He talks about the risk factors for Bitcoin as an investment asset including origin risk, speculative market structure, regulatory, and environment. Are broader financial markets in a massive speculative bubble?
You can listen to the entire conversation right now in the audio player below. If you prefer to listen on your phone, GHOGH with Jamarlin Martin is available wherever you listen to podcasts — including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.
Listen to GHOGH with Jamarlin Martin | Episode 74: Jamarlin Martin Jamarlin returns for a new season of the GHOGH podcast to discuss Bitcoin, bubbles, and Biden. He talks about the risk factors for Bitcoin as an investment asset including origin risk, speculative market structure, regulatory, and environment. Are broader financial markets in a massive speculative bubble?
This is a full transcript of the conversation which has been lightly edited for clarity.
Jamarlin Martin: Peace. Welcome to the GHOGH podcast with Jamarlin Martin. GHOGH as in Go Hard or Go Home. Let’s GHOGH! The title of this episode is “Bitcoin, Bubbles And Biden”. Bitcoin has been trading between $53,000 and $60,000 the past few weeks. It’s up over 900 percent in one year and, of course, folks are getting really excited and the thesis is being sold that Bitcoin, of course, is going to go to $100,000 and then possibly to $250,000 and then possibly to $1 million.
There’s a lot of bullishness out there. There’s a lot of excitement. And there’s also a lot of bubble thinking or speculative gambling thinking as if Bitcoin is going to trade one way and it’s almost a guaranteed come up. You’ve heard that saying, when things look too easy, there’s probably something wrong with it. But right now, in terms of the last year where an asset goes up 900 percent in 12 months, this is a really good short term investment if you got in when Bitcoin was trading about $3,800 and you rode it up to $53,000 to $60,000, that’s a really good short term return.
There’s this euphoria out there. The focus of this podcast is not to tell you, don’t go buy Bitcoin or sell your Bitcoin. What I want to do is share the risk factors for Bitcoin so maybe it could spark some curiosity, in terms of the other side, that you can hold on or be a bull for Bitcoin, but it’s important for us to understand the other side. And of course it’s important to understand the risk factor. So, if folks are going to invest or hold Bitcoin at around $60,000, it would be beneficial to understand the different factors that can send it back down to $4,000 or lower. I’m not trying to turn you against Bitcoin. I want to be clear. I just want to share the risk factors. The other side that the media and a lot of the pumpers, the brokers, the people conflicted in the industry that’s holding Bitcoin. They want to get the grandma into Bitcoin. They want to get the kids. They want to get everybody into Bitcoin because their own position goes up. Their narrative is going to be very one-sided. They’re going to be selling Bitcoin as if it’s pure, that it doesn’t have any defects or flaws or risk factors.
Of course, with any bubble, you have a lot of charlatans and the greed factor kicks in where folks are selling stuff without giving you all the information and so, they’re not really selling it in good faith. They’re just pumping, pumping, pumping. Bitcoin’s going to go to the moon. Bitcoin’s going to the moon, but, we’re going to get into this, but often the little person at the end of the bubble, when the little person, I’m talking about relative income, folks who don’t have a lot of money to lose, but when the little person, the retail buyer starts to get in at the end of a bubble cycle, they tend to get hurt. They tend to get crushed. Of course, the rug is pulled in all these people in the industry, the media, the brokers, the investment funds, they’re all pumping it. But when the rug is pulled, a lot of people get hurt after a bubble.
So we’re going to go through the risk factors. The first risk factor for Bitcoin, from my perspective, is what I would call origin risk. Who created Bitcoin essentially? No one knows. So, when you’re thinking about Bitcoin as an asset, I would call it an X asset. It’s unknown and so, no one knows the identity of the person or people who created Bitcoin. Now, there are some suspicions out there that it was created by the U.S. Government. It was created by an agency like the NSA. The founder of Ethereum essentially said, he thought that Bitcoin could have been created by the NSA. He says that things as big as governments work against themselves all the time, I wouldn’t be too surprised if the NSA has some part in at least supporting it. And so of course the pumpers and the cheerleaders of Bitcoin, they act like this is a people thing. The people created Bitcoin and it’s for the people to go against the government. So they want to frame Bitcoin as it’s like a populous thing. You’re banging on the government. Bitcoin against the government, you hear this populous, it’s gonna help these countries and help poor people. And it’s going to do all this populous stuff. And so they think that Bitcoin is taking over and rising and the government is asleep. The government don’t know where it came from.
05:30 – Jamarlin Martin: So I think it’s intelligent to consider that you have not outsmarted the U.S. Government. There’s a reasonable probability that the U.S. Government knows where Bitcoin came from and they may have been involved with it. And so obviously they’re not going to tell you that, they’re not going to tell us that, but when there is an asset that’s rising to a trillion dollars market cap and it’s blowing up, it’s making it easier for folks to hide gray or dirty money. I wouldn’t assume that the government doesn’t know the origin of Bitcoin or is not involved in Bitcoin. So the one risk factor in terms of the asset is, we don’t know where Bitcoin came from. We don’t know who created it. Now, the CEO of Russian cybersecurity company, Kaspersky Lab, he also suggested that it could have been the American intelligence agencies creating Bitcoin to help process funding to other intelligence agencies without, of course, being detected.
It’s not a radical view that the U.S. Government could have created Bitcoin. So this is why Coinbase, which is about to IPO near a $100 billion, one of the leading crypto exchanges. This is why they came out and said that one of the risk factors in their IPO prospectus, their S-1, is that if the identity, if someone was able to break that big story or that big information, if somebody came out and said, “I know who created Bitcoin”, if someone was able to identify that actor or actors, that could pose a risk to that thesis, because of course, everyone is leveraged to one side thinking that, “Oh, it’s this great thing that’s going to take over the world. And it’s for the people. And it’s against the government. And you’re going to be able to have freedom.” So if the identity becomes known and it conflicts with the popular narrative of all the cheerleaders and the pumpers, where it’s easier if it’s a spook, it’s easier if no one knows where it came from. But if the identity is becomes known later, that could crush the price of Bitcoin because it would just disrupt the story. It would disrupt the Bitcoin religion that people are evangelizing. So the first risk factor is origin risk.
The second risk factor is what I would call a speculative market structure. Essentially, Bitcoin could be a promising asset. It could have strong fundamentals. It could be a really good investment. However, based on the investment flows, the speculative investment flows that come in, the hot money, the quick money, people wanting to make a quick buck like a casino. If there’s a lot of speculative, fast money coming in, and that fast casino money, where want to make a lot of money in a short amount of time, if that money comes in, then the market structure could be dominated by folks who don’t really have conviction. They’re just in for a quick buck, right? It’s a lot of hot money and they have to make the money fast, essentially, they’re coming in to make a killing fast. So if the speculative money who don’t really look at Bitcoin like, Hey, I’m holding it like a Warren Buffet or a long-term investor, because I believe in it and I’m going to hold her for 20 or 10 years. That’s holding Bitcoin with strong hands, with a lot of conviction.
09:35 – Jamarlin Martin: The opposite of that is a lot of flow is coming in just to go into the next hot thing to make a quick buck. So if the speculative casino gambling type of character becomes a dominant, supportive factor for Bitcoin, that’s a risk factor because if the market starts to turn, this hot money is going to be rushing for the exit, they’re going to try to all be getting out the door at the same time. So this could set up a collapse of Bitcoin of 50 percent or more, and essentially Bitcoin being cut in half or something more severe. And it stays there for a couple of years. If you’re holding Bitcoin for the long term, you have a lot of conviction. That’s fine. But if this hot money, speculative money, this more casino quick buck money is really, really deep in the market structure of Bitcoin, it’s a risk to that asset. And so of course you saw a lot of speculative activity with tech stocks in 2000 before the crash, you saw a lot of speculative activity with real estate. Bitcoin is not an exception. Okay? So this market structure that’s underneath Bitcoin. It’s creating a big risk for a lot of people getting hurt, trying to run out that door at the same time. Once they see this thing is falling 30, 40, 50 percent, there’s speculative market structure risk.
So the third risk factor with Bitcoin would be regulatory risks. You may have seen the lawsuit by the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, where they sued Ripple Labs, who are the originators of the crypto XRP, Ripple is doing all this funny stuff. They’re going into the market, manipulating their own XRP coin, they’re signing deals. And they’re not disclosing to the XRP folks that they are buying marketing partnerships. So they’ll announce a deal with MoneyGram, but they may have sent MoneyGram $50 million or $75 million, and to Ripple $50 million to $75 million to pay the partner to try their platform. That’s nothing because when the bubble heads see the press release, they’re going to buy. If they’re buying, the market cap of XRP could go up $500 million. There’s a lot of this pump activity or nefarious activity, like with any bubble, where you have so much money in play, you have something new, you have something hot. There’s a lot of nefarious actors, a lot of greedy actors that bring this fraud element to it or misrepresentations where they’re trying to get the people hooked into the new thing.
Of course, in the 2008 real estate bubble and crash, you had the fraud element there and so the fraud is in the crypto and the Bitcoin ecosystem, too. You have a lot of money. You have a lot of dirty players in the marketplace, but essentially the Bitcoin and crypto coins, they could be used for tax avoidance. In Switzerland, they used to have a bank secrecy laws where they weren’t allowed to reveal client names to the IRS or to foreign governments. They were real tight on that, but that was busted up. Okay. So in Switzerland, it’s not easy to hide gray or dirty money in Switzerland anymore. So essentially, folks are going to be looking for tax avoidance or tax fraud. So essentially, that one loophole closes, folks will be looking for other loopholes. So in jurisdictions, not just in Switzerland, a lot of the tax loopholes that were used have closed and are closing and so, essentially you would have, you can expect that there’s more real flows of money, of dirty and gray money looking to avoid taxes that flows into crypto.
If you have fraud, if you have tax avoidance, that could bring in the regulators in terms of, we need to know what’s going on. If you have regulation, that’s coming, it’s not whether it’s going to come, it’s essentially how is it going to come? The regulations are coming to Bitcoin. And the crypto complex. The regulatory risks, not just in the United States, but around the world. For example, India is talking about new regulations or possibly banning Bitcoin. These regulations could impact the price where the government comes in and wants to know everything or restricts it. Ray Dalio, the founder of the world’s largest hedge fund Bridgewater. He said that it’s likely that the U.S. Government is going to ban Bitcoin. So that’s a risk factor to the Bitcoin investment asset. Essentially you could have very harsh regulations come down that could really send this bubble in a spiral. It could be gradual regulations, but essentially, I believe it’s one of the important risk factors to understand.
15:32 – Jamarlin Martin: So the other risk factor, number four, we have environmental risk. I don’t have a directional position on, Bitcoin is bad for the environment, that means Bitcoin is this. I don’t have a directional point of view in terms of the environmental risk. What I could say is that there’s very smart people who are looking at this. There’s very powerful people, influential people who are now looking at the environmental risk of Bitcoin. Essentially,d the structure of Bitcoin is that it’s mined through a computer processing power. So essentially, you yourself can use your computer or use computers to mine Bitcoin. You may not be able to mind much, but folks are building mining centers with hundreds and thousands of machines to mine Bitcoin, to make money like you would mine for gold. And so when you’re running all these computers in these centers essentially burning energy. It’s a lot of processing power that’s used to mine Bitcoin. One report says that Bitcoin consumes more electricity than Argentina. Another report has the government in Iran blaming Bitcoin for massive blackouts, meaning, its pressure on their grid. And so when folks are debating on Twitter or YouTube or whatever, they’re going back and forth and the Bitcoin pumpers will say, “Oh, a lot of things use electricity. So it’s no big deal.”
You don’t have to really engage in the debates. You listen or whatever, but to weed out the noise and the biases, obviously some of these people on both sides, the person attacking Bitcoin, they may have a conflicted interest. They may want clicks or something like that or they may want some type of media attention in attacking Bitcoin. They may be mad that they didn’t catch the Bitcoin bull market, but on the other side, you have the pumpers and the cheerleaders who own Bitcoin. So the mentality of someone who’s conflicted, particularly conflicted with size in terms of a meaningful part of their wealth is invested in Bitcoin. That mind, it could be so conflicted where they don’t care about the environment. So they’re not going to be thinking about, Hey let’s play this out, where Bitcoin could really become a problem for certain countries with weaker resources for electricity or it could just be a problem for the planet as a whole. So in China, they shut down some Bitcoin mining in certain areas. And one of the factors was a concern with the the weight on electricity. There’s a lot of debating in terms of the impact of Bitcoin on the environment. But one thing you can look at is, look in the world world in terms of what’s happening and how governments and local communities, they have to respond to something that’s real. When you want to get out of ideology and go into the actual facts where, why are these governments shutting down these mining centers? And what are they saying about the electricity weight of these Bitcoin mining farms? If the world was to take a net negative position that Bitcoin in aggregate in terms of the whole ecosystem is harmful to the environment, that could cause downside pressure on the Bitcoin price.
This is factor five now. We started with origin risk. Speculative market structure risk, regulatory risk, number three. Environmental risk, number four. So number five is crypto inflation. What is crypto inflation? It’s essentially just like if a government, Zimbabwe or Venezuela, they may lose control. And the currency is not worth anything, they’ve printed so much. Crypto inflation, there’s new crypto coins being printed every day. Okay. So the market’s hot and you have new coins being produced. New coins that may have better security are superior features than Bitcoin. And so, these new cryptos are being produced in it’s a form of competition and also increased supply. So if you have crypto coins being created every single day, and you have people buying these new coins, there’s so much crypto supply in the marketplace, that could devalue Bitcoin and other coins because there’s so many different options, there are so many different cryptos.
20:34 – Jamarlin Martin: And so, the Bitcoiners will say, Hey, one of the big fundamental factors for Bitcoin is that you can’t print a lot of it. There’s a limited supply. That’s true, however, it could be impacted by the supply of the whole crypto complex. So if you just have non-stop printing and printing of cryptos with new features, really good features, whatever, it’s the hot thing it’s going up more than Bitcoin. You could have crypto inflation. Okay. And that could impact, I believe, the price of Bitcoin. Right now, of course, everything is going up together. Bitcoin goes up, Dodge Coin goes up. Bitcoin goes up, they have a new coin coming out called the Leprechaun coin. Most likely, that’s going to go up. So all the cryptos are moving together right now, but that dynamic could change over time, keep an eye out on just non-stop production of more and more coins. That could be a risk factor for Bitcoin itself and the scarcity argument.
The number six would be volatility risk. So the Bitcoin cheerleaders and pumpers, some of the real Bitcoin evangelicals, the real fanatical Bitcoin ride-or-die folks, some of them will say, Bitcoin, the kid in Nigeria or Hanoi in Vietnam, Bitcoin allows them to transact easily when there could be problems with the currency or transacting in their local currency. So there’s a problem with that. So Bitcoin is helping save the world and it’s helping the people. So if I’m in Nigeria or Vietnam and I get paid in Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is getting knocked 10, 20 percent, or it could be down 30 percent in a week, right. I may not want to get paid in Bitcoin because the value of my labor or my services, it’s too volatile. I can’t work and build up this value and then it could collapse 50 percent. I worked for a certain amount. So if Bitcoin is moving around like crazy, it’s fine if it’s just going up, but we know that Bitcoin is just not going to go up crazy, 100 percent, 500 percent, 900 percent every year. So if people are getting paid with an asset or a currency, that’s going up like crazy, fine in a bubble market, fine, I’ll get paid in that. It just keeps on going up and up. But at the end of the day, this is not going to last forever. So the idea that Bitcoin is going to be used as a real currency, where you buy things with it, you buy the candy bar, you buy the loaf of bread, you pay for services with Bitcoin. The volatility would have to come down significantly. So essentially, Bitcoin is moving around too much for businesses and people to transact with it at scale over the long-term. So the Bitcoin cheerleader could could say, and I would agree with them, that it is possible that the volatility goes down over the long-term. Give Bitcoin a chance, it’s still a little kid, and the volatility would go down over the long-term. That is a possibility there, but essentially there’s volatility risk. And this volatility risk is important and related to the next point.
24:51 – Jamarlin Martin: So number point number seven would be a shift from speculation, from fundamentals. The Bitcoin bulls, when things started, they would talk about the fundamentals. They would talk about using it in the real economy, solving real problems. There’s going to be adoption where you use Bitcoin like you use the dollar, like you use the Japanese yen. So you would use it in the real economy every day. That was a signature piece of the thesis, but like Ripple and XRP, in terms of the SEC complaint that I read, the Bitcoin cheerleaders and pumpers, they don’t talk about the fundamentals anymore. You know, what they talk about? They talk about, Hey, Jack Dorsey’s buying Bitcoin, Michael Saylor, the CEO of MicroStrategy is buying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin. His original company product and thesis has nothing to do with Bitcoin, but essentially, he wants to speculate and use the company to buy Bitcoin. So Michael Saylor announces he’s buying Bitcoin. The price of Bitcoin goes up. Jack Dorsey says this about Bitcoin. It’s going up. Elon Musk says this about Bitcoin. It’s going up. So this pumper mentality where the price of Bitcoin is very sensitive to folks buying the asset, but essentially, no one is talking about the real-world adoption, the fundamental case of Bitcoin in terms of turning into something that could compete with the dollar or the Japanese yen. So the narrative has changed with the Bitcoin crowd, with a significant piece of the Bitcoin crowd, where essentially it’s all about institutions, Goldman Sachs, or Fidelity, or it’s all about who’s buying, what institutions are adopting it as a speculative investment asset. They’re not talking about on-the-ground adoption and use of Bitcoin in the real world as a real currency. So you see this shift. And so when you see the aggressive shift in terms of the thesis like that, you have to start asking questions about why has it been such a shift?
In terms of price, if something is going to go up to a million dollars, you would prefer that the fundamentals around real-world adoption, consumer and business adoption in terms of using Bitcoin, that that’s really the big piece of the story. When the big piece of the story just comes to who’s buying and you know how much the price is moving, you get more into this speculative realm, you get more into the casino, fast money realm. A risk factor for Bitcoin is essentially, no one is talking about things outside of price and who’s buying, what celebrity, what entrepreneur, what investor, what institution is buying Bitcoin or starting to believe in Bitcoin. They want to make money, right? The more speculative stuff that you have in the narrative of Bitcoin, the bigger the risk. So I want to know that shift from real-world fundamentals, real-world currency to speculation. Who’s pumping, who’s buying what institution is investing?
I want to move on to the next B which is bubble. And I’m going to keep this one pretty short, but I want to talk about Joseph Kennedy, the father of the American president, JFK Jr. So in 1929, he was a big Wall Street investor and he went to go get his shoes shined. And the shoeshine boy started talking to him about stocks, stock tips. And Joseph Kennedy said, “Hey, in terms of market cycles and how this thing works, the shoeshine boy is giving me, Joseph Kennedy tips, and I have insider information. I know the banks, I know the major players. If the shoeshine boy is really getting into the stock market, it’s probably towards the end of the cycle. It’s probably going to crash pretty soon. I don’t know when it’s going to crash, but probably odds are in favor that when the shoeshine boy starts to get excited about the market, this bubble is going to turn, right. This bull market is about to turn, just in terms of the psychology and nature of the markets. I thought about this. I read so many headlines about kids trading and there’s parents on Twitter, bragging about their kids trading, and you have entrepreneurs bragging about, they made some money on Tesla, this and that. And they’re riding and getting into this bubble and this bubble is running real hot, right?
30:20 – Jamarlin Martin: And so, I know folks who want to become traders now, friends and family members who weren’t in the markets, but they see the bubble and the returns and they want to become traders. There’s nothing wrong with kids wanting to learn about markets or investing, from my point of view. However, if you’re going to introduce kids or your family and friends or yourself, if you get introduced to the markets in a bubble that’s running real hot, running very speculative, casino-like with outrageous returns, your introduction to it may become a problem later where you get in at the top of a bubble where valuations, they don’t matter. Cash, profits, real stuff, it’s not going to go up like fake stuff. The less revenue, the less profits, the less cash you have, the more debt you have, the higher the returns in a really, really sick bubble that we’re in now. It’s the opposite of what you should have. Essentially, the investor wants that 100 percent, 200 percent return in a year. And so the money starts to go to really hot stuff that’s very speculative, that doesn’t have a lot of substance underneath it yet. Folks are taking more and more risks. So if you come into this type of risk environment where things seem easy, and they’re very bubbly when the market turns, it could turn the people off because they didn’t really learn the fundamentals of investing, that markets are not really one way. They just got in towards the end of a massive bubble. And so after each crash, people are turned off, people lose a lot of money. People don’t like the markets because they got really excited. They may have leveraged up and then crash hits him. It’s like a shock to them that the market crashes.
Jamarlin Martin: So the people never really learn the fundamentals of investing. They learn the fundamentals of trading and most likely getting lucky towards the end of a bubble. But when we’re learning things, what I would say is that when you’re learning something, it’s ideal to learn it in a way where it can scale. Kids trading and all this stuff that’s going on, it’s not going to be sustainable. This stuff is going to end really, really bad. I want to reference of course Joseph Kennedy, just in terms of market cycles. We know that markets go in cycles, right? And then there’s a party. And then that party ends. And usually when that party ends, it’s breaking up, the police and the fire department are coming in. It’s nasty. People lose a lot of money at the end of these bubbles. You have people at the end of the cycles, you have people like Joseph Kennedy who will see the psychology change and see that, these Hollywood celebrities or rappers and the kids, they’re all getting into the bubble, right? They’ll see this. And they’ve been around the block. They’ve seen a lot of different bubbles. They’ve studied bubbles. They’ve lost money in bubbles. So they have deep experience. So they’ll see this stuff going on and they’ll see the valuations where people don’t care about valuations and cash anymore. They don’t care about fundamentals. They’ll see all this stuff going on and they’ll say, “Okay, we’re going to start lightening up our positions. This looks like we’re towards the end of the cycle.” And so when these big wallets and institutions, when they start thinking like Joseph Kennedy, in terms of, this bubble’s out of control, they can start putting weight on the market, essentially starting to sell down. Not selling their whole portfolio, but move into more conservative names, more cash generative names, more proven names. And so they can start what they call distribution.
35:02 – Jamarlin Martin: They could start shifting their portfolio to more conservative stocks and investments, or just a more conservative posture, or let’s say a less speculative posture are less speculative orientation, or in Joseph Kennedy’s case, he flipped and shorted and him and his clique in terms of, I’ve got to think at that time investing was more collusive where folks worked together. They shared information, particularly the people at the top. So when Joseph Kennedy starts to back out of that market in 1929, him and his network, his elite network, they could have put pressure in terms of contributing to the conditions of the crash. Meaning, they’re putting weight on the crash because before the crash happens, they start to sell. Joseph Kennedy, the record shows that he actually bet against the market and made money when that bubble popped. You have to be thinking that when people see all this craziness, they have these NFTs, non-fungible tokens. Here’s the definition. NFTs or non-fungible tokens are a special kind of crypto asset in which each token is unique, as opposed to fungible assets like Bitcoin and dollar bills, which are all worth exactly the same amount, because every NFT is unique, they can be used to authenticate ownership of digital assets, like artworks, recordings and virtual real estate or pets.
Jamarlin Martin: Ja Rule just sold an NFT of some artwork related to the Fyre Festival. It was fraudulent, but essentially he is selling NFTs and folks are now buying NFTs spaces in imaginary houses. Folks are getting really bubble headish in terms of buying stuff that has at a minimum questionable value. The NFTs are exploding and everyone wants to get into NFTs as part of a bubble. Apple no longer looks interesting. Netflix, it doesn’t look interesting anymore. Tesla, it no longer looks interesting because why would I get into Tesla when I can get into Leprechaun or NFT, and I could make 500 percent? The hot money is finding new hot stuff to speculate in. And so the bubble just goes on and on. And as the bubble progresses, the due diligence declines. So for example, with SPACs (Special-purpose acquisition company), the short story is that it is a backdoor way to go public. Essentially investors, they group up, raise money, and then they go buy a private company. It’s an easier way to go public without the loops, the cost and the due diligence. So certain companies, they wouldn’t be able to go public the traditional way. So a SPAC allows them to kind of going through the back door with a lower due diligence threshold, with less discriminating investors who are going to be looking at all the different details.
Jamarlin Martin: SPACs are the new thing. But with each bubble, you’ll see that there’s a downgrade of due diligence. So companies are not going public the traditional way. They’re going public through SPACs. Of course, in the real estate bubble and crisis, you saw the downgrading of due diligence in terms of FICO scores, no docs. So in a bubble, particularly at the end, you start to see the loosening of standards where stuff starts to price aggressively. At the same time, the due diligence is downgraded. Ideally the price goes up as the due diligence hey, this checks out we’re really looking at all the details, so maybe you put a premium on the price, a real extreme bubble works opposite. Essentially, the price is going to be really, really high as you downgrade the due diligence. For example, with the crypto complex, for example, very low due diligence, very, very high market cap. When you see Dodge Coin was created as a joke. And of course, Elon Musk pumped the coin and people started buying, “Hey, Elon Musk tweets about it. That means it’s a good investment. So I’m going to buy Dodge Coin. Maybe I can make some quick money.” The New York Times, it was reported yesterday, they created an NFT as a joke, some type of article digital asset. And it was just a joke and it sold for a half a million dollars. You have a lot of bubble head activity out there, from my point of view, this bubble most likely doesn’t have another 12 months left.
40:10 – Jamarlin Martin: Obviously, no one knows when the bubble’s gonna pop, but the type of bubble head activity I’m seeing, you don’t need necessarily to study financial markets and bubble cycles and economic cycles to know that something is very, very wrong out there. Something stinks out there, and that I’m expecting that the Joseph Kennedys of today, they’re gonna start leaning on this market. They’re going to start selling, not necessarily selling and paranoia or selling all their portfolio, but they’re going to start adjusting their positioning because they’ve been around the block. They’ve seen the crashes. They’ve seen the bubbles and the know what type of greed and personality, what type of environment shows up towards the end of a bubble.
Jamarlin Martin: The last B I want to talk about is Joe Biden. Joe Biden, I don’t really have anything negative to say about Joe Biden. To tell you the truth, folks could be on Twitter or just bashing Joe Biden for various reasons. Bash, bash, bash Joe Biden. From my perspective, Joe Biden is being Joe Biden. He never said that he was a Bernie Sanders. He never said that he was gonna fight like hell before he won. And he never said, he’s the type of person he’s going to fight like hell to deliver you a 2K stimi (stimulus check) if he says he’s going to deliver you a 2K stimi. So he was very explicit and he said, “Look, I’m not Bernie Sanders.” Okay. He was very straight up with you. He said, “I’m not Bernie Sanders. I’m Joe Biden.” And when he was saying, “You know Joe Biden”, he’s telling you that he’s not a change figure, okay. This he’s not a person that would have a lot of conviction and take a lot of risks, particularly as it relates to Black America.
Jamarlin Martin: So Joe Biden, when he’s saying, look, “I’m not Bernie Sanders, I’m Joe Biden.” He’s telling you, “I’m the guy I supported the Iraq war. I’m the guy that was the Steve Jobs of mass incarceration. I’m the guy that built my political career off of political profit in terms of siding with the police, the police unions and the private prisons,” and the MAGA voters who love that tough on crime posture. Joe Biden was saying, “I’m that guy.” And so it’s important for us, I’m talking Black America, it’s important for us to know who Joe Biden is and who Joe Biden isn’t. Because there are biases out there where you hate MAGA so much, or you hate Trump so much, that means Biden is good. No, you can be in fierce opposition to Trump and MAGA and you acknowledge who Joe Biden is today. Okay. You don’t give him extra credit like he’s a white Jesus. You don’t give him credit that he doesn’t deserve. Joe Biden should have to earn credit based on his moral and racist debt with Black America. He has debts on the books with Black America in terms of what he has done. Joe Biden is the same Joe Biden of yesterday. Okay. He may be doing things in some areas that may be considered more progressive than Obama. He wants to do a bigger stimulus deal or do this differently than Obama, but we have to consider the time. So it’s easier to do certain things now than it was, in my view, for Obama. Joe Biden is coming at a time where the Bernie Sanders movement is very strong, it’s very influential in the Democratic party. So it’s not like Joe Biden has these big convictions, but a lot of the good stuff that he would do, you got to understand it’s from pressure from the other side of the Democratic party. It’s not necessarily just, I want to be a good guy and look after this issue and that issue. The type of career politician Joe Biden is, is he’s going to wait and see what’s acceptable and what’s politically convenient for him and his network. I want to leave you with this on Joe Biden. He told the Wall Street donors that nothing is going to change, give me the money. Like Don’t be a Menace, when the preacher says, “Just give me the money.”
45:50 – Jamarlin Martin: Joe Biden told the Wall Street donors, “Just give me the money and nothing’s going to change.” You can look it up yourself. He told the big donors, “Nothing is really going to change.” It’s very important that we understand not the politics in the front. We got to understand the politics in the back, okay, where the money is at. The president and politicians in general, they have to answer to someone. They have to answer to folks that you don’t see in the back. Okay. My Intellectual flaw in 2008 with Barack Obama was I was so excited on the political religion of that time, in terms of the idea of someone that I knew had read The Final Call, someone who came from Reverend Wright’s church. I has looked at a lot of the symbolic factors, and of course I was optimistic, but the intellectual flaw I had in 2008 was I didn’t really inspect the cabinet of Barack Obama, who the people that he would hire. I didn’t inspect that. I didn’t inspect the politics in the back. I was just going off the politics in the front. Like many of you. If I would have inspected the politics in the back, I would have known that the big banks, the pharmaceutical companies, the big Silicon Valley, big tech people, Google, Facebook, that Barack Obama structured his cabinet early on for the swamp and elites. Meaning, it was never structured to be progressive. It was structured for the elites and kind of do some of the same stuff and actually make the racial and income inequality worse in the United States.
Jamarlin Martin: When you look at the Geithner, the Larry Summers, the Eric Holder, who represented Purdue Pharma, which we’ve talked about on this podcast, or UBS, that when you look at the Obama cabinet, this is the corporate confederacy. These are the people who are running America. So it wouldn’t be intelligent for me or anyone else in my view to expect anything from Obama, based on how he was structured, who he had to report and answer to. It just wouldn’t be intelligent for me, looking back, to expect anything, because the way he structured his advisors and cabinet, who those people were in terms of lobbyists, and they’re connected to the ruling class, nothing’s going to change. When it’s structured like that, you shouldn’t be acting like a Santa Claus or Christmas in terms of hoping for something that’s not structured for material change. So you don’t get into it, political, religion with Obama or something else or Biden when you start inspecting what’s on the inside, the facts and how things are structured. Okay. So when you look at Biden in terms of folks from the military industrial complex, lobbyists and big tech. When you look at the folks that are in his cabinet, you shouldn’t be over-reaching and expecting something substantial that I don’t think that would be intelligent because he’s not structured that way.
Jamarlin Martin: When you inspect his advisors, such as his chief of staff Ron Klain. Ron Klain, if you’re not familiar with him, the Biden chief of staff, he’s the one who let the police write the crime bill. Biden brought him back. Of course, Ron Klain helped him with the politics of the crime bill. And of course, the record shows that the police wrote the crime bill and Biden and Ron Klain sat right there and allowed the police to write the crime bill. They didn’t really consider how lopsided a bill like that could be if the police, the police unions, they’re allowed to just write the bill. You’re not in the room, just Ron Klain, Biden and the police.
50:33 – Jamarlin Martin: So I want to leave you with this. With Biden, I wouldn’t expect anything from Biden. Okay. He told his donors, nothing is really going to change. And he structured his administration and cabinet in a way that nothing is likely to change. Obama sold you hope. Hope, change that you can believe in all these kinds of terms. You don’t want to go back to sleep and think that Biden is going to do something different. Biden and Obama, in a way, are like the same political animal. Essentially, who they answer to is not going to be you. They are structured where the status quo establishment, the corporate Confederacy, the folks who have been running America and will continue to run America.
Jamarlin Martin: And on that note, in terms of inspecting things. Hey, what are you talking about? You don’t know what you’re talking about. Well, let me say this. Marc Andreessen, the billionaire in Silicon Valley, the venture capitalist in Silicon Valley and the co-founder of Netscape. He said, you can look this up. He said that when he met Obama, when he was running for president, he said, he talked to him and looked in his eyes. And he said that this guy is no radical. This guy is not going to do sh-t. This guy is going to kind of protect the status quo. So the elites with the money, they looked and talked to Obama in 2007, 2008. And they said that this guy is not going to change sh-t. Of course, a lot of our people, we are optimistic people. We want to see ourselves. We want to believe, but the insiders, the real smart and money ones, they knew that Barack Obama wasn’t going to do sh-t. He wasn’t going to change anything. And they put it on the record. They put it on the record in real time. They were checking him out. The rulers were checking Obama out. And he said they had conversations with him. And they said that this guy poses no risk to the system. In my own words, pretty much, he’s going to keep things much of the same. He’s not going to kind of restructure things. He may say that in his speeches and suggest that there’s some big change coming, but Marc Andreessen and Silicon Valley, and his people said that he wasn’t going to change sh-t. And we are going to back him. You can look that up and that’s in the public record.
Jamarlin Martin: Thanks everybody for listening to GHOGH. You can check me out @Jamarlinmartin on Twitter and also come check us out at Moguldom.com. Be sure to subscribe to our daily newsletter. You can get the latest information on crypto, tech, economic empowerment and politics. Let’s GHOGH!