'm going to be honest here, filled with Asians, South Asians, East Asians, et cetera. Meanwhile, I know for a fact that countries like India, let alone so many others, are producing tons and millions of coders because they're hungry, they get to education, it's a relatively easier way to step up to a much higher salary, and we're soft. So they're going to start picking us apart. And we got to get a better education system here. But Anna's right, may need you go into that.

Then you become an indebtious servant to corporations the rest of your life. But look, aside from that, right, aside from the maybe growing number of jobs related to AI technology, it's still not enough jobs to replace the jobs that will be lost as a result of AI being used in a more widespread fashion in our economy. So we're just in a lot of trouble. Anyway, but it's not just me who's saying that. It's not just Jenk who's saying that. The granddaddy of AI has come out to criticize what's happening here. I call him granddaddy. I think that's cooler, but he's also referred to as the godfather of AI. He's Dr. Jeffrey Hinton. And he said he quit his job at Google, where he has worked for more than a decade, so he can freely speak out about the risks of AI.

A part of him, he said, now regrets his life's work. He says, quote, I console myself with a normal excuse. If I hadn't done it, meaning develop AI, someone else would have. Generative AI can already be a tool for misinformation, so he's concerned about that. Soon it could be a risk to jobs. Somewhere down the line, tech's biggest worriers say it could be a risk to humanity. Quote, it is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things, Dr. Hinton said.

And he is not alone in feeling this. Finally, I want to mention, after the San Francisco startup, OpenAI released a new version of ChatGPT in March. More than 1,000 technology leaders and researchers signed an open letter calling for a six month moratorium on the development of new systems because AI technologies pose, quote, profound risks to society and humanity, end quote. That sounds really scary. Okay, so I'm going to tell you the one part that I think actually is very scary and the others that I find to be more normal.

But first, on grandpapa of AI, I say, let's call you. The granddaddy. Yeah. So look, he's a terrific guy. He used to be in America who worked at Carnegie Mell and went to Toronto because he didn't want to work with the Pentagon, he didn't want to create, you know, AI soldiers that could AI robots that would be used as like- Robot soldiers, yeah, and killing machine, literal killing machines. So, and here he's saying, look, I thought it was going to take a lot longer

for artificial intelligence to catch up to the human brain. I was wrong. And now I'm really worried. The third thing he's worrying about is he's saying, before I thought Google, where he worked, was doing a really good job of safeguarding this technology. But now that that Microsoft is using AI in its search engine, Bing, Google is now worried that they're going to fall behind on their core business, so they're like, forget it, we're going AI. And so now that the barn door is open, he's worried about everything flying out of there and that there's less controls. So what are we supposed to actually worry about?

As we talked about with the jobs, that's definitely that we're going to lose millions of jobs. We'll see how the world adjust, the America adjusts, et cetera. is that going to kill us all? No, okay? Then they're worried, hey, is they're going to be smarter than humans? Well, in terms of computing, I've always thought that was the most obvious thing in the world. I don't know why anybody's surprised by it. I remember when they used to have humans playing chess against the computer and they're like, oh, the computer will never win. I was like, it's just a standard number of permutations. Of course, the computer can do that more officially. Eventually, the computer will win super easily, right? And of course that

happen. Guys, you shouldn't be surprised by that. Their computer power is going to be way, way more than our brains, right? That's not even close. So then the question is, yeah, but what are we worried about? And so I want to read you that quote. So this is the paragraph that concerned me. New York Times explains, down the road, he's worried that future versions of the technology pose a threat to humanity because they often learn unexpected behavior from the vast amounts of data that they analyze. This becomes an issue, he said, as individuals and companies allow AI systems, not only to generate their own computer code, but actually run that code on their own. No, that sounds like a really good idea. I'm looking forward to that.

No, no, no, we've got to be careful with that. Yeah. No, we won't be, though. That won't be. No, guys, them creating their own code means they have certain autonomy. Yeah. And then if we tell them, well, you know what, we didn't like how that autonomy turned out. Stop creating your own code. What if they create code that says don't listen to us.

You told us to create code in the first place. So I just created more code, right? AI robots are people, my friends. So here, I'll give you, well, but by the way, they're going to say that soon. No, I know. It's not even joke or hyperbole. I'll pull a Biden. I'm not kidding.

Okay. So guys, there is already- The AI robots are coming. Okay, no joke. Okay, so although ironically now we're laughing. Anyways, last thing on this, guys, we already have an AI of some sort. We have legal AI that's called corporations. So we wrote a code saying maximize profit.

This is in our law. They're fictions of our law. They're not, there's no corporations in the natural world, okay? And when we created them, we made a giant mistake. We allowed only one code, which is maximized profit. We did not put in a second code, which, by the way, other countries have. The second line of code says, you're not allowed to crush the community, stakeholders, not just shareholders, et cetera, and the government can hold you accountable to that.

We didn't put that code in. So what happened? Our corporations completely took on a life of their own and went on maximizing profit. And if any CEO or board didn't agree, they were all fired, and the machine kept rolling and rolling until it crushed all of our wages and now has us working as indentured servants for corporate machines. Now imagine if you write that kind of code into a computer program and then release it into the world. I've already seen the damage it does is something as arcane as our legal code. Imagine what could do in this world, in this technology world.

We cannot allow it to create its own code, but we are. It's unleashed and good luck to the rest of us. That's right. All right. You know what, let's get right to our next story. Bernie Sanders did a round of interviews over the weekend. Let's start with his conversation with Chris Wallace. that control assets of $20 trillion.

They are the major stockholders in over 90% of the S&P 500 companies. But wait, wait, wait, but when you're talking about Blackstone, for instance, and I happen to know about it because my son works there, they are investing the money of the teacher's funds. It's incredible how deeply connected members of the media are to the financial sector, to the point where in this case, you have Chris Wallace, the host of this CNN show, mentioning that his son works for Blackstone, a private equity firm, as a way of rebutting what Senator Bernie Sanders is saying.

But Chris, that ain't the own you think it is. So I wanted to talk about that moment during this interview, Jank. But before we do, why don't we go to a longer version of that to give you more context and then we can discuss? Over 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, people on top doing phenomenally well, all right? Then you have concentration of ownership. You want to talk about oligarchy? You got three Wall Street firms, Blackstone, State Street, and Vanguard, that control assets of $20 trillion. dollars. They are the major stockholders in over 90% of the S&P 500 companies. But wait, wait, wait, but when you're talking about Blackstone, for instance, and I happen to

know about it because my son works there, they are investing the money of the teachers' funds, a public employee's funds. Those are real people who are basically are getting their pensions. But when I'm talking, when you ask me about oligarchy, I'm talking about power. if you have three Wall Street firms that combined are major stockholders that over 90% of the major corporations in America determine who's on the board of directors. I think that that is real power. I just love that moment because Chris Wallace's again rebuttal to what Senator Sanders was saying there, Jank, was no, but my son works at Blackstone. And don't they like, you know, manage the retirements of like teachers or something, don't you like teachers?

So isn't all that wealth accumulation a good thing? Okay, I actually have an answer for how Bernie could have done even better in that reply because what Chris Wall said they really pissed me off on two fronts, which I'll explain in a second. But first I want to give credit to the people who had been warning us about this oligarchy the whole time. Let's watch. Ali Kaki, M-I-Left. Don't I. M-O-G-O-B.

Ali Kaki Do I have faith the truth? Does truth have faith to me? James O'Keefe is suing Twitter for defamation. I think they're up and down because they confronted a Facebook executive. Take a video like that down. It would be due to a doxin concern. I can show you a video of CNN doing the exact same thing.

Twitter made factual statements about our calls. statements about our client that are false. Alikaki. Twitter singing and Zung is working with Dosi. I can't believe we let it run that long. Okay, okay. So now, kidding aside about James O'Keefe at his goofball song. Look guys, I know it's funny.

So he says, look, my son works there, by definition, it must be, definition must be good people. No, no, it's, first of all, we don't care about your son. No, we don't. And that doesn't prove anything at all, zero. We don't even know your son. He might be a terrific person. He might be a real prick. We don't know, right? So like, I can't, he thinks, well, I got you, didn't I? No, you didn't. Okay, so number two, look, it isn't about any one individual that works at those companies. And by the way, have some people worked at Blackstone in other places and then turn into good guys and become progressives later? Yeah, no, a couple of people out, like literally a couple of people.

And Nomi Prince used to work at Goldman Sachs. That's true, and I do be loving Nomi Prince. Yes. Yeah. But that also doesn't mean anything. The question is, are they using their accumulated wealth and power to rig the rules of the system? And that is indisputable, they definitely are.

They're saying, hey, for example, capital gains, we're going to have it at 20%. For private equities, super important that they have this carried interest loophole. where they claim that their salaries should be taxed at the same rate as the investments, which is 20%. That's outrageous. It's a total crime. It's a long explanation of why that's a crime. But that is not at all investment money. They're totally, it's an outrageous robbery of the American people. But on the other hand, Chris Wallace's son works there.

Well, I didn't know your argument was that powerful. Okay. But Bernie didn't push back on that stuff. because I want, he talks about the income inequality all the time and does a brilliant job with it. But I want him to connect it to how we got there. And we got there through the bribery of these politicians, through bankers like Chris Wallace's son. Who, by the way, has a very high position. So he's probably in the decision making of sending those lobbyists to bribe the politicians to rig the rules on their behalf. And I haven't even gotten to the teacher's pensions yet.

They call him a decider. And he makes a lot of big ones and he makes a lot of little ones, just like George W. Bush did back in the day. But no, look, to me, what really stood out was how much media, like the news industry, journalism has devolved over the last several decades. Because even back when I was going to journalism school, that kind of conflict of interest, right, is not something to brag about. Right? Like a journalist is not supposed to be like, well, you know, I have these close ties to Blackstone. So I happen to know that private equity is fantastic. No, like a journalist would be ashamed of that back in the day, right? More importantly, someone wouldn't be hired for the kind of position Chris Wallace has or wouldn't allow Chris Wallace to report on any

story where that conflict of interest plays a role. But in this case, because of how much journalism has devolved, he's like bragging about it. Yeah, and by the way, Chris Wallace is among the better journalists in America. I mean, so like, it's a super low bar that he's clearing and he's not clearing it. So, okay, now to the teacher's pensions, he makes it sound like, and this is exactly the problem with the conflict of interest that Anna's talking about. He's like, they're taking care of our teachers. Don't you want that, Bernie?

No, they went to get those pensions because they're a piggy bank. They're trillions of dollars in money. And by the way, those oftentimes those teachers, pensions, et cetera, way overpay those private equity guys. In fees and things like that. That's right. And David's throat has written about this, as usual, brilliantly on the lever. So many other great progressive journalists have written about this.

But it's a stone cold fact. And if you watched the big short or you read the big short and that was about 2008 collapse, you know that those bankers look at those pensions as a juiciest thing that they can go get their hands on because they're going to get those fees, et cetera. They're going to collect tons of profits. And if things go under, they're going to go, ah, not my problem, man. And so because there isn't as many sophisticated people on the other end of that transaction. It's usually government officials.

And a lot of times it's government officials that they gave campaign contributions to. So there's no other party to protect you there in a lot of those circumstances. So that rapacious system that they set up in place that's going to blow up on those pensions later, often does as it did in 2008. Chris Wallace painted us, we're taking care of the teachers. And yet this monster, Bernie Sanders, is still complaining about our beloved private equity rulers. No, they are actual oligarchs. And yes, they have just as much influence as they do in Russia. That was a point that they debated, because in our system, those oligarchs can just

legally bribe the politicians. They just go here. Here's $10 million in campaign contributions. I'll do exactly as I tell you. That's not at all different than the Russian system. Well, we come back from the break. We'll talk about another interview that Senator Sanders did over the weekend, this time, to provide a full-throated endorsement of Biden and his reelection bid.

That and more coming right up. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks, support our work, listen ad-free, access members only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple podcast at Apple.com at Apple.com slash TYT. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.