The Young Turks - Kudlow, Germany Arrest Warrant, and Neo-Nazi Love Triangle

Episode Date: March 16, 2018

A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from March 15, 2018. For more go to http://www.tytnetwork.com/join. Hour 1:  Walkout students go crazy at Sanders arrival. Bernie excitement at National Walkout Day. Mueller subpoenas Trump org. Kudlow economic adviser. Kudlow in 2011–Human toll in Japan worse than econ toll, good news. Senate Passes Bill To Deregulate Banks. Ana w/Bernie–Addresses the 16 Dems that voted for Bank deregulation. Germany looking to arrest Gina Haspel. Trump admits he lied at fundraising event. Trump admits he lied at fundraising event. Yale Experiment: turn conservatives into liberals. Hour 2:  Trump wants to execute drug dealers, w/ some exceptions + finalizes opioid plan. Tucker Carlson links immigration to infertility in American men. Tucker Carlson falling wages leads to infertility and out of wedlock births. Women dont want dudes who dont make good money. Neo-Nazi Love Triangle. 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. Thank you for watching or listening to this free podcast of the Young Turks. We want to make sure that you get some portion of the show every day. But if you want the full show, which is actually five segments, come become a member and support independent media as well. TYT network.com slash join.

Meanwhile, enjoy the free podcast. All right, back on a young church, guys, I got to go. So let me just remind you real quick, though, of the Trump poll that we did yesterday. What was the dumbest thing he said in the last 24 hours? The Mexican mountain climbers, the Space Force, or the Marine Corps, spelled wrong. There's been over 3,500 votes on that. And I'll let you know right now, mountain climbers are winning. Space Force is in second.

And I voted for Marine Corps, but it's, it's trailing badly. So get out there and vote. Do your patriotic duty. T-YT Network.com slash dumbass to vote in that poll. All right. Let's go over here. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-E-E-Ring the Republic or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations

are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and power. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you think. thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows.

But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, You must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today

and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. So we have a new chief economic advisor for Donald Trump. So did he go with a Nobel laureate, a professor, an expert in the field, someone who's worked in government recently on this issue? Nope. he went with another TV star. Well, I mean, Amarosa's gone, so he needs to fill his reality show back out with people he's familiar with.

And since he doesn't read, the only people he's familiar with are the people on TV. This time it's Larry Cudlow from CNBC. So there were rumors about this, and then this morning, Trump confirmed it with this tweet. Larry Cudlow will be my chief economic advisor as director of the National Economic Council. Our country will have many years of great economic and financial success. success, as usual, capitalized for no apparent reason. Anyway, with low taxes, unparalleled innovation, fair trade, and ever-expanding labor force leading the way, hashtag maga.

Now, Kudla did not agree with him on tariffs. His last chief economic advisor left ostensibly because they didn't agree on the tariff. He sure the reality is Gary Kohn wanted to leave before the indictments, and he already got his trillions of dollars in tax cuts. Anyway, but Cudlow also didn't agree, but apparently he told the president, I submit, I now think tariffs are a brilliant idea. Okay, good boy, good boy. Now, let's examine what an idiot Larry Cudlow is and how he has the worst track record on predictions you can possibly imagine. Before we get to the predictions, which are fun, let's go over his history a little bit.

I feel a little bad going all the way back to 94, but not too bad. In 1994, after serving for years as a chief economist at Bear Stearns, Cudlow was fired when he confessed to an insane $100,000 per month cocaine habit. Wow. I can't imagine spending $100,000 a month on anything, let alone on cocaine. How much cocaine do you have to do to spend $100,000 in a month? Wow, okay. But then, but he said, look, that's okay, I'm reformed, and he took a job in journalism afterwards

because he had gone to a fancy celebrity clinic and he was fine. But then some 15 months after he was ousted from Bear Stearns, his wife filed for divorce and per the New York Times, quote, in order to prevent Mr. Cudlow from tapping their Bear Stearns retirement account to pay for a week's long cocaine binge. So apparently not fine back then. Just a little bit of fun background, but look, they say that he's been okay for decades. And that is not my issue with him. And if he had a problem in the past and it's in the past, no problem at all.

We're progressives. We believe in redemption. And I have no reason not to believe that he's not doing that anymore. Bear Stearns, by the way, of course, later went bankrupt in the economic collapse that Cudlow claimed wasn't really happening. All right, a couple more fun things before we get to the economic stuff, which is what he was ostensibly hired for. He once said that Sarah Palin will strengthen the McCain presidential case. Suffice it to say she did not. He then at one point said that the Iraq war was a really good

idea. He thought because it might help the economy and the stock market. I'm not sure that that's a very good reason. But he also said that he would quote, revive the American spirit. Suffice to say the Iraq war has not revived the American spirit. Then he went on to talk about Fukushima once back in 2011. Remember the famous nuclear meltdown in Japan. Listen carefully to how he prioritizes here. Watch. All in all, the market taking this in stride.

I mean, the human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll, and we can be grateful for that, and the human toll is a tragedy. We know that. But these markets are, say all these markets, right, stocks, commodities, oil, gold. There is no major breakout or breakdown. Wow. Is it surprising that Trump picked this guy to be his chief economic advisor? Luckily, the economic toll to my pocketbook is not as bad as the human toll, which is, of course,

irrelevant to me and all my rich friends. Wow. Even his co-anchors seem to be looking at him like, did he just say that? By the way, he was wrong on the economic toll as well. It wound up costing $200 billion. Is there anything Larry Cudlow is not wrong about? Well, so now let's go to the heart of the matter about economics, because he's going to be the chief economic advisor to the president of the United States.

So back when Bill Clinton was president, he said there is no question that President Clinton's across-the-board tax increases will throw a wet blanket over the recovery and depressed the economy's long-run potential to grow. That turned out to be massively wrong. The economy boomed under Bill Clinton in an unprecedented fashion. The tax increases did not lead to an economic downturn. Instead, there was terrific economic times. Unemployment went down, inflation wasn't checked.

His beloved stock markets went soaring. He was wrong on every count. Now, let's go to a little bit more recent prediction. about the Bush era. He said at the time, but at the end of the day, it will be the middle class American worker who will benefit most from the pickup in capital formation brought on by Bush's latest tax cuts.

Investors will respond to fresh economic incentives and a new flow of capital will generate stronger markets, a true business expansion, higher productivity, more jobs, and perhaps, most importantly, outsized gains in real worker wages. monstrously wrong. Wages flatlined. Later, we had an economic crash

where not only did we not have more jobs, we lost 8 million jobs. The tax cuts under Bush did not work. They did not stimulate their economy. They crashed their economy. But Cudlow got a tax cut and so did all his rich friends. Oh, it actually hurt the average American. Exactly the opposite of what Cudlow said.

At the end of the day, who cares? Why is a guy this wrong on CNBC as a so-called expert in the first place? Because CNBC isn't here to serve you. They're here to serve rich folks who think, oh, the American worker has flatlining wages. Their wages are stagnant, but the markets are up. Have five. Okay, so Cudlow's been high-fiving them ever since. But we haven't gotten to the best part yet.

Clinton era Cudlow, early Bush-year-Cudlow. Well, 2007, 2008, Cudlow says, hold my beer. Here comes even worse predictions. He said at the end of 2007, there's no recession coming. The pessimistas were wrong. It's not going to happen. The bush boom is alive and well. It's finishing up its sixth consecutive year with more to come.

He said that in December of 2017. The recession began in December of 2017. He was massively wrong, and of course, the economic collapse that enveloped the world happened a couple of months later. And as it was happening in the beginning of 2018, Cudlow's back for more. Banks are taking significant steps to repair their balance sheets. Even though some people might not be happy with the speed, the reality is things are improving. The banks did no such thing, things were not improving, all the banks collapsed, and so did the world economy. Nailed it.

One last one. He said, I'm going to bet. This is also early 2008. I'm going to bet that the economy will be rebounding sometime this summer, if not sooner. We're in a slow patch. That's all. It's nothing to get up in arms about. Once again, totally and completely wrong.

The market crashed afterwards. There was no recovery for a long time until, by the way, President Obama raised taxes. on Cudlow's rich friends, and lo and behold, another recovery. Now, look, whether those things are connected or long economic discussions, what is not is Larry Cudlow's track record. That's a simple discussion. He's almost never been right. Trump looks at that and goes, winner, I'll take you that guy.

Never right, always favors the rich, and a big blowheart on TV. he's like, I fail to see how this guy wouldn't be in my administration. So he is now Trump's chief economic advisor. God help us all. Okay. Now, let's go from Republican foibles to Democratic foibles. Okay. Also Republican.

So the economic crash happened in 2008. the banks were taking wild risks with derivatives. They had too much leverage. And when their bets went wrong, particularly on the housing market, they didn't have enough money to cover those bets, so they all collapsed. And of course, the American taxpayer had to bail them out. Well, the Obama administration came in and did fairly weak regulations, Dodd-Frank, but at least it had some positive parts about keeping leverage in check, not nearly to the degree that I think is prudent, and I think it's already teetering on the edge as we speak. And I'm not the only one who thinks that a lot of top economists and businessmen are worried and they're giving warnings about, be careful about the markets because, again, the banks are over leveraged.

So what does Congress decide to do? Oh, I got a great idea. Why don't we let the banks run wild again? Now, they say there's no bipartisanship in Congress, but I tell you that that's not true. I tell you all the time, and we have bipartisan deals all the time, and we have another one. As long as somebody's paying for them, and in this case, the banks have stepped up to the plate, and they have bought a sufficient number of Republicans. In fact, all of them, John McCain was absent from the vote, but every other Republican voted for it. And 16 Democrats easily pass a bill to deregulate the banks and let them take more risks. Oh boy.

So let's go to the Los Angeles Times here to explain. Nearly eight years after Congress dramatically toughened banking regulations after the financial crisis, the Senate took a rare bipartisan step and voted Wednesday to ease some rules on small and mid-sized banks. But larger banks also got some breaks in the legislation. Now, that's very important. I'll explain those breaks for you in a second. That's probably what's going to crash the economy again.

But it does drive me crazy whenever they say there's rare bipartisan. and understand how this shell game is played. When the donors agree, you will have bipartisanship, it will almost never be in favor of the American citizens. They will be in favor of whatever the private interest that finance those elections are. We allow private financing. So, of course, they always agree that those financiers should get whatever they want, including banking deregulation in this case.

The reason we have gridlock on all the other issues is because the donors don't want any action on those issues. So, for example, the gun manufacturers don't want you to pass any legislation about guns. Right now, it's the Wild Wild West. They sell more guns, so you get gridlock. But that gridlock is also bought by the donors. So there's terrific consistency here. And unfortunately, a lot of the reporters miss it completely. But that's okay.

We're here to give contacts and analysis. So let's talk about the Democrats now. A group of moderate Democrats, several of whom face re-election this fall in states handily won by President Trump, joined with Republicans in voting 67 to 31 to enact the first major rollback of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law. Now, also drives me crazy when they call them moderate Democrats. And I'm not trying to beat up on the LA Times here. They had a good story. I'm quoting them.

Almost every major print organization, and certainly everybody on TV does the same exact thing. They call these Democrats moderates, but it's not a moderate position to be in favor of banking deregulation. Now, if you showed me a poll from red states, Kansas, Montana, South Carolina, Alabama, that said, oh, Republican voters and independent voters love big banks. Or they even love mid-sized banks. And they think, my God, will you just take the shackles off with the poor bankers? You show me that poll, and I'll call them a moderate. They're not moderate. I know the polls.

I've seen them. I just reported on a poll from Kansas' third district. 77% say you have to get tougher on the banks, regulate them more, not less. The moderate position would be to regulate the banks, not to deregulate them. But whenever they agree with the Republicans, Democrats get to be called moderates. No, they're being right-wingers, they're being corrupt, but they're not being centrist because Republican voters don't like it any better than Democratic voters. That's why Eric Cantor lost this seat in an unprecedented loss in the primaries when he was the House Majority Leader.

He lost a Dave Brad who ran against the big banks. So please call them what they actually are, because they are nowhere near moderate or centrist. Okay. Mike Crapo is the senator who sponsored this. He's a Republican, and he was, of course, celebrating this so-called bipartisanship. He said, at a time of intense political polarization, we have proven we can work together to get things done. He's the Senate Banking Committee Chairman. Well, let me show you how they work together to get things done.

Let me show you a list of the Democrats who voted for this bill and the amount of money that they have gotten from the financial industry. So as you look at this graphic, graphic 37B, oh yeah, yeah, there you go. Hey, Senator Bennett, you want $3.9 million from the financial sector from 2013 to 2018? All of a sudden voting with the Republicans, gee, I wonder why, I can't quite tell. Look all the way down that list, and all you have is Democrats getting massive amounts of money, usually millions of dollars. Warner in Virginia getting three and a half million dollars. Teser in Montana, why are banks giving $1.28 million to a senator from Montana? And the list goes on and on and on.

So you want to get bipartisanship, you should buy the partisanship, and you'll get exactly what you paid for. And those Democrats do as they are ordered by their donors. Understand that it is nothing but corruption. Anyone who tells you that it's for political reasons, has never checked a poll and doesn't know anything about politics, that position does not test well in Montana at all. If you say it's about policy, that they have legitimate policy disagreements, really? 93% of Americans believe that the politicians serve their donors and not their voters when you get nearly $4 million from a bank or from anyone. Are you likely to do what they tell you? Yes, the rest of the planet realizes that apparently except every political reporter in the country. All right.

Now, what is President Trump's position on this? Because I know he ran against the globalists and the financial elites. Laugh along with me. President Trump commended the Senate on the bill's passage and would sign into law the White House said. What happened? I thought you were against the bankers and the globalists and the financial elites. turns out you were lying all along. Now, of course, Trump, voting with the financial elites, voting with the banks, and all that

populist rhetoric he had in the campaign, total, utter nonsense, never meant one word of it. And now to the Democrats who voted with him, what happened to the resistance? I thought you guys were all about, oh, my God, we're going to resist Donald Trump. We're going to get out in the streets and grab a microphone and a podium and, oh, yeah, resist. How much money do the banks give me? Millions of dollars? We'll resist them on Friday, but not today. Thursday is not resistance

day. Thursday is give the bankers whatever the hell they want day, because they paid us and Donald Trump. Funny how that works. Proofs in the pudding, it's right here. All right, so what does this disastrous bill do? The legislation would remove Dodd-Frank's mandatory stricter

oversight for about two dozen larger banks, those with assets of as much as $250 billion. The bill would give the Federal Reserve regulators more flexibility in how they oversee large banks. Now, less flexibility means you must regulate them. You have certain rules that they must abide by. More flexibility means that, I don't worry about it. The Federal Reserve under Donald Trump, oh, I'm sure they're going to get really tough on the banks.

As long as it's voluntary. Okay. The bill would weaken regulators' ability to enforce fair lending requirements by exempting 85% of banks and credit unions from Dodd-Frank data reporting requirements designed to help identify discriminatory practices. Great, let's go back to discriminatory practices, and later when we crash the economy, we'll blame it on the poor and minorities again. Okay, classy move.

Now, it keeps getting worse. Part of the legislation could allow J.P. Morgan Chase and Citibank to the very biggest banks in the U.S. to hold less capital relative to their assets, undercutting one of the 2010 Dodd-Frank's law's safety measures. That's reported by HuffPosts. That right there is the most important part. If you allow for greater leverage, they will leverage up to the maximum eventually. The reason is when you leverage more, you make more money.

So you get all the downsides and you put it in your pocket and you go home. You take your bonuses, you get your matches, your outs, all that stuff, right? And then if your leverage doesn't work out and it crashes, you go back to the American tax record. Oh, man, there was nothing we could do. This just kind of happened. I mean, look, there's cycles in business. Who could understand it? I'm sure that Trump and Cudlow will figure it out.

So they're going to tell you that there was nothing they could do. No, no, no, no. This is it. They could have actually made sure that they limited leverage. Instead, they chose not to. And so they will make more money in the short run, and they will definitely crash. I would say in the long run, but it ain't going to take that long. The congressional budget office, this is a little icing on the cake here, estimated that the bill would add $671 million to the federal budget deficit over the next decade.

Funny, it's how these so-called moderates and centrist, when progressives like Bernie Sanders say, hey, how about college for all or Medicare for all, where we actually deliver for Americans, make sure that they don't die if they have a pre-existing condition or if their kids have a shot at equality of opportunity by going to college. No, that's not practical. That'll add to the deficit. It'll add to the deficit. We can't have it. American people don't want that. But the American people want you to add to the deficit to help the big banks. That's what the American people are screaming for.

In Indiana, in North Dakota and Montana where these corporate Democrats are from, they're like, oh, please help the big banks, please. I don't care about the deficit. As long as it's going to the banks. How do you report this stuff with the straight face? Okay. And then, speaking of a straight face, I love this. We're back to my old friend, Barney Frank. Dodd-Frank is named after Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank. We've interviewed Bob Barney Frank before on the show, and he said, what do you want us to do? Take none of the banker money instead of 20%. Yes, that way you wouldn't be corrupt. Instead, you're a perpetual loser where you get 20% of the bank or money. The Republicans get 80%, and that's how they keep. keep on winning. What a preposterous system. Anyway, Barney Frank follows up with this

preposterous quote. He says, don't worry. Quote, once this bill becomes law, that's the end of it. Oh, yeah, I'm sure the Republicans will say, oh, you know what? You helped our banker friends. But that's all. We don't want to be greedy or anything. We'll just end it at that. And the bankers, they would never be greedy and ask for more. Oh, wait. Here's Senator Patrick to me who's a Republican from Pennsylvania. Quote, much more needs to be done. What happened, Barney, Frank?

I thought you had this thing figured out. I think that you said that that's the end of it. The minute that it's past, the Republicans are like, more, more, more, more, more, more, more, more de-regulation, more profits in the short run, privatize the profits, socialize the costs. So, these

it's a shell game. These Democrats are paid to lose. Why? Because the bank, why do the bankers give 20% to the Democrats. So they go, good boy, good boy, you vote with me. You make sure I get everything I want. And then you go, oh, there was nothing we can do. Oh, we had to vote with the Republicans. Oh, what could we do? I guess we lost on this one again. Paid to lose by the donors. All right. So let me show you those losers that are take money from their donors so they could vote with the Republicans and Donald Trump to help the big banks and the mid-sized banks.

Tom Carper, Christopher Coons, Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, of course, Bill Nelson, Gary Peters, John Dester, Mark Warner, who's who list of corrupt Democrats who always vote with the donors. All right, let me give you more. Tom Carper, sorry, no, Doug Jones, I like this part of the list. Tim Cain, Maggie Hassan, Heidi Heidcambe, Claire McCaskill, Gene, Debbie Stabenow, Michael Bennett. Wait, Tim Cain? I was told by Hillary Clinton that Tim Cain was a champion of the people that he was going to fight for progressives. Tim Cain, Tim Cain.

Well, I do know a guy who would fight for progressives. Luckily, earlier today, we interviewed him. Anna Cusparian interviewed Bernie Sanders, who was to, very much against this bill. He and a number of progressive senators led by Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown fought back against this bill. But as usual, the Democrats, the majority of the Democrats lost as they are supposed to. But the progressives actually did fight and it was a spirited fight. And Bernie Sanders was among those. So let's listen to him. I do believe that one of the reasons why so many Democrats turn their backs on Hillary Clinton during the past general election,

was because they felt that she was too friendly to these big banks. And I think it's fascinating that some of our Democratic senators are not learning anything from, you know, what happened. I could not agree with you more. Let us not forget, not for a second, and I'm afraid many of my colleagues did, what that 2008 crash did to millions of workers who lost their jobs, people who lost their homeless, people who lost their life savings. And then we ended up bailing out these guys and none of them on top were prosecuted for illegal behavior, despite paying billions of dollars in fines for illegal behavior. So I agree with you. And I worry very much about any Democrat who continues to be sympathetic to Wall Street.

But now, look, of course I agree with Bernie Sanders' policy point of view there. He's clearly correct. And factually speaking, that's exactly. exactly what happened during the recession, et cetera. But it's not about the Democrats not learning their lesson, whether it's in terms of policy, the deregulation leading to crashes or politics leading to losses when you support your donors. They're paid not to learn those lessons. You see, they have a different motivation than us.

We keep assuming why won't these Democrats do the progressive thing? Because you didn't pay them to do the progressive thing. The banks paid them for deregulation, and they got exactly what they bargained for. The first time they gave to Mark Warner, as an example, it was a little bit of a risk, not much of one. You know where Mark Warner stands. He's going to support the donors. It was a little bit of a risk. Hey, Mark, here, take some money from the banks and do as you're told.

The second time they give them Mark Warner or Tim Kane or any of the other people on this list, that's a return on investment. Hey, we gave to Senator Warner and Senator Kane, and they were good little boys, and they did exactly as they were told. J.P. Morgan is not running a charity. They're not giving the politicians out of the goodness of their heart. They must get a return on investment. And for these corrupt Democrats, they got exactly what they bargained for. The banks got what they wanted, the corruption that they paid for, and the Democrats got what they wanted. millions of dollars in campaign contributions. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data.

But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network. data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install.

A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-Y-T.

Check it out today. You must go vote in primaries. You must vote in primaries. If you think these Democrats are going to represent you, you're out of your mind. These 16 Democrats, the corporate Democrats, the establishment Democrats, will always represent the people who write the checks. They will represent their donors because that is what they're paid to do. TYTNetwork.com slash register. Just an easy URL.

It'll be in the description box below. It takes you to a government website that shows you where to vote, how to vote, how to register, how to get a mail-in ballot. Please go go to that URL. You'll find your state and you must vote in primaries and vote these bums out. Otherwise, you'll never be represented, young Turks. You're right in the middle of this podcast. We've got another great segment coming up for you. If you'd like the full show, which is actually five segments, go to t-y-tnetwork.com slash join.

You become a member, you support the show, you support independent media, and you get the whole two-hour show ad-free every day. Let's go do it now. All right, back on the Young Turks. Members of the day are Adrian Delgado and Sarah Householder. Great name. So today in the post game, I'm going to do the UFO story that I've been dying to do for the last couple of days. They're here. Just keep it real. They're here. We have video evidence. I want to show it to you. And we do. We have evidence. And then in Rebel headquarters, I get a heartwarming story in a race that a just Democrat lost, but nonetheless it was heartwarming.

So that's really interesting. And then aggressive progressives, of course. course for members as well. So t-y-tnetwork.com slash join to become a member. And just time for one tweet for you. Jeff Waldorf writes in, if Trump executes the drug dealers, where is Larry Cudlow going to get his fix? Okay. That was in the past, guys. Okay. All right. What's next? March typically celebrates women, known as women's month. However, Tucker Carlson feels like he needs to take over the month and represent some of the issues that men are facing today. Now, it's a multi-part series that Carlson is focusing on, and in the latest video, he discusses the issue of wages that men earn versus women.

I don't want to give too much away. Let's take a look at the first video. One well-regarded study released last year found that when men's wages fell relative to women's, families didn't form. According to the authors, a falling male wage reduced, quote, the attractiveness of men as potential spouses, thus reducing fertility and especially marriage rates. Researchers also noted a dramatic increase in out-of-wedlock births when men made less. In the words of one of the authors, an economics professor at MIT, quote, we see a decline in fertility, a decline in marriage, but a rise in the fraction of births that are disadvantaged. As a consequence, the kids are living.

in pretty tough circumstances. Numerous academic studies have reached the very same conclusion. Research from 2015 found that quote, when a randomly chosen woman becomes more likely to earn more than a randomly chosen man, marriage rates decline.

Those who do marry report being less satisfied and are more likely to divorce. Low male wages are a driving force in family dissolution, and that's why affluent neighborhoods in which men make more have a higher proportion of married couples. and fewer divorces.

The opposite is also true, and that leads to a cascade of social problems, which over time become a disaster. Men who make lower wages marry less and father more children out of wedlock. These children growing up without fathers tend to make lower wages themselves in later life. Okay, so I watched the full segment, which we don't have time to show you on our show. And, you know, he keeps referencing academic research, research from 2015. And he never states where the research is from, who did the research.

The only time he referenced research was a study done by MIT, which actually did have some fascinating results. And we'll talk about that in just a minute. But he twisted the results of that study to suit his narrative. No. Right. So he made it seem as though, you know, society is really screwing men over. Women are getting paid a lot more now. And as a result, it's destroying the, you know, the sanctity of the.

marriage. And in that same video that we just showed you, he talked about how men earning less leads to lower fertility, but increases the number of children born out of wedlock. Does he know what fertility is? Because that kind of contradicts the message, whatever message he's trying to spread. Okay, no, but you know, it's funny. I'm sure the conservatives took away from it what you saw there and what he intended. But as a progressive as I looked at that, I thought, and? Like, okay, so you say men are making less than women in some cases, and that's making men feel bad and make them seem less attractive to women.

So what are we supposed to do about it? Knock down women's wages? Well, why don't men just step up their game? I mean, for my whole life, conservatives have gone around saying, take personal responsibility, pick yourself up by the bootstrap. Now that men, in some rare cases, or not even rare, in limited cases, certain professions and et cetera, right, are making less money. Why don't we throw the same bootstraps at the guys?

No, no, no, I, you just, yes, you just made a great point. And the MIT study focuses, a component of that focuses on the point that you just made right now, okay? Because there are jobs that were typically male-dominated that are now disappearing because of automation, because of, you know, competition from an outsourcing to China and other countries. And so it's a legitimate concern, but there's also the issue of the types of jobs men are and are not willing to take. And we'll get to that in a minute. But I first want to toss to the second video. Let's take a look.

What's striking is how little notice these facts get from our policymakers. Their overriding aim is to raise women's wages to parity or above men's. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But these are complex questions with numerous and profound unintended consequences. So they deserve a vigorous public debate. It's notable that most women, the very population on whose behalf these policies are supposedly devised, strongly prefer to marry men who make more than they do. But what's beyond debate is that Washington and corporate America aren't thinking a lot about how to solve the male wage crisis.

If anything, they're exacerbating it. Lawmakers in both parties, for example, have heartily embraced self-driving vehicles and drone delivery of packages. It's all impressive technology, but what would be the effect on employment? Has anyone asked that? Okay. So there are kernels of truth to what he's saying there, right? Yeah. So I actually want to break, I want to give him credit for an earlier segment that he did on the same men's issue in a second.

Because some of the stuff that he says is true, but then he gives an analysis on it that's twisted, right? So let me break down, though, the deceptive tactics he used in those two clips. In the earlier clip, he talked about, now, in the affluent neighborhoods, they stay together more. And that's because the men are making more. No, wait, wait, that's not what the study shows. It doesn't show it's because the men are making more. It's because they have more money, hence less strife. So a lot of times couples fight over limited resources. It's the fact that the household has more money, not that men have more money than women. So you totally twisted that.

So secondly, in that case, in the second clip, he said, now a lot of lawmakers are pushing that women get the same amount of money or more than men. Wait, who's pushing for that? I've literally never seen anyone to say, no, women should make more than men. No one has ever said that. So that wasn't a mistake. That was an intentional, you know, a little message that he snuck in there. Because the reality is there is this fear among some, usually on the right wing, that women are fighting to be more powerful than men, to make more than men, when in reality, they want equality. And I'm talking about equality of opportunities, okay? No one wants anything handed to them. We just want equality of opportunities. If we are working the same job, then we deserve the same pay. And they will take that message and twist it to essentially pit men against women on this.

issue that everyone should be behind because guess what, men and women get married. You have a dual income household, the more money and the more resources that household has, the more successful that household will be. And so it's just weird. It's a contradiction after contradiction in his messaging. And at least one more deception that he had in that second video. He said, you know, they say that they want women to make the same amount of money as men or more. But did you know that women prefer to marry men who are making more than them?

Wait, those two things are not logically connected. So just because women would like to marry someone who also has money or even more money than them, because then the household would have more money, that doesn't mean that they would like to make less money unfairly. Right, those things are not logically connected. They'd like to be able to get paid for what they're worth and get paid at the same rate as men. And they'd also like to marry someone who has more money so they could feel more comfortable, which every person does. No, but again, again, there's a contradiction there, right? Women want to make more money than men.

Women want to marry men that make more money than them. What? In other words, humans like to have money because it makes life a little bit better. But that doesn't mean that women want to get paid less. And that seems to be what he's implying. A woman, they want men who make more money than them. So it's okay if we pay them less. All right.

It's those subtle little deceptions. So let's get to the one study that he actually did cite in making his argument. And again, there are kernels of truth in what he is saying. There are certain blue collar workers who have lost their jobs in manufacturing for a variety of reasons. But women are not making significantly more money than those men did. In fact, women typically work in professions that pay significantly less, which is the reason why men are less likely and less willing to transition to those professions. Let me give you those details. So the two occupations predicted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to decline the most quickly from

2014 to 2024 are locomotive fireers shrinking 70% and vehicle electronics installers and repairs down 50%. They are 96% and 88% male. Of the fastest growing jobs, many are various types of health aids, which are about 90% female. When men take these so-called pink collar jobs, they have more job security and wage growth than in blue collar work, according to recent research. But they are paid less and feel stigmatized. So the MIT economist that Tucker Carlson referenced in that piece or in that segment said the following. This is his quote, the jobs being created are very different than the jobs being eliminated. I'm not worried about whether there will be jobs. I'm very worried about whether there will be jobs for

low educated adults, especially the males who seem very reluctant to take the new jobs. So here's an example of one man who was interviewed by the New York Times. He said the following, I ain't going to be a nurse. I don't have the tolerance for people. I don't want it to sound bad, but I've always seen a woman in the position of a nurse or some kind of health care worker. I see it as more of a woman's touch. So a sociologist who was also interviewed by the Times said, traditional masculinity is standing in the way of working class men's employment, and I think it's a problem. So there is a cultural issue, and there's also an education issue, because the very party that continues to dismantle education, defund education, and also give it a bad name with all sorts of

defamatory statements in regard to elitism, are convincing people to not pursue their education and remain low-skilled. And yes, automation is happening. There is nothing we can do to that. We're not going to get rid of technology. It will continue to advance. And our only fight against that is to continue educating Americans for higher paying high skilled jobs. So last week he did a similar segment about men in America. And it was like poor men. So a lot of people made fun of it. And I did too a little bit because he was blaming feminists and that's preposterous. But when I watched the whole segment, I decided not to do a story on it because a lot of the stuff he was saying was okay. It's just his interpretation.

was wrong. So for example, he pointed out that women are getting educated at greater rates, and they're going deeper into education, getting more masters, more doctorate degrees, more lawyers, doctors, et cetera. So I see that same issue, and it's real. That's true. And I don't think damn feminist or, oh my God, our culture made men worse or somehow unnaturally bolstered women, I think, no, women are doing a good job of getting educated. Now, what we need to do is to help our brothers realize that you should get education too. You know, you could also do better. And we should push men in our society to be, if you will, stronger and smarter.

And I don't mean in terms of IQ. I mean in terms of making the right decisions. I'm also a man. So what we, and as progressives, you know what we want? We want equality. That's it, equality. We don't want women to make more. We don't want women to be above men.

We want women to have the equality of opportunity than men do. But we also want men to have that same equality of opportunity. So yes, men in America are in some cases falling behind, education, retraining these things. Those parts are true. But the prescription to that is not to blame feminist and the culture. The prescription is to actually help men get beyond those problems, get more of an education, get more acclimated to the new economy and hence make more money so the whole country will be better off. We have to take one more break when we come back a catastrophe of a story.

You don't want to miss it. Thanks for watching. We're listening to this free version of the Young Turks podcast. You know that the full show is at t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. If you become a member, you get the full show ad-free. We love you for watching or listening either way. There's going to be a new free podcast tomorrow. You can keep on doing that. But if you want to get to full show ad-free,

t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. 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 Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.