Will Cain Country - Is 300K The New 100K In Biden's America?

Episode Date: February 20, 2024

Story #1: Bidenomics: Does it take $300K to live like someone that just a few short years ago made $100K. Are we in the midst of a technological revolution that will make the industrial revolution look like peanuts? A conversation with economist and Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, Peter St. Onge, Ph.D. Story #2: What is Nikki Haley's WAR (Wins Above Replacement)? Does she have any added value? What is Biden's WAR? Plus, Will breaks down the former Ambassador's major announcement. Story #3: Is Caleb Williams a better quarterback prospect than Trevor Lawrence? And your feedback to The Will Cain Show mailbag.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Book club on Monday. Gym on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday. Out on the town on Thursday. Quiet night in on Friday. It's good to have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too. Because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers,

you'll know just how healthy they are. Visit Spexsavers.cavers.cai to book your next eye exam. Eye exams provided by independent optometrists. One, Bidenomics. Does it take $300,000 to live like someone who just a few short years ago made $100,000? And are we in the midst of a revolution that would make the industrial revolution blush? an economic revolution we're all using telekinesis?

A conversation with Professor Peter Saint-Aange. Two, Nikki Haley's big announcement. What is her win above replacement? Does she have any added value as a political candidate? For that matter, what is Biden's

war? Win above replacement. And three, Caleb Williams over Trevor Lawrence, who's the best quarterback prospect of the last decade. It is the Will Kane Show streaming live at foxnews.com, and on the Fox News YouTube channel, always on demand, Will Kane Show on YouTube. Hit subscribe for exclusive interviews, full episodes, YouTube shorts, and clips from the past

month of the Will Kane show. Plus, you can always listen on demand wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News Podcasts. monitoring today live, Nikki Haley's big announcement, a special announcement, on the state of the race, just a few short days before the primary in South Carolina. What could it be? What could be the announcement of Nikki Haley? I'm offering you four potential outcomes of today's big announcement. One, Haley drops out. This would seem to make some sense. Like Ron DeSantis dropping out before New Hampshire, Haley would save

herself the embarrassment of getting absolutely slaughtered in her home state of South Carolina. Two, Haley launching a third party bid for president. There have been rumors about her as a candidate on the label of no labels. Three, she vows to stay in the race, regardless of the outcomes of South Carolina or Super Tuesday until the convention. She makes a support. play for the courts. She intends for Donald Trump to lose, not at the ballot box, but in the courtroom and in the old adage that is sage advice in basketball, hang around the hoop, see what you would grab as a rebound. So she announces she will stay, maybe like Gavin Newsom in the Democratic primary through the convention this summer in the race for president. And four, nothing. She has no

big announcement to make. She simply has a podium and a microphone in the attention of television cameras, and that is sorely needed for a candidate who's losing by something like 40-plus points in her home state of South Carolina. You can watch along with us here as we monitor this press conference and offer me up, do you believe it is? One, two, three, or four? Is it dropping out? Is it launching a third-party bid? Is it vowing to stay until the convention, or four, is it a nothing burger? Let us know at Will Cain Show at Fox.com. Coming up today on the show, we're going to talk about whether or not

Caleb Williams is a better quarterback prospect than Trevor Lawrence. One very respected college football analyst says Caleb Williams is the best quarterback prospect of the last decade. And we're going to go in to Nikki Haley and Joe Biden. And follow up on a term used by 538's Nate Silver that Joe Biden is below replacement level as a candidate for president. It's a playoff sports, wins above replacement. And it's interesting to think about which candidates, which politicians,

actually has a positive war, a positive win above replacement, which one am just neutral, which are negative, who is above replacement level, who is above war. But I want to start today with the economy. I want to talk about whether or not we're in the midst of an industrial revolution that would make the industrial revolution blush, whether or not will soon be all using telekinesis and what that means for economy. Plus, what is there left to do big for the economy?

What about Antarctica? What about Greenland? What about Javier Mali in Argentina? Let's break that all down with Peter Saint-Anj. number one. Peter St. Onges is an economist. He's the host of the Peter St. Ange PhD podcast. He's also a visiting fellow at the Heritage Institute, and he joins us now. Peter, it's great to have you here on the Will Cain Show as we talk about things deeply, and with a wide scope of history and economics, we're going to be monitoring Nikki Haley's

big announcement here at 12 Eastern today to see whether or not she's dropping out of the race. or launching perhaps a third-party bid. We'll talk about that when it becomes clear what Nikki Haley has to say. But I want to start with you on the economy. It is one of the biggest deciding factors beyond personality in any presidential race. And Bidenomics seems to have inflated and decreased the value of our dollar, but our salaries to the extent that one viral post said her parents made $100,000 in 1983, and today, with that same purchasing power to live that same lifestyle, she would need

$300,000, Peter. Yeah, yeah, absolutely will. And thank you for having me back on. The home prices have absolutely devastated incomes, right? So if we go back to 1970s, incomes have gone up about 20% in real terms. Houses have gone up almost 150%. And what we're seeing now, the sort of fallout for. from that is that millennials grew up in a house with two parents,

maybe they had a three bedroom house, and now they're like 40 years old and they're living with roommates, you know, eating ramen. We're really going backwards. And this is kind of something new for this country. Because previously, for going on 200 years, each generation was much richer than their parents, right? The sort of stereotype is that older people would sit there

and say, you people these days have it so easy. The thing is now you've got these millennials, they look at baby boomers and they're like, you guys had it so easy. So something really broke in our economy. You know, part of that was with Richard Nixon in the 70s, which led to this inflation that we've been suffering through now for what, 60, 55 years. Part of that was really around the year 2000 when productivity absolutely tanked in the economy. So we stopped going from that world where each generation was a lot richer than their parents.

to a world where it's kind of hit or miss whether you're even going to match the lifestyle that you yourself grew up in. You know, let's talk about purchasing power. It's hard to draw a parallel from an economy 40 years ago to the economy of 2023. And that's because it's something you as a fairly libertarian economist and I, as someone who observes the progressive rate of our economy, knows that poverty, is on the decline. In the true sense of standard of living, we have far surpassed previous generations. What that means is things that used to be luxuries today are standards of living. We live

like kings compared to Louis XIV. You know, air conditioning and refrigerators are no longer luxury items. They're necessities of not just a middle class living, but the lowest earners on our on our wage scales. Almost everyone in the economy has an iPhone. So it's hard to say, hey, what could you get for 100K, 30, 40 years ago, and how much would it take for you to earn today to live the same lifestyle? Because it's just cheaper to live a richer lifestyle. But you have to grade it on a curve, I think, Peter, right? Like, what does it take to be upper middle class? Right. You have to grade it on a curve and, you know, better iPhones, uh, larger TVs. These things matter, But we also kind of want to zoom out and look at the big picture here, right?

So for example, if you go back to the 1950s, it was possible to raise a family on a middle class lifestyle and send people back then had maybe three or four kids. You could send them all to college. You could do that with one person working in the household. Right, at this point now, you've got even with two people working, they're struggling to make ends meet. College is going to end up being for four kids,

you're looking at half a million dollars. The sort of bigger generational achievements, I think, have gotten a lot harder now. Now, for sure, technology is advanced. That's been the story since the Industrial Revolution. You know, things that were previous luxuries become almost human rights. So, you know, you see governments pushing for broadband access for people who don't have any money. And, of course, you and I grew up in an age when broadband was a really big deal when it came out. You know, I had a friend in the early days of the internet who spent $1,500 a month chatting online.

That's what the world looked like back the 1990s. And that was $1990s. So, right, for sure, as a world, we are still getting much richer. And that's because we still have a largely free economy, at least partly free in enough of the world that we are still making advances. But I think the most sort of important from a policy perspective here is that when we start seeing the warning signs, So if the cart is starting to tilt over, you don't necessarily say, well, yeah, but it's mostly still standing up, right? You want to really watch those things. And the fact that we have gone from a society where every generation got almost unimaginably richer to a society now where

we're even debating whether we're trading water or are we making any progress, that I think is a real concern. You know, Peter, with all due respect, and I think this is a characterization that you would own, economics is a dirty science. It's not an exact science by any estimation. It's some amalgamation of statistics and psychology, and you're always trying to measure, you know, consumer enthusiasm, irrational exuberance, and you're trying to do something impossible, which is gauge the millions, billions upon billions of choices made by 300 plus million Americans or in a global economy even more, on a daily, even hourly basis, that's economics. And as such, you're in the minds of people at all times, and I've tried to become more humble

and understanding motivations of people like COVID taught me that fear is a huge motivational factor for human beings, perhaps more so than ambition. But I also have to recognize whether it's, you know, a vice or virtue. Envy is a big part of people's mindset and motivation, and they are comparative. So they don't compare themselves to the lifestyle of 40 years ago. They compare themselves to their neighbor. They compare themselves to the guy across town. There's something in here, I think, as we've seen sort of a separation.

And people have talked about even the populist right, the richer getting richer, the middle class of the ones that seem to stagnate. And I feel like that's the sense of poverty that's being felt, right or wrong, psychologically, by the American consumer. I think you're absolutely right. And largely it's because our system has become one where it's very easy to fail. It's very hard to succeed. And so that really catches the middle class. It's hard to get your head above water. But meanwhile, the rich can always find their way out of trouble.

They can hire accountants, lawyers. They've got an entire army who is sheltering them from all of these pains in the butts that stand in the way. you know, for example, if you're a middle-class family and you start doing a side gig, let's say you're selling stuff on Etsy or you're mowing lawns or something, that compliance is going to do you in. It's just incredible. I live in the state of Florida. We have just form after form for the simplest little business. Now, if you're a billionaire, you don't worry about that. You've got guys to take care of this stuff. But really, we've sort of set up this system where the middle class gets absolutely hit on the head.

They don't have any help with this kind of thing. And, you know, a big part of that has been the Federal Reserve. So the Federal Reserve is a major reason why housing has gotten so expensive. So it subsidizes debt so that it's cheaper for people to borrow. The vast majority of borrowing in this country, stereotypically, when you talk about debt, people sort of imagine poor people. If you look at the actual dollars, almost all borrowing is either the federal government or rich people. And so a big reason why the rich are getting richer is that we have that economy now.

They've sort of knocked out the bottom rungs of the ladder, so the middle class has a hard time even getting their foot in the door. And then meanwhile, what the Fed does subsidizing borrowing, that then means that once you get on the other side of that, right? Once you get up that ladder, you can basically pull it right up. Okay. You keep soaring. And, you know, we see that with individual families. So, for example, a family that owned a home before houses really started jumping around 2000, they're doing. all right. They've got a, you know, nice retirement nest egg. Anybody who was renting at that

point, if you had the bad luck to not be on the ladder when it got pulled up, you're out of luck. And so you've got millions of people now who are just renting the rest of their life. They have nothing. They don't have a retirement income. You know, they can't sell their house and then use that to live on. They're in bad shape. So, Peter, how do I reconcile this against the statistics? We talk about those in the middle class or those in the bottom 50% who are being left behind, perhaps on the backs of the Federal Reserve and homeownership, but at the same time reconcile that against the effects of the graduated income tax. So we see that, and there are various statistics you can parse on this

kind of thing, but the top 1% pay 50% of income tax. I think it's the bottom or the top 40% No, the top 20% pay something like, or 100% of the income tax. 60% of people pay an income tax. The point is the income tax burden, no matter how you slice it, is heavily skewed towards the fact that something like 40% of people in America in total are contributing to the income tax and something like 20% are shouldering the vast majority of the income tax burden. If you're in the bottom 50%, there's a decent chance. You're not only not paying income tax, you're getting a kickback from the government to subsidize your living.

Right. Right. And there's sort of two interesting aspects of that. So one of them is that if you actually look at the taxes paid by billionaires, for example, there's this almost universal pattern where it tops out at 30%. No matter what it is on paper, you pay 30%. That is the functional maximum rate. And presumably what's happening there is that as you owe more tax, you hire better lawyers, better

accountants. At the end of the day, it's always 30%. Now, what that means is that if you actually raise taxes above that, which we do have them at this point, the top rate is, I want to say 47 or no, at least 39.6. At any rate, the top rate is above 30%. And then you've got other taxes on that Social Security and whatnot. So that means, you know, again, the grotesquely high, rates, they are never hitting the billionaires. The billionaires find a way out. They set up trusts. They've got endless schemes to get around this stuff. Always those high rates are hitting exactly those middle class people are starting to have some success. If you own two car washes, you are probably paying 39.6%. If you are a billionaire who inherited, you're not paying that.

You may be paying a lot less than 30%. The other problem with that, right? So they sort of sell these high rates as a way to soak the rich. But the thing is, nothing will stick to the rich. This is how the world works. The rich have Rolodexes. They know how to call senators. Nothing will hit the rich. And so it ends up hitting that middle class who is trying to build a future for themselves. Now, the danger on that is that, of course, if 40% of Americans are paying zero income tax whatsoever, as you said, they're actually probably getting money back, that is a huge constituency it was going to be very open to the idea of voting for higher taxes. It's a very appealing pitch.

You say, look at these millionaires. They're hanging out by the pool while you're working so hard. You know, jack it up, 60, 70, 80%. And always, it bounces off the rich and it absolutely guts the middle class. So I don't know if you're familiar with Andy Fricela. Andy Friclella is an entrepreneur. He started the program called 75 Hard. It's 75 days of double workouts a day, drink a gallon of water.

It's something we did here on the Will Cain Show a year ago, a year or two ago, and I didn't make it. I made it about 40 days. But I saw a clip recently of Andy Fricela talking about this idea of the huge percentage of Americans that at least when it comes to income tax don't have skin in the game. Now, of course, to be fair, we need to recognize that they pay sales tax, perhaps, but probably not property tax. and there are various ways in which they are also shouldering some tax burden. But when it comes to the income tax, there's a huge percentage paying 0%. And he took that from, you know, I think not just a businessman's mindset, but you could even take it from a social mindset,

that if you don't have skin in the game, you shouldn't have a say in the outcome. Obviously, if you didn't invest in a business, you don't get a shareholder vote in the future of that business. If you and I created a partnership and we put in all the sweat and equity and the money, my producers listening right now would have no say in the future of that partnership, Peter. Even if it was social, if we were trying to decide what to do for dinner tonight, if it were you and I trying to decide, we really wouldn't, we might take suggestions, but we certainly wouldn't allow for a vote for somebody who wasn't going to go to dinner with us

because they have no skin in the game. Is there an argument in your mind for, hey, if you're not paying income tax, you shouldn't have a say in the future of the country that somehow our votes should be tied to having skin in the game? Oh, 100%. If you're not paying income tax, if you are a financial ward of the state, I'd argue you could also put government workers in there. You know, you're not supposed to judge in your own case and government workers have skin in that game, specifically like exploiting the American people. So I would absolutely love that. Of course, politically, we're not quite there yet. There was a time in most of the West anyway where there were property requirements.

The assumption was that anybody who did not have property was not competent to run a country. Because remember, every voter is a miniature version of the president. So the voter in theory is the one who's deciding which countries do we invade, what's our taxes going to be, what's our regulations,

across the board, each voter holds that power in their hand and ask yourself, would somebody who has zero income, who perhaps has zero assets, is that person really competent to make those kinds of decisions? So I'm very sympathetic, but unfortunately, I think the political Overton window probably isn't quite there yet. But it's not just competency for me. It's incentive, as you pointed out earlier when it comes to the income tax. I don't know what the future of a country is. And, of course, you know, as you mentioned, the Democratic Party is going to sell a populist message to whatever that number may be, 40% that's not paying income tax. The real problem here is that the 1% is not paying their fair share of the income tax. Whatever that means, because as we pointed out, the top 1% do pay 50% of the income tax burden.

But, you know, if you have a society that's structured that way, where a very small percentage of the people pay for the common usage of society, those that don't pay but get an equal sense. And we should say, equal say at the ballot box, as you point out, not equal say into the lobbying efforts and influence in Washington, D.C. But it really skews an incentive system to continue to spiral out of control. I mean, you'll continue to vote yourself other people's money. Right. And that brings us to a solution that is in the political, you know, sort of the window of discussion, which is a flat tax. Right. So we have a number of states that do have flat taxes. And in those states, those flat taxes stay pretty constant, right? Because everybody has equal skin in the game, whereas the federal income tax, so that started

out at actually 2%, now it's 39.6, right? So any tax where everybody has the same skin in the game, that one is going to tend to stay pretty low. But once you remove some people from it, they then become very, or at least they don't care about raising it. They might actually actively enjoy raising it. I mean, I would guess that a lot of people who don't pay taxes probably also love the idea that taxes are extremely high, right? Those two actually probably correlate just in terms of political preferences. So, right, any kind of mechanism you can do like that, that you really want the decider to pay. Okay, so, you know, whether that's

a head tax, if you sort of imagine for a moment, if we took the federal spending, And we divide that by everybody in America, and you'd be, what, I mean, it's $6 trillion. I think it'd be about, what, $20,000. If you actually, if everybody had to pay the same amount in taxes, like every single American had to pay $20,000. Remember, for a family of four, that would be $80,000 in taxes, I guarantee you, federal spending would be reduced very, very quickly, probably by 90%. So there's a beauty to simply making sure that everybody who's deciding is also the person who's paying for it. If you do that, you kind of don't have to worry about it, right? In a world where federal spending was actually divided by every American and had to be paid for,

you and I would probably not have to talk about it. It would probably be very low. I mean, that was the case for centuries. The British system had a so-called head tax, which was exactly that. every human paid the exact same tax. And it's a miracle. People end up, you know, it turns out they don't want to pay trillions of dollars for Afghanistan or Ukraine or bank bailouts. They start to actually look at these things and say, wait, this is coming out in my pocket. Let me take a second look at that. Well, in a way, Peter, we don't talk about it. In fact, this conversation you and I are

having feels very 2012 talking about tax bracket differentials in politics because our politics has moved for better or worse into this cultural and revolutionary stage that everything is existential, and who cares about 37% versus 41% anymore. But here's why it's important, because the things that we do talk about today, the growth of the administrative state, the existence of a deep state, you can almost draw a linear line back to 1913 with the institution of the graduated income tax in Woodrow Wilson. I mean, if you look at any chart, when the size of the federal government began to explode. And I don't know off the top of my head. I think I saw this, but the size of the federal government as a percentage of GDP before 1913 was something like,

I don't know, 2%. And today it's like close to 25%. And you can just see the chart. Graduate income tax, size of the behemoth in Washington, D.C. Yeah, absolutely right. There were really two horrible things that happened in 1913. That was sort of the year that we lost the Republic. One was the income tax, the other was the Federal Reserve Act. of those acted together to shift resources away from the people and towards the government. So the income tax specifically just absolutely skyrocketed. There's arguments that World War I only occurred because of that combination of the income tax in Federal Reserve.

It meant that the government could essentially spend an unlimited amount of money. They no longer had to get it through taxes. So if a government sits down with the people and it says, okay, I got this crazy idea we're going to spend, let's say, three trillion dollars in Afghanistan, it's got to come out of taxes, though. So I'm going to raise taxes on you, right? People look at that one way. On the other hand, if you can deficit funded, if you can just raise taxes on the rich, the deficit funding comes from the Fed, it hides all these costs from the 51th percent voter, right? And they can say, well, you know, you guys just, they might even just sort of vote because it sounds like a good

idea. The costs completely vanish for them. And that's exactly what we saw. throughout the 20th centuries that once they got that income tax in there, it just ratcheted and ratcheted and ratcheted. It leveled off in the 1970s because the economy got so bad, a lot of people kind of reacted to that. And then Reagan sort of capped it. And it stayed around 20% for a number of decades. Now, the Fed picked up the slack, right? That's when the deficits increased. So the federal government kept growing. It just shifted from doing it from the income tax doing it with the Fed. But the point is that now, of course, we're starting to approach the end game on both of those, right? So taxes are at a point where it's really starting to hit

entrepreneurship. And on the other hand, of course, you know, the Fed is sort of backed into a corner. It's already played so many games the past couple of years that it doesn't have a lot of power. And, you know, just kind of a final point on that, when we do talk about things like income tax rates, I think to most people, it's pretty boring, right? The question of, you know, should it be 32% or 41% or whatever? But the thing is, you want to translate with any actual. economic number, you know, if we're talking about a half percent rise in unemployment or a 4 percent rise in tax rates, you want to translate these into real things, right? So there are millions of people behind that story. And specifically, the story behind something like a tax rate, remember, that's not hitting the rich. That's hitting the middle class. Everything bounces off the rich. You go from 37 to 41, right? You've just substantially reduced the incentives for people to get up, work hard, take risks. put the family house on the line, you know, to be a successful entrepreneur takes a ton of work. It takes a ton of risks.

A lot of people wipe out. There is for each individual, there is some magic number. We don't know what that is. It's different for every individual, but there's some number where they're going to say, screw it, I'm just going to get a job or I'm not going to, you know, bother taking this risk. Every time you jack the income tax up, one percent, you've got probably tens of thousands of businesses that are never going to be started now. that's you know wealth for the next generation that was maybe a business that was going to be

passed on to the children that's of course economic growth and prosperity somebody could have been you know put through college on that so every every single one of those sort of dry numbers of course has thousands or millions of people standing behind it who are either suffering or or being a success yeah and that's part of that psychology that we were talking about earlier that is an economy that's measuring everyone's psychology and by the way the federal we should also say while we move to deficit financing and the use of the federal reserve as government financing that of course eventually as we're living now leads to inflation which is a further tax on the middle class it's a tax on the poorest but it's a tax on the middle class so this is why taxes

while we don't debate the percentage the marginal tax rate anymore if in effect the taxes are what we're talking about every time we talk about inflation and the size and scope of government spending. By the way, all of this is why yesterday I made Woodrow Wilson my number one entry on the worst president of all time, barely edging out Franklin Delano Roosevelt. You know, Peter, I do want to transition to talking about politics for just a moment with you because I want to update the audience.

So I gave you four options on the announcement for Nikki Haley. Was it one, she was dropping out of the race? Was it two, she is joining a third party, no labels bid for president? Three, she's vowing to stay in for the convention. or four. It's a nothing burger. It's a combination of three and four. She is vowing to stay in until the very last vote. And it is a nothing burger, in essence, a big political advertisement in the form of a political conference call right before the South Carolina primary. Peter, you know, I'd love so I'd love any thoughts you have on Nikki Haley. And I'd also, as we kind of move towards Donald

Trump. I've been thinking a lot about, you know, does Trumpism outlast Donald Trump? I'm curious what you think about that economically. Like, what is Trumpism economically? Yeah. Just briefly on Nikki Haley, I would assume, you know, left-wing Democrat donors have put a ton of money. They want to bribe the GOP so that it can be a second Democrat party. So I'm not surprised. She's going to, you know, run it out, keep collecting those donor dollars. We saw that with the Lincoln Project last election. I think Trumponomics defined as shifting power away from the government and giving it to the people. I think that's an enduring concept.

It's really Reaganomics as well. It's Hardingomics. You know, we've had a number of presidents who ran on a platform of handing power back to the people. I think that's not going anywhere. In fact, I think that if they do succeed, in shutting Trump out of the system, I think the next person is actually gonna be more extreme or more aggressive than Trump has been.

You know, we've seen, for example, Javier Malay in Argentina, Buckeli in El Salvador. In Latin America, we're seeing leaders rise who are like Trump squared. I mean, they're extremely straight talking, right? That's kind of the populist style. And so if, If I think in a sense, their best move, if I were rooting for them,

is to just let Trump get in there, let him take the edge off, right? Currently, I think people in America are very angry, angry what's happening with, obviously, inflation, the slowing economy. They're angry with the borders. They're angry with what's happening, the cities, with the criminals running free. If I were rooting for the left, I'd tell him, grab four years of Trump, take the edge off the crazies. You guys won't get blamed for it.

your activists won't stop hanging out with you and donating to you, Jess, you know. And that would be essentially what happened with Ronald Reagan, right? The 1970s were a crazy time, arguably as crazy as today. Ronald Reagan took the edge off that, right? He fixed a lot of things to the point where Bill Clinton and Obama could come in and continue that stuff, but the edge was off it. So, but I don't think they'll do that because I don't think that they have long-term vision. I think they're just going to try to fight Trump almost reflexively every step they get.

And if they do succeed in shutting him out, I do think that in 2028, we're going to have somebody who's even more assertive and wants to really take apart the entire system in a way that, you know, Trump kind of still colored in the lines. He, you know, played in the bounds as they always existed. And what we've seen with the left now is that, no, they're not doing that at all, whether it's this judgment in New York the other day, the defamation case. The left is grabbing any loophole they can, you know, something. that has never ever been used for that before, that it was long understood for centuries. That's not how you did it. And so I think if they succeed in taking Trump out in 2028, we're going to get somebody who plays by the other side's dirty rules, and they are seriously not going to like it. Let's talk about big transitions in politics and the economy.

You brought up Javier Malie in Argentina. The headline from earlier this week was that he balanced the budget for the first time in a decade in Argentina in the month of January. And he did so by freezing spending from, I believe, the level it was just one year ago, 2023, and he slashed the government. The story is by 50%. I don't know if that can be possible. I mean, is that accurate? The ability to slash it by 50%. Now, I don't see a personality to fulfill your prediction on the horizon of someone like a Buckele or a Mali rising up in the wake of Trump. I don't see, I literally don't see the personality of who that could be. Now, Vivekramuswamy has promise to slash the federal bureaucracy. But it's always told to us, Peter, like, if you

did that, and you know I've talked before about the analogy of, you know, heroin addiction when it comes to, you know, money printing and the way our economy runs, the argument in that analogy has always been, hey, man, if you rip the methadone out of the heroin addict system, he'll die from withdrawals, that if we cut the government spending portion of our GDP, of our economy, as drastically has been done in Argentina, that we'd crush the economy into Great Depression. Yeah, and that's a great metaphor for it. Essentially, I think sort of the key here is that you want to differentiate between GDP and wealth, right? So GDP, like a lot of people sort of use them to mean the same thing, but GDP means how much economic transition, uh,

transactions are going on in the economy. So how much stuff is bought and sold. And there's a lot of GDP that actually makes you poorer. For example, if you're manufacturing rockets and sending them to Ukraine, that's resources. That's like steel and workers. And you could have used that to build warehouses or to, you know, replace train bridges or something. But instead, you used all those real resources and you sent it abroad. Whether or not it was a good idea to send it abroad, the point is that you don't have the bridge.

Ukraine's got the rockets now. So you want to differentiate between the real resources involved, the wealth and the GDP. So if you were to cut government by 50%, which I would absolutely love, you would have a dramatic drop in GDP, right? Something like 10 or 12% immediately. Now the thing is, of course, so you would have all these extra workers. You would not be soaking up as much money. So you would have all this sort of leftover resources in the economy, right? Because the government wouldn't be hogging them up. And so what would happen is prices would go down for, let's say, steel or let's say construction workers. Now, prices would actually go down across the board.

This is what's happened previously when, like in the 19th century, when government's funding was cut really quickly. Those resources, they go down on price, they reach some point where now they're a good price. You know, like if steel drops by 30%, then you can bet there's going to be a lot of warehouse builders who are going to make a bit on that steel. And then they're also going to make a bit on the construction workers and they're going to start building warehouses. So the point is that the economy plunges at first, but because all those resources are freed up, it pretty quickly recovers. And the thing is, now instead of wasting all that money on whatever it is government does, now you're spending it on an actual use. things. Why do we know they're useful? Because it was a free market allocation, right? The price went down and some entrepreneur went out there and said, whoa, steal it, whatever, 70 cents or whatnot. Absolutely, let's go for it. I think I can do this business plan. So it's an investment in the future. Now, the key here, I think, and this is also true when we talk about technological revolutions or AI or something, the key here is that when you have that kind of a big transition, the government, has got to proactively stay out of the way. They've got to be very, very diligent at sitting down

and shutting up, right? So if you suddenly reduce spending that much and you've got all these unemployed workers and unused steel and so on, it's very important that those entrepreneurs who might notice those opportunities, you got to stay out of their way, right? Going back to our earlier conversation about whether it's the tax rates or regulations, which also really hit the smaller guy harder. You want to get as much of that stuff out of the way as possible so that, yes, your GDP will plunge. It will recover relatively quickly. Historically, you're looking at maybe 12 or 18 months or something to make it all back. With the difference being that all that, let's say 10% of GDP, that's gone from pure waste to now it's actually making you richer. I love this transition.

So I wanted to talk to you as well about, you know, the tease that I gave the audience today was whether or not we're in the midst of a revolution, an economic revolution that would make the industrial revolution blush. What caught my attention was a story today that Elon Musk successfully implanted our neuralink into a patient who was able to move a computer mouse by thinking without his hands. And I'm like, oh my God, there's so many things to think about with this.

Like, we're talking about telekinesis, you know, as long as the object that you are attempting to move has a battery. So telekinesis with a charge. But, I mean, that's a world that we can't even imagine. And every day, we're – what I want to step back for a moment, Peters, think, like, what's happening right now in our economy? It's – I think it's – it feels like being alive in 1890 or 1905, but times 10. Like, I mean, I don't even – that's probably not fair because we know the radical transformation in America. The world went through during the Industrial Revolution, moving from farms to cities.

And in many cases, standards of living's going down in a dirtier lifestyle, but then you had to go through that transformation. And right now what's happening, there's no way, it's hard when you're in the middle of something to step out and go, wow, look at what's happening to us. Like fish, ask a fish, how's the water? He's like, what's water? We're in the midst of the water right now with this revolution. And I just wonder what the long-term implications are. One, you gave us right there. huge employment

turbulence. Your point of minute ago, government workers who then become unemployed have to figure out how to be private sector workers in new realms. And that's hard.

That's easier said on a podcast right now than it is implementing in real life. But that same thing happens if you're in the middle of an industrial revolution and horse and buggy whipmakers no longer have jobs, right?

We don't need buggy whips anymore. Now we have cars. So we're all here today, not knowing it, we're making buggy whips of 2023. And I don't know what it looks like in 10 years if we're all using telekinesis. I don't know what looks like economically if we're all using telekinesis. Yeah, so historically, technology has always made us richer. But there's a big caveat, which is that sometimes it does turn out the wrong way.

So if you take sort of two cities, okay, Hong Kong and Detroit. So Hong Kong, when we were growing up, that was like the manufacturing hub of the world toy industry. Every toy you bought was made in Hong Kong. It wasn't made in China. It was made in Hong Kong. And Detroit, of course, when we were growing up, is where all the cars were made. Or a lot of cars were made. Anyway, Hong Kong completely lost its manufacturing edge.

It got priced out. They switched over to services. So finance and just services make up about 70 plus percent of an economy. It's cutting hair. It's just all of the things in between. So Hong Kong switched from an overwhelmingly manufacturing economy to a service economy. Today, Hong Kong is like 95, 96% services. Almost nobody farms in Hong Kong.

It's a really crowded city. It's worse than Manhattan. And there is almost zero manufacturing there. What happened? Hong Kong people got astoundingly rich. You know, they're driving Rolls Royces for the middle class. Now, what happened in Detroit, very different story. All right.

So there, the carmakers left. Some of them went down south, some of them went overseas, and no new jobs came in, right? And that, I think, is the cautionary tale, right? Is that on its own, technology always creates more and better jobs. If you doubt that, look at an economy that's highly automated, like Japan, look at an economy that is not like Burundi, okay, subsistence farming, you know, using a shovel. Yes, there's plenty of jobs in Burundi. There's a lot of stuff to do, but they are not rich, right? So universally, things like automation,

whether it's AI, Neurrelink, these things, the very strong historical tendency is that they will make us richer. Why? Because the stuff that used to be expensive is now cheap, our real incomes go up. It's a beautiful process. It's how we got from the medieval era to what we have today.

That was all technological progress. We are certainly not smarter than we were. All of that was technological progress. So the evidence is in, Tech makes you richer. It creates more jobs. That's why so many people can come into the country and find jobs because we do have so many. But the caveat is Detroit, right?

The caveat is that if regulations or special interests or just, you know, government stands in the way and makes it too hard to start a business. So like if you ask today, right, if you've got a small manufacturing business and you're thinking about opening that in Detroit, you've got to be out of your mind. I can't imagine what the regulations are like the, you know, local taxes and local regulators are predatory. That, I think, is what we have to look at. So with the sort of AI panic about how, you know, it'll kill all the jobs, there's an unlimited number of jobs in this world. Child care, spending time with old people.

I mean, there's just an absolutely unlimited number of jobs because a job at poor means, can you do some activity that's valuable to other people? Okay. How many activities that are valuable are not currently being done? All of them. Almost every single job that could exist we currently don't have enough people for. So I'm thrilled about technology. I don't think technology itself is a problem. I think the problem is when it crashes up against this sort of straightjacket economy we have where it is so hard to start a brand new business. Last question for you, Peter, on this sort of this turbulent revolutionary time. the economy. So many times in the past throughout history, economies have been driven by ambition, and that ambition was best exemplified by adventurism. You know, the discovery of the Americas was at its heart an economic enterprise. It was an attempt by, you know, the Italians

and the Spanish to find gold, whatever it may be. Obviously, technology represents sort of the economic frontiers for adventure. But I just wonder if there's anything left. You know, for some reason I found myself, and you were a good guy to ask this, too, like, a little bit fascinated by Antarctica. Like, I saw Iran stake a claim to Antarctica. Trump had his thing with Greenland. I just wonder if there's not some physical world, beyond the technological world,

that's left for our ambitions. I'm a huge fan of Antarctica. Statistically, there's got to be tons of resources down there that we should dig out and put to good use. So, yes, I would encourage exploiting Antarctica. In terms of technological frontiers, it's pretty much a standard through history that ever since the Industrial Revolution, at least, when people got interested in technology, they always thought that we had picked all the low-hanging fruit and there was nothing left. All right. And if you sort of zoom back and you ask, like, what are the problems that we haven't solved yet? You know,

there are animals that are immortal. They are like in terms of aging, right? So, A lobster, for example, doesn't functionally age. If you run them through a wood chipper, they will die, yes. But there are hundreds of species that are functionally immortal. That sounds like a useful thing to discover. Perhaps we could learn how that works. Emotion control. You know, just, I mean, we, there's no physical reason why we couldn't have a kind of society

where rather than wasting four years in college, you work for four years, and they just relax the entire rest of your life. because we are so productive, because the AIs make everything in the machines and this. We are so far from where we want to be, and economics you call it our bliss point. We're so far from the bliss point that we've got a lot of work to do yet. And I think historically, the media anyway, not this media,

likes to sort of focus on big government run projects, you know, like mega projects to try to achieve that, like the Apollo project. And I think that kind of thing is really dangerous. Because, so if you take the Apollo project, for example, that put a man on the moon, it was an amazing achievement for humanity. However, it was an amazingly expensive program.

I think it was at least 300 billion in modern terms. What that did was drained every brain out of the American electronics industry. And it handed that on a, silver platter to Japan. So the government hired all of our top talent in electronics and put them on this, to be frank, useless project, a government prestige project. And in the process, we lost one of the key industries of the past 50 years. That is the dangers. That whenever government muscles into something and it waives trillion-dollar checks books, it will absolutely

devastate whatever that industry was going to do, what it could have done instead was, let's say, pair back the oversight, the regulation they call it, but, you know, these are typically bought by crony corporations, the tax rates, the rest of it. If they'd eased off on that, then that would have been a much better world. So if we're looking for an Apollo project, my candidate is cut federal spending in half. You cannot imagine what a glorious day it would be for the public. We'd be out of the gutter. We'd be paying down our debt where our economy would grow like gangbusters. This is my Apollo project for the next decade. Well, two final points I would make is a little bit skeptical of that future of pure bliss

based upon relaxation. I think we've learned the necessity of purpose for humans, which right now purpose is identified through productivity and a job, but maybe it finds other places, maybe more spiritual places for purpose. And secondarily, if there is a frontier beyond Antarctica, It's probably space as well, and we see private industry and Elon Musk and SpaceX pioneering that right now. As we paired back from NASA to illustrate your point, we're pushing the frontier toward Mars. Peter S. Ange, always enlightening, as I mentioned, deep contextual conversation. Check him out. It's the Peter Sainanj PhD podcast, and he's also at the Heritage Institute. Peter, thanks so much, man.

Thank you, Will. It's always great being on. So Nikki Haley says that she is not leaving the race, that she'll stay in for the very last vote. That's her announcement today, her special state of the race announcement. Let's analyze whether or not Nikki as a candidate has a positive war, a positive win above replacement. Does Joe Biden, that's next on the Will Cain Show. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites, like his all-star panel, and much more. Available now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me. Kennedy, make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week. Download and listen at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. Nikki Haley has promised to stay in the race until every last vote is counted. Is she an above replacement level player? Does she have a positive win above replacement as a candidate? It's the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com

and on the Fox News YouTube channel on demand, Will Cain Show. Hit subscribe on YouTube or on Apple or Spotify. You can always get the audio or video versions of the Will Cain show wherever you want. And leave a comment on any of our videos, any of our live streams. or any of our social media, and we'll bring you into the Will Cain show. Nate Silver, pollster behind the Substack blog and website 538, wrote recently that Joe Biden is, quote, a below replacement level candidate. That term, below replacement level candidate resonated with me because it's clearly a term that in the past has been used in sports.

baseball players basketball players have been analyzed according to a stat i would suggest over the last decade that measures their value against the average player in mlb in the NBA it's called war wins above replacement it's gone beyond the idea that we can look at whether or not someone's a 300 hitter or whether or not they hit 30 home runs and truly know how good they are and how much money they should make, were you a GM of the New York Yankees or the Texas Rangers or the Golden State Warriors, as compared to what it would cost to replace them. It measures in things like defensive rating, slugging percentage, on-based percentage, and puts it on a graph, on a scale against the average Major League Baseball, NBA player. A good war, maybe for someone

in Major League Baseball, is a 6, 7, 9. decent player has a win above replacement of two. And again, it is a way to not just evaluate, you know, if someone is good, but how good someone is and what it would cost me to replace them. On paper, it can look like this shortstop is good, but why would I pay him a top 10% salary if he's only barely above what the average player at shortstop is putting up right now. It's an easy, context-based, hey, let me compare you against everybody else in the field, statistical analysis of wins above replacement. Nate Silver suggests Joe Biden is a below replacement level candidate. And on some level, that's unsurprising. But it's also clarifying.

We all know that the 2020 election was a referendum on Donald Trump. Almost no one voted based upon the idea that they were for Joe Biden. They voted for or against Donald Trump. Joe Biden was a blank slate. He was nothing. He was average. He was your replacement level candidate at that time. He would have had a war of zero. And they knew that. That's why they hid him in the basement. They didn't put him out there. They didn't want you to form an opinion. They didn't want you to see whether or not he was subpar or above average. They wanted to hide him. And as such, they created a war for Joe Biden of zero. But three years later, after three years of his presidency and we suffered through inflation, military expansionism, wars in Europe, wars in the Middle East, a southern border

that is wide open and polling such that it affects even independent voters, a crime crisis in America's major cities, Joe Biden is no longer replacement level. He's no longer a zero. Add that his age and incompetency, his feebleness, his inability physically and mentally, and what you have as a candidate with a negative war. Again, they know that. Democrats, the White House know about Joe Biden's below replacement-level candidacy. That's again why they hide him. But this time it's coming off like they're trying to run the same campaign as 2020. At this point in his presidency, Barack Obama had given over 400 interviews to newspapers, to television journalists, impromptu press conferences. Donald Trump had given over 300 of these types of press conferences, according to Nate Silver.

Joe Biden has given less than 100 of these impromptu press conferences, interviews, newspapers, television, the Super Bowl, two years running, late. up of an interview. Joe Biden has declined to do an interview at the Super Bowl. But that's not going to work in 2024. Hiding him is not going to work because he's not sitting at a zero war. At this point, because of all the negative effects of his presidency, Joe Biden is below replacement level, meaning you could put up a nothing. You could put up a blank slate and it's going to poll better than Joe Biden. Take a look at some of these polls. recently. This isn't from February, and most of these are from Emerson College published in the Hill, but Joe Biden trails Donald Trump in swing states like Pennsylvania by five points,

42 to 37. In Michigan, he trails Donald Trump by, again, something like five to 10 points. In Georgia, he trails Donald Trump. In national polling, he's way behind Donald Trump. The public has seen and decided, I think I'd rather have a different shortstop. I think I'd rather have a different president. And you're not going to be able to hide the holes in your game to cover up for the fact that Joe Biden now has a negative war. And if you think about it, Nikki Haley today announcing that she's going to continue for presidency, See, if you think about candidates through this term, wins above replacement, it's hard to find many candidates that have a positive war.

Nikki Haley is, to some extent, the Joe Biden of the Republican Party. I don't mean that in terms of incompetence or mental or physical feebleness. What I mean by that is she's simply a placeholder. She, you know, she has a negative war in Republican politics, in the Republican primals. Mary. The Republican voter isn't interested in her, you know, globalist or foreign adventuresome outlook on the world. The Republican voter isn't interested in somebody that no matter how many times she says the political elite wanted to drop out, know that she is a member of the establishment and the political elite. But in a general election, she's pretty much

a zero. And by the way, we should say a zero is good enough to beat Joe Biden. who at this point has a negative win above replacement. But Donald Trump, certainly in the Republican primary, where he pulls something like 80 to 90% support, has a hugely positive win above replacement. And as a general election candidate, you're talking about a Joey Gallo-style player. You're talking about a home run or strikeout.

People love him. People hate him. He simply needs to have a war in the positive to win the presidency when Joe Biden, is as negative as he is as a candidate. Romney, Kasich, not unlike Nikki Haley, average, replacement level candidates. It's interesting to think, though, what does that mean for the future? As we just discussed about in our conversation with Professor Peter St. Ange, what happens to Trumpism after Trump? Who steps into the breach? He talked about the potential for a future where you have

a more aggressive version of Trump, a Javier Malie of Argentina or a bouquet of El Salvador who steps into that breach who would have a positive war

who's not just a placeholder who's not a zero war who's not Nikki Haley who's not John Casey who's not Mitt Romney and I think if you look at the future it's hard to find candidates who would be above

replacement level honestly the only one that I can think of even on the Democrat side. Where Gavin Newsom polls worse against Donald Trump than Kamala Harris, the only one I can think of right now who would have above replacement level as a candidate would be Vivek Ramoswamy. Is Caleb Williams a better quarterback prospect than Trevor Lawrence? Is he the best quarterback prospect of the past decade? One very respected sports analyst says yes. That, that

and your feedback next on the Will Cain show. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.

Not every year, but once every couple of years. twice a decade. You get not just the top pick of the NFL draft, but you get a projected generational quarterback. You get Andrew Luck. You get Trevor Lawrence. Do we have that in 24 with USC quarterback? Caleb Williams. It's the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com and on the Fox News YouTube channel on demand, always after the show, and in exclusive content and segments at Will Kane Show on YouTube and on Spotify and Apple, hit subscribe. Joel Clatt is probably one of the most respected college football analysts in the market. Joel Clatt tweeted just yesterday, the five best college football quarterbacks as prospects since 2012, the year that we saw not just Andrew Luck, but Robert Griffin, the third.

He said, these are the five best prospects he's seen in that decade. Number five, Bryce Young. Bryce Young went number one overall, Heisman Trophy winner out of Alabama, but he was criticized for being short. Two other quarterbacks who also went number one, who had the same profile, would be Baker-Mayfield of Oklahoma, and Kyler Murray of Oklahoma. Both of those guys went number one overall, but nobody thought they were generational-style quarterbacks.

They were gambles because of their size. The question was, could they possibly become the next Drew Breeze? And it often revolved around not just their natural talents, but what's between? the ears. I don't remember people thinking, personally, that Bryce Young is one of the five best prospects of the last decade. Now, we should say, prospect is key. This is not we're capable of looking back on how they've already performed. C.J. Stroud came out last year, and he's better than Bryce Young. That's quite clear. But did you know that when they were coming out? Did the consensus suggest, hey, this guy's a more of a sure thing for the NFL, C.J. Stroud

or Bryce Young. On that note, Klatz says in that tweet, Patrick Mahomes was a very difficult read. He came out in that decade, but there were very few people that thought Mahomes would be the man that he has turned out to be, including me. There is a viral video going around of me relaying some of the criticism of Patrick Mahomes, his footwork, his discipline. Patrick Mahomes, back then, you've got to remember at the time, he was considered to be undisciplined as a player. was in a system, Cliff Kingsbury at Texas Tech, that everyone questioned whether or not it was just the modern day run and shoot, air raid, just racking up stats. His bowl game is something like 70 to 60 victory, like ridiculous video game numbers. And people didn't say, oh, that's what he's going to be able to bring to the NFL. They thought, that means he's a product of college football,

not for the NFL. I think Clyde is right on Mahomes. I think I was right at the time, even if we all turned out to be wrong and good for him on Patrick Mahomes. At number four, Clat says Drake May, who's in this draft, 24 out of North Carolina, is the fourth best prospect of the last decade, which is shocking. I mean, if you think about it, May would probably be the second quarterback taken in this draft. That means he's a better prospect than other guys who didn't go top in their draft, like Tuatunga Viloa or Justin Herbert or Josh Allen. And everybody questioned Josh Allen at the time, so he wouldn't make this list.

It would also mean guys like Carson Wentz, who went after. Jared Gough. And there was some questions about Wince and he was from a small school, so I get that. But Marcus Marriota at Oregon, Drake May, a better prospect of not just the guys that went second in their draft, but guys that went top in their draft like Jared Gough or James Winston, Baker, Kyler, Deshaun Watson went third as a quarterback in his draft. And he's got Drake May better as a prospect and all those, meaning you're projecting him to be a great NFL quarterback. and I would love to talk to Clat about that with Drake May. At three, he has Joe Burrow.

I think everybody liked Joe Burrow as a prospect. And then the shocker. At two, he has Trevor Lawrence. That leaving number one to USC quarterback in this 2024 draft, Caleb Williams. Now, Caleb Williams, according to some, like Merrill Hodge, who nailed the Johnny Mansell analysis, said, no, this guy will not be. I don't care what kind of grit or winner he is. is. He will not be a stud in the pros. Merrill Hodges said the same thing about Caleb Williams, that he does not see it, does not see him as a top NFL draft pick prospect or quarterback.

But Clat, as a prospect, sees him, despite the criticisms, doesn't show up in a big game, mentally weak, sees him higher than Clemson quarterback Trevor Lawrence. This is where my disagreement would be with Clat. I can't. Lawrence was the best. thing coming out since Andrew Luck. He truly was anticipated to be a generational quarterback. I'm talking about not just your random Kyle Murray, Baker, Mayfield, number one overall pick years. I'm talking about John Elway, Peyton Manning, Andrew Luck, Trevor Lawrence. Now, he hasn't lived up to that expectation. He's been fine. He's been above average, but he hasn't been that type of generational franchise quarterback yet. But there's no doubt who he was when he was coming

out. And if Klapp thinks that Williams is a better prospect than Trevor Lawrence, wow, what a huge divergence of opinion there is on the guy who will go number one overall USC quarterback, Caleb Williams. Let's get to a mailbag. Let's hear from you guys when it comes to the Wilcane show. Let's bring in two a days who has some of the feedback from you, the viewer of the Wilcane show. I do indeed. We have one from Kevin Robinson. I actually second this one. I'm curious. Hey, Will, can you recommend a history podcast? Thank you. Do you have it? This has been difficult because I love history podcasts.

And I don't, I haven't. When I first saw this, I thought, I don't know that I have one because I can't tell me times. You know, I've been doing my rowing. I told you that. I try to row like three times a week. I'm part of this program. I'm on the dry land rowing. I'm not in the water.

I'm on the machine. And I need something to listen to. By the way, yesterday, it just hit one of my son's playlist, listened to a lot of Kanye. And can I just say, my son's been telling me how great Kanye is, and I introduced him to, like, 90s rap, you know, like Ice Cube and Dr. Dre. And he's like, eh, it's okay. Raps better today than it was back then. I was like, come on. And then I got to be real.

I listened to some Kanye while I was working out. It's better. Kanye is great. Do you know why? He has something to say. Whether or not you agree, rap, you know what I don't like about rap? I don't like, hey, look at my Rolex, look at my car, look how great I am. I'm like, how many times can I hear that same thing, no matter how many different ways you produce it or say it.

But do you have actually something to say? And people talk about, oh, Kanye's controversially said this. Okay, true, fine. But he's saying something. And so I texted my son, I get it. I get it. I get Kanye. And I don't know who else, who else is in this group, but he's better than not.

then the 90s, right. Kendrick Lamar, would be one of them, for sure. He has something to say. Check it out. I'll check out. I'll check out Kendrick Lamar. But I've been wanting to listen to a history podcast. And look, there's Dan Carlin.

Everybody talks about Dan Carlin's hardcore history. The problem with Dan Carlin is it's just so much. Like if you're going to listen to, you know, the Empires of Persia or World War I, or whatever maybe, prepare for like 12 hours of podcasts, right? like you're with with like so much detail like I don't know I don't know if I'm ready for the next two months of my life to be dedicated to Cyrus the Great so here's the guy that I like right now martyr made darrell cooper you got to subscribe to get it I've talked about in the past he did great stuff on Israel Palestine and right now he has a series up on slavery and I want to get him on

I want to talk about slavery the institution of slavery throughout humanity like he talks about the slavery as a spoil of war, slavery as economic unit, slavery throughout time is the American experience with slavery in any way unique from a practice, yes, a condemnable practice that has been part of humanity from the beginning. It's a fascinating broad scope, historical survey of slavery. And I like most of the things that Daryl Cooper does on Martyrmate. All right, we got a second one here. I back this one, too. It's from Christopher Moroni.

Hi, Will, if you haven't already checked it out, you should really watch. Welcome to Rexum. The show's based on football soccer and shows wonderful regionalism of their fans and touches on some real history of Rexham itself. Thanks. It's a great show. Oh, he's hitting on some of my buzzwords, right? Regionalism, soccer.

He knows what I like, does Christopher. Good fan. Well, let me first tell you. why I haven't done this show. I think the inside look at a team is a little played out. Like, we all started with hard knocks, and then we do whatever's on Amazon Prime. They have their version.

Netflix has hit it big with F1 and golf. And even though it's cool to get that inside look after a while, I'm like, well, I need to start picking ones that I actually care about getting an inside look on. You know what I mean? Like, I don't watch hard knocks, just any random hard knocks anymore. I need to care about that team.

And that doesn't mean just the Dallas Cowboys. It means like, okay, maybe I like the quarterback. I need to want to know about the characters. I like Manchester City, as I've talked about. So I've watched behind the scenes. There was a season on the one Amazon Prime does on Manchester. So I did that. I would do one for the Mavericks or definitely the Rangers or the stars,

who may just win the Stanley Cup. So I've had trouble signing up for one where I don't have an emotional connection to the team. But, you know, recommendations, I think, work like this. Like, one, two, okay, I heard that. Three, you got my attention. Once you go four or above, all right, that's enough people. I'm starting to hear from people I respect. I need to watch something.

So I have this Welcome to Rexom thing is in the three range. You've got my attention. I like Ryan Reynolds. I don't know if that's a big selling point, but I don't really want a celebrity vehicle. But, I mean, if he's icing on the cake, okay. I like soccer. I like regionalism. So I'm willing...

Give me the last sales pitch then, two of days, on why I should watch Welcome to Rexham. I love Rob McElany too. I mean, are you and it's always Sunny fan? Never watched it. Never watched it. See, that's the thing that sold me. I was over it like you with all the hard knocks and stuff like that.

So I gave Welcome to Rexum a chance. And just like the small town and just coming up in the different leagues has been awesome. it's just a really great story and you know I wasn't really into soccer football as you want to say but this kind of got me into I don't say I know I'm gonna get yelled at with somebody

but yeah no I love it I have a strong opinion on that Dan it's a soccer field not a pitch it's zero zero not nil-nil it is cleats not boots it is soccer not football we're Americans we can like

something without turning into Europhiles See, I disagree. I think we have to adapt to what the game is. Why don't you just start using the metric system? I might. Who knows? That's all I got, though. That's my sales pitch.

Don't do that. Don't do that, Dan. Don't go to a bar and say pitch. Maybe pitch. Don't say nil. I am that guy, though. Don't call it a boot. I have done it recently.

You should not do that. It's like an affectation. It's like, I don't want to, I can't think of other act factations off the top of my head that are appropriate for this moment. But it's an affectation. It's not, you know. Did you play soccer when you're a kid? I did, yeah, up until I was probably about like 10. And then I started playing football.

And I like that better. I'm confused. Wow. That was a good one. I appreciate that. But I started. There you go. You know, I like the hitting.

Stick with soccer. Yeah, there you go. Okay. Stick with soccer because football is something else. All right. That's going to do it for me. on the Will Cain show. Again, go hit subscribe wherever you've been watching or listening, and I will see you again next time.

Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free, on the Amazon music app. I'm Janice Dean. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com.