 We're going to switch now. We're going to switch a little bit. We're going to go to Kosentaka. I mean, you know, my, my, my favorite conservative, right? And so we're going to go to Taka and to, you know, we're going to critique Taka, but I'm more interested in secular talks take on Taka, right? Because what does the left have to say about Taka? And I don't think we'll watch all 17 minutes of this video because we're running out of time here. I talk too much. So I have a lot to say. So Tucker Carlson did a surprising segment on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders' bill to limit interest rates to 15%. Let's take a look and then we'll come back and break it down. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have a new proposal out. It's called the Loan Shark Prevention Act. Their bill would cap interest rates on credit cards at 15%. Well, for a lot of people that would make a difference. The median interest rate on credit cards in this country right now is 21%. Note, note, right? This is a crazy proposal. This would cap interest rates on credit cards at 15%. And it also would eliminate payday loans. It would take out the whole high interest rate world out there. It would take it all away. Anything about 15% basically would be defined as users and therefore illegal. Illegal, right? And this is Tucker Carlson describing this. And of course the first things out of Tucker Carlson's mouth is, well, this would help a lot of people. Now he gives this average of 21. That's pretty funny. He gives a statistic about 21% is the average interest rate on credit cards. But that's not the average interest rates people pay on credit cards because a lot of people pay zero on credit cards because they pay their bills every month. I do. I pay my bills every month. I used to have huge credit card debt. I used to have, I mean, in the 90s I had over $50,000 of credit card debt. I had a salary of, I think, 60 something thousand dollars and I had $50,000 of credit card debt. But did I pay 21% or did I pay 15%? No. I rolled from credit card to credit card paying 0% because of all the 0% introductory offers. And maybe once in a while I paid 3% as a fee to get the 0% introductory offer. But nobody, not nobody. Very few people actually pay 21%. So notice Tucker Carlson providing empirical false evidence for a leftist agenda item. Some cards charge over 35%. Banks, meanwhile, can borrow money from the Federal Reserve at 3% interest. Do the math. It's a very good business. Why can you get away with charging 35% when you're borrowing at 3% and if you look at bank profitability, it's okay. It's not bad. It hasn't been great since a great recession. Why isn't it much higher? Why on banks just like the most profitable businesses in the world? What is it? I mean, 31%, 3%. I mean, that's 30% profit margin. That's nowhere near the actual return on banks. What's going on here? Well, why do you pay 30%? You pay 30% because a lot of people default on credit cards. They just don't pay them. So not only do they get 0%, they lose the principal. On average, banks don't make much on credit cards. If you take into account the people like me who pay 0, if you take into account the people like me who roll over debt into all kinds of offers, 0% offers. If you take into account the people who default, if you take into account the people who pay most of their balance and keep a small balance, they pay interest on that, on average, credit card companies don't make that much money. Here's Tucker Carlson, who used to claim he was a libertarian, who used to claim he was an advocate of free markets. And what does he have to say about it? Nothing. He can't oppose AOC and Booney. This is a Republican. This is one of the ones who almost watched Republican pundits on television. This is one of the most respected conservative voices in the media. Tucker Carlson. Sending you those offers for new cards. They're getting rich from your debt. The bankers. The bill would also apply the same 15% limit to consumer loans. It would ban, in effect, payday loans. Payday loans. I don't know how many of you have ever taken a payday loan. I've never taken a payday loan. You know who takes payday loans? Poor people who don't have bank relationships, who want to cash their checks, who want to get into debt and want to maybe, you know, for whatever reason need cash and are willing to take on debt in order to pay that cash. People who are so desperate, they're willing to pay annualized interest rates of 200, 300%. Not me. Probably not you. Because none of us are desperate enough to do that. And what happens when some states ban payday loans is that people get in their car and they drive for hours to payday loan offices in a joining state in order to get the loan. What you're depriving people here is of opportunity. What you're depriving people here of is the only way they can get their hands on any kind of liquidity. It's not like if you capped interest rates at 15%, these people would now get loans at 15%. Nobody's going to lend the money at 15%. What a 15% cap on credit card interest rate and on payday or whatever all kinds of loans, all loans does, it basically eliminates the capacity of many Americans to borrow any money at any rate. And then what do they do? And there is empirical evidence to support it. What happens when you get rid of payday loans? What happens when you get rid of high interest rate credit cards? And you're desperate and you need a loan and you need money. Maybe because, I don't know, you have to pay your healthcare bills. Oh, wait a minute, we've got socialized medicine so we don't need to do that. Oh, we will have socialized medicine. What happens when you have to pay the bills and you don't have money and nobody will lend you the money? What happens when there's demand and the demand would not be supplied by the legal markets because they're not allowed to supply it? Well, you get a black market. It always happens. It's happened in American history over and over and over again. When individuals who need money, who need a loan, cannot get it from official market sources. What you get alone shocks, what you get is the mafia. What you get are people who break your legs if you don't pay them back or worse, they shoot you in the face if you can't pay them back. Now, Tucker Carlson is smart enough to know this. Tucker Carlson knows enough history to know this. This is what America was like when we had usury laws in the early 20th century. This is what some states are like because they have usury laws that ban this. Organized crime thrives on this. And this is what you would think. You would think conservatives who have an understanding of markets, who respect free markets, would understand even a little bit. But no. No. No, we want to side with Bernie Sanders and AOC in order to achieve this great help for the American people so they don't have to pay these horrible interest rates. Those loans whose interest rates can exceed five or six hundred percent every year. There's a reason for that. No doubt many Republicans in the Congress will oppose this bill if only because of who sponsored it. Bernie Sanders and Acasio Cortez are obviously demagogues. Notice, ad hominem. Is she a demagogue? Why is she a demagogue and you're not? By what standard do you value a demagogy? What is she proposed that you disagree with? Right now you're agreeing with her. So you're dismissing her not on content. You're dismissing her on ad hominem. This is going to be successful as an argument against the left. Half of what they say, the other half, they don't really understand. They're not impressive. That's it. That's it. But on this one issue, they are absolutely indisputably right. There's a reason why the world's great religions condemn the usury. All right, here I have to give a pitch for my latest book. It's a sale on Amazon and everywhere else. You can get it in every form. Audio, Kindle, hardback, well, no hardback, softback. And it's moral defense of finance and in the moral defense of finance there is an essay on the history of usury where I cover the evil, the evil instituted by religions who have banned usury over the centuries. The evil, the Christianity is inflicted on the world by banning usury and viewing usury as immoral. I cover the whole history of what usury means and why usury is good. Usury actually used to mean just charging interest. Just any interest was usurus. That's what Shakespeare means in the merchant of Venice when they talk about usury. That's what Dante means. That's what Aquinas means. When they talk about usury, Thomas Aquinas, they're talking about interest, any interest. For that matter, that's what Aristotle means. Aristotle was wrong on this issue. But yes, the religions of the world oppose it, although the Jewish religion is somewhat ambiguous about that. But Islam and Christianity oppose all usury, all usury. So it turns out that Taka Carlson buys into the modern distinction between usury as so-called excessive interest and interest rate, which is okay. It's okay to charge people low interest rates. All this does is discriminate against the poor, discriminate against the desperate. So I encourage you all, go find the book. I mean, you'll love that chapter, the chapter on the history of usury. One of the best things I've ever written. So I encourage you to, and historical and economic and interesting, just history you don't know. And it integrates a lot of information. And I think you'll find it really, really interesting. Societies have restricted it for thousands of years. Interest rates exploit the weak. No, they don't. Why not chronically responsible people? Why aren't the people who are massing up debt on a credit card of 30%? Why don't you call them irresponsible? I thought that's what conservatives used to do. Personal responsibility. You know, it's not like the credit card companies are hiding how much they're charging. It's not like the payday loan shops are hiding what they're charging. Why not argue for personal responsibility? No, it's the government's job. Probably some people who know, maybe a lot of people you know. And you know everybody you know is responsible. Everybody you know is being screwed by these people. Really? This is what the right, this is what the conservative movement, this is what Republicans have turned into. Advocates for capping interest rates across the board in this country? In America? In the land of the free? Techuck Alson. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes a talking point for Donald Trump. Banks are doing is disgusting and it's wrong. So the real question is, why did it fall to a couple of childish socialists? At Harmonium. That's all they can do. To point this out. There's no reason that capping interest rates ought to be a left wing issue. Most normal people agree with it overwhelmingly. South Dakota for example. It's one of the most conservative states in the country. In 2016 its voters went for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by 30 points. And yet those very same voters also voted overwhelmingly to crack down on payday loans and cap the interest rates on credit cards. Historically fighting usury has been a Republican position. In 1991 Republicans sponsored legislation to cap credit card interest at 14%. That's lower than what Bernie Sanders is proposing right now. Thank you Tucker. I've been arguing this for years and years. It's a Republican party that is more likely to give us socialism in a variety of different areas than it is the Democratic Party. All in the name of make America great. Again, I guess. President George H. W. Bush endorsed that bill and the Senate passed it. So why is that the law today? Well, in the words of the Chicago Tribune at the time, quote, five days of intense lobbying by banking interests. Banking interests. Oh wait. Doesn't that sound like the young Turks talking about corporations and Wall Street? Banking interests. One day Plunge in the stock market killed the bill dead. After that Republicans decided to cave permanently. They became the party of Wall Street. What's interesting, though, is that Wall Street is no longer Republican. Not even close. Wall Street is the economic engine of the Democratic Party. Finance Titans went overwhelmingly for Hillary over Trump into. So let's screw them. It's just like Silicon Valley. Like many people here who listen to me believe, you know, these Wall Street and Silicon Valley went to Democrats. So let's screw them. Let's cap interest rates on credit card because those damn bankers vote Democratic. And let's break up Facebook because those damn tech executives are all Democrats. Let's abandon any principle, abandon any free markets. Maybe we never promoted free markets. Abandon capitalism because those damn businessmen voted Democratic. It's the corporations. Wall Street bankers. 16 Chuck Schumer is their own personal sender. They all have a cell phone. Trust me. Big finance is one of the most aggressively liberal sectors in this country. If you're watching this show, they despise you. They all became very obvious in the last presidential election. The only people who didn't get that clear message are Republicans in Washington. They're on autopilot still siding with the big banks over their own voters. It's a lunatic strategy. It won't end well. What happens when you refuse to give people what they desperately need? They go elsewhere. Republicans should not be surprised when that happens. Okay, so. Alright, before we listen to him. Really? See, you guys tell me what the difference is between Democrats and Republicans. On what issue exactly is there a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans? You just heard. You just heard Tucker Carson give you all the Democratic talking points. Because, evil, the leftists, of course, but the evil beyond that, they exploit people. People upset. We need to help the average American by capping interest rates, by going after those bankers, but going after Wall Street. What is the difference between this kind of Republican and Bernie Sanders? I mean, Bernie is maybe a little bit more on some economic issues to the left, but not here. Republicans wanted to do 14%. Bernie wants 15%. I guess there's been some inflation since then. Alright, now let's see how the left approaches this. Say about this. First of all, credit words do on saying, hey, 15% interest rate, capping interest rates is 15%, makes sense, and is even close. It's obviously the right thing to do. Yeah, I mean, everybody agrees it's the right thing to do. It's insanity. It will hurt everybody. Every American will have to pay for that, because if banks don't make money, if banks can issue credit, if banks can issue credit cards, because at 15% they can't, or they can only issue credit cards, they have very few people, that alters the way people behave. That alters the American economy in substantial ways. That is central planning on steroids. So, yeah, it's obvious to a leftist that what that Tucker Carlson agreeing with Bernie Sanders makes 100% sense. It stops usury. It basically stops loan-sharking. And this is the kind of stuff where big financial institutions screw regular people, and it's not their fault. Tucker and you on the same page. Look at it on that, and this is not something you would see anybody who would be a potential replacement for Tucker Carlson at this time slot saying. It just wouldn't happen. Which is why I always thought it was weird when it's like there's this advertiser boycott trying to get rid of Tucker, and I think it's rather obvious that he's more of a paleo-conservative than a neo-conservative, and he would 100% define either one of those terms. Either one of those terms. I mean, Tucker might be a paleo-conservative. I don't know what paleo-conservative means. That's Pat Buchanan, maybe Donald Trump, although I don't think Donald Trump even is anything. But no, Tucker Carlson is just whatever he feels like being at the moment. He is an altruist. He is a sellout. He is a whatever comes to him in the moment. I don't think he has a driving technology. I don't think he's paleo or anything like that. He's become more Pat Buchanan-like under Trump's influence, and maybe under Rating's influence, but he is a leftist Republican. And who are the neo-cons? The neo-cons are exactly, they think the neo-cons are pro-capitalist. Really? Man. Now, I will say this. No, I'm actually not going to say it about neo-conservative. You were placed by somebody more like Kennedy on every single issue. Rather, at least Tucker has two or three areas where he'll surprise you and be right on it. So I just find it weird that it doesn't seem very thought out from a macro picture that the advertiser boycott against Tucker. And then also I think there's an even broader question about whether or not advertiser boycotts are reasonable in the first place, and I think everybody knows my opinion on that. Once you open up that door, the first one's on the chopping block with the furthest left-wing voices. But anyway, I digress from that. The stuff that annoys me is the doublespeak. I mean, he really is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. So, first of all, Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are demagogues. They don't mean half of what they say, and they don't know what they're talking about, and they're childish socialists. He's right. This is one of those instances where, remember back in high school when the teacher would correct something on your paper and write citation needed? Citation needed, Doc. What do you mean? What do you mean they don't mean half of what they say? Really? How do you know that? You have no idea. What if they mean every single word of what they say? How about that? And by the way, that is the case. That is the case. I don't know Bernie, but I am a co-founder of Justice Democrats, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the most prominent Justice Democrat. She leaves every word of what she says. So why the unnecessary fucking shiving in the side of these people? You're doing it because you know you're still, to some extent mired in partisanship and you have to do the virtue signaling to the far right. Now I'm not saying they're actually totally right, even though they're totally right. I still hate them. That's what you're doing. The idea that they're childish socialists. Tucker is smart enough to know that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are mild social Democrats. When you look at their canon of policy beliefs and stuff they would implement, it's like Denmark or Norway or Sweden. He knows that they're not childish socialists. He knows that they're not that. I'm against turning American to Denmark and Sweden. I don't think that's a good thing. But he's right. When Bernie Sanders talks about socialism, he then gives us examples Denmark and Sweden basically saying we need to redistribute more. That's, we need a higher tax rates. That's Denmark and Sweden. I also hope he agrees that we also need to regulate less, which is also Denmark and Sweden. Of course he doesn't. But neither Bernie nor AOC to date yet, AOC might be more so is a socialist to the extent that what's his name in England and the guy running the Labour Party in England is a socialist. They're not socialist in terms of the state owning the means of production. He's not a socialist even in a sense that Francois Mitterrand was a socialist in the 1980s as president of they are significant to the left. They want to turn the United States into Europe. Jeremy Corbyn is a socialist in England. He's a socialist. He wants to nationalize industries. I mean, Bernie is a blow hard but he is a social democrat. He wants much higher taxes. He wants much more redistribution of wealth and he wants to break up Silicon Valley and he wants to regulate banks even more. I mean, he's worse than Europe. I'll give you that. He's worse than Europe. He's more like France rather than Denmark and Sweden. Again, because he's speaking out of both sides of his mouth and to the idea that they don't know what they're talking about. I would put Bernie Sanders or AOC's knowledge on policy above literally literally any senator or congress person. It's clearly not true. I mean, AOC knows very little about policy. She knows a lot about where she wants to go. She knows a lot about the moral cause she's after. She knows very little about detailed policy and you can see that in her interviews. And I'm 100% going to win that bet. There's no way I lose that bet. You lose that bet. Clearly you lose that bet. Because that's their front and center for them is policy. Now Tucker might pretend like that's not the case but that's all they do is talk about policy and then the idea that they're demagogues. Why? Because they talk about things that are popular and people like it. Is that why they're demagogues? No. Maybe they actually truly believe in these issues and they're putting them front and center. So it's just the unnecessary shiving in the side. But again, that serves a purpose. And then the other point that's just this is the diversion. This is the bait and switch at the end of the segment is when he says he's talking about how Wall Street and they're so bad and then he goes, and it's obvious they're no longer Republican. They're massively liberal on Wall Street. This is interesting. Okay, Tucker. The fact that Wall Street executives are liberal on social issues means Dickie McGee's acts. It doesn't mean anything in the context of the economic issues that we're talking about. But they actually all vote Democrat. I mean, this is BS, right? I mean, Jamie Dimon votes Democrat. Most of them are not exactly free market guys. Of course, we need this Tucker Carlson. And of course, the social issues might be the only issues that matter. Still need a Tucker because the economic issues he's given up on. All right, we're going to... You don't go for altruism and charity and do good and liberal and... No. And conservative. You might as well edit all. You don't like the conservatives either? No. Not so there's conservatives. I want to help other people. I want to do good for other people. What's so bad about that? Nothing. If you do it by your own choice, and if it's not your primary aim in life, and if you don't regard it as a moral virtue, on those conditions, it's fine to help people if you want to. Why can't I think of it as a moral virtue? I mean, can I take some bows for myself for doing all these good things? Because that would be cannibalism. Because that would mean that you preach altruism which means not merely kindness, but self-sacrifice. It means that you place the welfare of others above your own. That you live for others for the sake of helping them and that justifies your life. That's immoral. According to my morality.