fbpx

Ep.264: Political Discourse Part II

Cannabis Economy Podcast
Ep.264: Political Discourse Part II

Ep.264: Political Discourse Part II

Recorded in May Charlie Rutherford and I sit down for our second helping of Political Discourse. We once again focus on how we each see policy. We first discuss Jeff Sessions and his War on Drugs redux. We talk about tax policy in association with government services. We discuss the environment and education. We talk about employment as it relates to wages, CEO wages and productivity. We discuss immigration. We talk about AI and how automation affects the prospects of employment in the US in the future. And of course, we discuss healthcare and the concept of repeal and replace and what replace means through discovering a means for replace. Finally we discuss the perception of the right on the left and the left on the right.

Transcript:

Speaker 1: Political discourse, part two, recorded in May. Charlie Rutherford and I sit down for our second helping of political discourse. We once again focus on how we each see policy. We first discussed jeff sessions and his war on drugs redux. We talk about tax, policy and association with government services. We discussed the environment in education. We talk about employment as it relates to wages, CEO wages and productivity. We discuss immigration. We talk about ai and how automation affects the prospects of employment in the US in the future, and of course we discuss health care and the concept of repeal and replace and what replaced means through discovering a means for replace. Finally, we discussed the perception of the right on the left and left on the right weapon to cannabis economy. I'm your host, Seth Adler. Check us out on social for the American economy. That's two ends of the word economy, political discourse.

Speaker 1: When we last spoke, we said we were going to check in quarterly. This is roughly quarterly. It's May. This'll probably come out in June. Close enough. Right. And I'm sure you know, through the conversation will be able to figure out exactly what day it was, but it doesn't even matter. First things first you asked me what would be the six signs of success for, uh, for this administration, unemployment down, wages up is what I said. Basically, yes, wages are up on unemployment's down. So let's just celebrate that. Let's handshake fan. Let's say, you know, hey, we're, we're doing something right. And it's been completely smooth sailing, which is the amazing part, not only as it happened, but I mean it's, it's like, uh, uh, a duck.

Speaker 2: We're above the water. It's nice and serene. But underneath it's this. And I mean, I think we have to admit that this transition has been so smooth. Well, so before we do that, and I appreciate the fact that, uh, that the, that, that we're going to discuss that, but what I have noticed, you know, again, to really talk about the issues to a re a position us or to position the conversation to remind folks I'm coming from the left, I tried to be in the center. Um, you're certainly not coming from the left I think is a fair way to put it. Yeah. I wouldn't say that I'm on the right and like I do each time that we're on here and we're talking politics. I do need to mention that these are my views and my views only and that's truly where the company that I worked for.

Speaker 2: Exactly. Yeah. So what I've noticed from the stock market, right, because now all I watched by the wise Bloomberg, if I'm watching the television, it's Bloomberg TV, meaning no talking heads about other stuff. I want to know what the yield on the 10 year interest rate is. That's what I want to nerd. Yeah, exactly. Um, but what I've noticed from watching this is that the markets seem to really appreciate a, a, an administration that is unabashedly pro business. And so we see the stock market is way up right since, uh, since they came in. Yes. Yeah. So, well until yesterday, because as we sit here, all of this special prosecutor stuff happened yesterday. Special counsel, but we'll get to special. Yeah. And, um, but yeah, you're absolutely right. I think that, um, and that was what we talked about last time we spoke where, uh, it, I would rather have somebody that was pro business in the macro sense and might have weaknesses on cannabis or potential weaknesses on cannabis than somebody who might have strengths in cannabis, but what I felt were big weaknesses in business.

Speaker 2: Right? Which is why you didn't vote for the libertarian candidate. I would imagine. That's correct. Frankston, cannabis weaknesses everywhere else, right? Or at least, uh, uh, possibly we weaknesses everywhere else. So, uh, so. Okay. So here I see I'm looking at business leaders. I'm looking at folks that, you know, where the money is and they just appreciate the fact that we're going to try to, you know, take regulations down and coming from cannabis, you and I save patient access with sensible regulations. We have to have sensible regulations. Absolutely. Right. So I'm there, you know, if the regulations that are currently in whatever industry it's in and whatever, whatever, if they need to be eased so that it makes more sense. Businesswise I'm fine with that. I do want clean water as we've discussed. I'm, I'm someone that does appreciate the kind of idea of the EPA who allows me to kind of feel good about the fact that I have clean water.

Speaker 2: Then of course with the EPA intact, there's Flint, Michigan and uh, no accountability. Has anyone gotten disciplined or fired over that? Ah, so that. Listen to everyone. We all want the same thing, right? We just questioned what the best way to do that is. D and so what I think is one of the paradoxes of this whole thing is you think that, okay, conservatives, they don't care about the earth because they don't care about water and they're not saving trees. And Dan, well, you know what though my, although I don't hunt and I don't really fish, but I do mountain bike. I want healthy trails. I want healthy woods, I want clean water because I want to go swimming or water skiing or something like that, and so we want the same thing. We just question whether it should be a government entity who we've realized in the flint is a fantastic example.

Speaker 2: Has No accountability. I mean who do you go in and wait, wave your finger out when they or the Colorado mind thing that when they polluted the river and turned it yellow because they opened up a mind that they weren't supposed to open up and so where's the person that gets in trouble? Where's the person that takes accountability for that? Right? Is the question. Yeah, exactly. Both of us have, right? So I tend to trust a, tend to put trust or more energy behind things that have some accountability like that. And I tend to also, I mean one of the good examples of people that Hate Walmart, right? Well, okay, if you don't like Walmart, you don't need to shop there. The thing with government though is government can arrest you. Sure. And so when government gets too big and you can't avoid doing business with the government tried to go get a license, a driver's license renewal, um, without using government, you can't do that, I don't think.

Speaker 2: I mean not legally, at least no one will probably be a really cheap laminated picture and it'll be actually be Steve Martin's photo over yours, laminated to a New York driver's license. And as we sit here in the DMV, DC, Maryland, Virginia area going to the DMV, I mean, I think left and right and center can agree. No one, no one really is looking forward to that. Right? So this is kind of where you know that, that that's within you and you like to actually kind of try to maybe figure that out. Why does that have to be so terrible? So let's talk about now jeff sessions. Let's, I, because I have a feeling that we're going to be on the same page here. There's the window rattling, but nothing happening in terms of cannabis, right? It does sound like medical cannabis is going to be left alone.

Speaker 1: Political discourse, part two, recorded in May. Charlie Rutherford and I sit down for our second helping of political discourse. We once again focus on how we each see policy. We first discussed jeff sessions and his war on drugs redux. We talk about tax, policy and association with government services. We discussed the environment in education. We talk about employment as it relates to wages, CEO wages and productivity. We discuss immigration. We talk about ai and how automation affects the prospects of employment in the US in the future, and of course we discuss health care and the concept of repeal and replace and what replaced means through discovering a means for replace. Finally, we discussed the perception of the right on the left and left on the right weapon to cannabis economy. I'm your host, Seth Adler. Check us out on social for the American economy. That's two ends of the word economy, political discourse.

Speaker 1: When we last spoke, we said we were going to check in quarterly. This is roughly quarterly. It's May. This'll probably come out in June. Close enough. Right. And I'm sure you know, through the conversation will be able to figure out exactly what day it was, but it doesn't even matter. First things first you asked me what would be the six signs of success for, uh, for this administration, unemployment down, wages up is what I said. Basically, yes, wages are up on unemployment's down. So let's just celebrate that. Let's handshake fan. Let's say, you know, hey, we're, we're doing something right. And it's been completely smooth sailing, which is the amazing part, not only as it happened, but I mean it's, it's like, uh, uh, a duck.

Speaker 2: We're above the water. It's nice and serene. But underneath it's this. And I mean, I think we have to admit that this transition has been so smooth. Well, so before we do that, and I appreciate the fact that, uh, that the, that, that we're going to discuss that, but what I have noticed, you know, again, to really talk about the issues to a re a position us or to position the conversation to remind folks I'm coming from the left, I tried to be in the center. Um, you're certainly not coming from the left I think is a fair way to put it. Yeah. I wouldn't say that I'm on the right and like I do each time that we're on here and we're talking politics. I do need to mention that these are my views and my views only and that's truly where the company that I worked for.

Speaker 2: Exactly. Yeah. So what I've noticed from the stock market, right, because now all I watched by the wise Bloomberg, if I'm watching the television, it's Bloomberg TV, meaning no talking heads about other stuff. I want to know what the yield on the 10 year interest rate is. That's what I want to nerd. Yeah, exactly. Um, but what I've noticed from watching this is that the markets seem to really appreciate a, a, an administration that is unabashedly pro business. And so we see the stock market is way up right since, uh, since they came in. Yes. Yeah. So, well until yesterday, because as we sit here, all of this special prosecutor stuff happened yesterday. Special counsel, but we'll get to special. Yeah. And, um, but yeah, you're absolutely right. I think that, um, and that was what we talked about last time we spoke where, uh, it, I would rather have somebody that was pro business in the macro sense and might have weaknesses on cannabis or potential weaknesses on cannabis than somebody who might have strengths in cannabis, but what I felt were big weaknesses in business.

Speaker 2: Right? Which is why you didn't vote for the libertarian candidate. I would imagine. That's correct. Frankston, cannabis weaknesses everywhere else, right? Or at least, uh, uh, possibly we weaknesses everywhere else. So, uh, so. Okay. So here I see I'm looking at business leaders. I'm looking at folks that, you know, where the money is and they just appreciate the fact that we're going to try to, you know, take regulations down and coming from cannabis, you and I save patient access with sensible regulations. We have to have sensible regulations. Absolutely. Right. So I'm there, you know, if the regulations that are currently in whatever industry it's in and whatever, whatever, if they need to be eased so that it makes more sense. Businesswise I'm fine with that. I do want clean water as we've discussed. I'm, I'm someone that does appreciate the kind of idea of the EPA who allows me to kind of feel good about the fact that I have clean water.

Speaker 2: Then of course with the EPA intact, there's Flint, Michigan and uh, no accountability. Has anyone gotten disciplined or fired over that? Ah, so that. Listen to everyone. We all want the same thing, right? We just questioned what the best way to do that is. D and so what I think is one of the paradoxes of this whole thing is you think that, okay, conservatives, they don't care about the earth because they don't care about water and they're not saving trees. And Dan, well, you know what though my, although I don't hunt and I don't really fish, but I do mountain bike. I want healthy trails. I want healthy woods, I want clean water because I want to go swimming or water skiing or something like that, and so we want the same thing. We just question whether it should be a government entity who we've realized in the flint is a fantastic example.

Speaker 2: Has No accountability. I mean who do you go in and wait, wave your finger out when they or the Colorado mind thing that when they polluted the river and turned it yellow because they opened up a mind that they weren't supposed to open up and so where's the person that gets in trouble? Where's the person that takes accountability for that? Right? Is the question. Yeah, exactly. Both of us have, right? So I tend to trust a, tend to put trust or more energy behind things that have some accountability like that. And I tend to also, I mean one of the good examples of people that Hate Walmart, right? Well, okay, if you don't like Walmart, you don't need to shop there. The thing with government though is government can arrest you. Sure. And so when government gets too big and you can't avoid doing business with the government tried to go get a license, a driver's license renewal, um, without using government, you can't do that, I don't think.

Speaker 2: I mean not legally, at least no one will probably be a really cheap laminated picture and it'll be actually be Steve Martin's photo over yours, laminated to a New York driver's license. And as we sit here in the DMV, DC, Maryland, Virginia area going to the DMV, I mean, I think left and right and center can agree. No one, no one really is looking forward to that. Right? So this is kind of where you know that, that that's within you and you like to actually kind of try to maybe figure that out. Why does that have to be so terrible? So let's talk about now jeff sessions. Let's, I, because I have a feeling that we're going to be on the same page here. There's the window rattling, but nothing happening in terms of cannabis, right? It does sound like medical cannabis is going to be left alone.

Speaker 2: There was some words you know about maybe recreational. We're going to call it ever. It seems like nothing's happening there. I would imagine you're okay with that? Absolutely. Okay. With that. Uh, I mean it did make a, make me a little bit nervous when recently they talked about making sure that they're charging people with the full extent of the law. Well, so that, that's the next thing, right? Is the, what are we talking about in terms of the war on drugs and doubling down on that. If, if I am agreeing with Pat Robertson, Reverend Pat Robertson who came out and said, Jeff, you're crazy for doubling down on this for no other reason. This costs way too much and you can't point to any results of any value. Forgetting about the people that are, you know, completely and totally harmed lives completely and totally, uh, you know, a torn apart.

Speaker 2: It's just expensive. Why would we do this? I'm clearly, I everyone's hope is that they're going to focus on drugs that are not cannabis. Sure. A fentanyl for instance. Absolutely. Um, I mean there's just so much going on there that I hope that gets their attention first. The things that are actually hurting people and killing people because once again, there is a great conservative case to be made for cannabis. Yeah. And one of those things is state run. States' rights as trump is at least said that he supports and that sessions as a extensively a conservative would also support. And so, uh, and then also the fiscal side of things too. So my hope is that when they're too busy charging people to the fullest extent of the law, that their attention is too focused on other drugs. Or maybe the guy who is. I heard this stupid story of a guy that was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Speaker 2: He runs a New York restaurant and he accepted lobster tails that were one inch too short. This the regulations. This is the kind of thing goes for 15 years. And so that's the bit. That's the long live the government. Why would we do that? I totally agree. That doesn't make any. So you're a small government left of center person. Well, so we, what I'm focused on is that, uh, we, we agree that jeff sessions shouldn't double down on the war, on drugs. Right? So let's try to get to where you're going with, you know, labeling me, which, which I'm fine with by the way. So. All right, so that's jeff sessions. Okay, we agree. We're talking about fiscal policy and all that. Where do you come down with the bigger picture here of a, of relying on growth to now this is kind of outside of our thing here, but it speaks to where we are and you know, what we're doing. So they've got this whole tax cut plan, which they probably are not gonna be able to get to because we got to talk about the other thing. Um, but it relies on growth being x for it to be paid for. So I am somebody that doesn't understand. Um, so when this fake thing comes true, the thing that we're going to do now, the money that we're spending now is actually going to be paid back. I don't get that. Do you get that?

Speaker 2: Well, if you're referring to whether or not tax cuts will be able to pay for programs, is that what you're saying? No, no. So what they do, the growth plan, the tax plan is they say I'm with three percent growth and we're under two percent right now, but we should be around two percent, whatever. But when growth is three percent, the tax get that we're putting in place right now that we're going to do will be paid for down the road. Once we get to the three percent growth that we should have because of this tax cut like that. So many if, ands, or buts. I think they're arguing the wrong thing. What they shouldn't be arguing is, yes, here's lower taxes. Yes. Oh my gosh. How are you going to pay for the programs? Because we're going to lop off the Department of Education because we're going to lop off the EPA because we're going to lop off most of the Va.

Speaker 2: Yeah, make it private because we've got 300,000 veterans that have died over the last, I think since the Iraq war, waiting on artificial wait lists. And so that would be mY answer if I were them. and so I, I candidly, I don't know why they're not making a stronger case for doing because listen, if you were. I had more or less money coming in. Our budget should change based on that. Right. And so total, my wife recently became a stay at home, a kitten mother and house manager and a homemaker. And so there was a barber by the way. And barbara, you look fantastic. thank you very much. Yes.

Speaker 2: So we had to make adjustments. Okay. There's maybe certain things that we will or won't be able to do now based on there's money coming in. So those I think are common sense decisions that a country should need to make to. And. But the crazy thing is, is we know from the american healthcare act, once you give something, someone for free, it's really, really hard to take it away to scale that back. So you know, as far as epa with Scott Pruitt in charge of it, as far as education with a betsy devoss in charge of it, we talked about this last time a little bit. I mean as far as I can see, they're basically there to dismantle it and why not just dismantle it, save the money. And you know, when we don't have a department of education, when we don't have a, the epa folks can then decide whether know voters can then decide whether they would want that again.

Speaker 2: Because I really think that that is what we should do now is actually get rid of those things so we can see what it looks like without those things so that we can really have this conversation. Okay. Then like in 10 years, charlie and I can sit down and say, alright, when we took out the app, epa, here's what happened. So now when, if we put it back in epa, this is what we absolutely need and this is what we absolutely don't need so that we know what isn't wasted and what is wasted and we know what the true value of the epa is because I think we as voters don't know that it's like this big huge thing that we can't see. Is that fair? That's absolutely fair. And the same goes the other direction. How can they be trusted here in Washington dc to know what's best for a certain area in California? [inaudible].

Speaker 2: Um, so I would say that if states want to have their own epa version, great, fantastic. Go for it because you've lopped off my and your federal taxes. We're not feeding that huge in effective animal. And then maybe the states want to tax us more or whatever. And then we can decide where we want to live. Maybe I want to go to Mississippi because there is no epa there and everything's fine and you can be in any river that you want or you can drain any swamp that you want or whatever. You can drain any swamp that you want. You can't. It's so interesting that you can't wait to get to that. I'm like trying to get through the stuff before we get to that guy. I'd like to tell you that was intentional, but that was totally not as vIsceral. Um, so. Okay. So that again, that's where we are, you know, with a.

Speaker 2: Okay, if you're going to do the tech, but actually it's because we're taking away the epa will taken back to the department of education. We're leaving that up to the states. Although I do, I do. Let me interject that. I do tend to believe that once you release some of the chains that are on many of the industries, man taxes or you stop scaring them overseas, stop scaring their businesses overseas and they can repatriate their profits back to the us. I don't think it's unrealistic to think that we could hit three percent, well that gets to, and I don't want to go too far in on the fiscal stuff, but that gets back into unemployment is down all the way. Wages are like creeping up, but not really. Not in the same way at a unemployment's coming down, not in the same way the profits are going up, not in the same way that here ready for this ceo salaries are going up and so we do have a separation of joe regular guy not making enough to kind of pay for his or her daily situation because me the company, I can't justify paying you more because productivity is down.

Speaker 2: Yes, profits are up, but productivity isn't what it used to be, so I can't give you a raise and so now we're in this weird cycle of even if we are growing, regular guy isn't growing. What do you think about that? I think that that. I don't think that can really fully be discussed without also talking about immigration. Why? Because if you've got a higher population of people that are willing to take jobs that people have in the past said americans are not willing to do what part of that reason is because really inexpensive labor has for years been flooding into the country and those are correct. No, no longer jobs. People, americans won't do because they don't pay what they used to because unfortunately people have been taking advantage of illegal immigrants and paying them wages below what they should be. Yes. But that's better than where they come from.

Speaker 2: So that's a win for them. Got it. So I think that seen through that lens where if we sort out the legal immigration, which is great illegal immigration, which is not great, uh, then I think then that we all of a sudden have a situation where we can pay people more for jobs that they would be willing to do now that the wages are where they should or supposed to be. And so this brings us to what are those jobs, right? And what is the education and do those things need to change? What I'm seeing right now, I do a, I have conversations with other people in other industries about a ai and about robotic process automation and about people losing a regular people losing their jobs to automation and so what those industries are saying is, well, no, we're going to give them new and different jobs based on the automation taking, you know, regular administrative jobs, things that robots can do. We let that we let the automation take care of so that the humans can do strategic and you know, better jobs, which brings up kind of this continuing education thing. So if I'm a coal miner in West Virginia, the goal shouldn't necessarily be to get my old coal mining job back each should be to get a job in strategy in energy.

Speaker 2: What are your thoughts on that? Yeah, it's a. I mean, the humankind has been dealing with this for ever right? Hundred years now. I'm sure that the lamp lighters association really, really tried to repel the first electronic stoplight. That's right. A printing press was a horrible idea. It's absolutely. And the cotton gin and dan. And so I think what it also puts a focus on is the question of whether or not college is necessary college in its current form because jen, its current form it, right? Right. Because with the, to get a little bit wonky here, since anyone can get a loan for college and everyone's going, that devalues what the end product is, which is a diploma. Sure. If, if you finish. Yeah. So it, everybody's a doctor. if everybody's a medical doctor who are the best medical doctors because I don't want to go to everybody.

Speaker 2: That's absolutely right. And when you have a, maybe a different word that work ethic or the perception of in some of the generation now that's in college. YeAh. Um, uh, you leave, there's a lot of jobs that are going unfilled because we're telling people you need to go to college. Well if you like working with your hands and you don't feel like you're an intellectual or you don't want to get into marketing, maybe you aren't better as an electrician. You get to work with your hands or a carpenter or those kinds of things. Those are fantastic jobs. And those, that's what built America, and so I think the insistence that we need to send people to college almost against their will, I think is a, is a little bit misguided. I love the idea that every generation wants their kids to have a better life than they do, but better can be subjective. I agreed and I think that as we go here,

Speaker 2: the education that I got got in college in some in some way does relate to what I'm doing now, which is wonderful. However, I don't have a a bachelor's in podcasting and so, you know, every 20, 15, 20 years here, jobs are really changing and so I need to continually educate myself as we go. I did not leArn how to edit audio in college. I needed to continually educate myself as I went to Improve my particular job or at least to stay employed. And so I think that that goes for the rest of us on earth, rIght? We're in this age of information. I could know everything that an economics graduate would know by finding it online, reading books, talking to other experts, getting mentored by people. And so I really wonder if the university system and the way that we know it now, whether It's a campus and you physically go to it and you live on it and you buy a million dollar books that you go into deadly and dollar buying and uh, you know, you worked at the first 15 years of your life to pay off this debt.

Speaker 2: Yep. Um, I think those days could very well be over that. It feels like they're at least numbered. And it certainly, I mean, again, just speaking of looking at a balance sheet that doesn't seem to make sense to put up all of this money up front and don't worry about it. You'll make it up later when we get to three percent growth. It's the same kind of thinking, which we agree does not make sense. Okay, good. So we're on the same page. We've solved education, right? We've figured out how we can do a tax cut policy that makes sense in this under the current administration, meaning this current administration won the election. They get to do what they want to do, but let's let them do that. Which gets us back to health care, so I never understood repeal and replace from a conservative or right wing point of view.

Speaker 2: What I understood was you want to repeal it, which I understand speaking out of the front of your mouth, I get you don't like the fact that there's the mandatory this and the mandatory that and the fact that there can't be a true market because we put up the walls between the states. All that makes sense to me. You want to repeal it. Why would you want to replace it? I don't understand. I don't think Paul Ryan really wants to replace it. You know what I mean? I don't. What are you replacing it, but that's not your policy. You would rather the market work it out. Yeah, and I think that maybe that's what they mean by replace this, replace it with a free market system, but nothing that they've replaced it with. Exactly. And that's what the. That's why there is a number of pitchforks out for Paul Ryan and because we feel like it was a big slap in the face, not only did the republicans can completely capitulate on the budget, which would, you know, oh, the quick budget to get it through for the next thing, kick the can down the road doing the same old thing.

Speaker 2: And so what I feel like is that republicans are oftentimes trying to be the nice guy and you can nice guy yourself right out of power again, you can nice guy yourself into the status quo of right. And um, and so, uh, that was a disappointment for me. But to replay actually replace it to me would mean let's erase state borders. Yes. Let's see. I'm with you 100 percent on that. RIght? and we're coming from different points of view on this, right? Why should it be that an, a self employed person like so many people are not say, hey, I will shop around and go, I want to get into that pool, this one. Exactly. It shouldn't. It doesn't need to necessarily be tied to employment. Yeah. Let me take the tangent of nice guy that you just because uh, this is why we have these conversations, you and me because um, I think that anyone with a left wing perspective or coming from the left, uh, would not think that a conservative or right wing or a republican guy is playing the part of the nice guy.

Speaker 2: NO one would think that from that point of view. Right? And then we've all got horns, right? And then the end quite similarly on the other side, you know, anybody conservative, right? You would not think that the left wing is playing the nice guy. And I certainly can see how that is the case. Oh, well they're just trying to get it all. Why can't we all just. So what's the difference between playing the nice guy and negotiating, you know, finding common ground. Is it the fact that we're not even talking about the right common ground that's the issue as opposed to, you know, being a nice guy or should we hold firm and you know, it's got to be x and that's that will the nice guy is doing the negotiating. Okay. The not nice guy. Yeah, when he's got contRol of the house and senate, right.

Speaker 2: SteAm rules that we. They don't have to have any conversations about this stuff because yeah. Is your point of view though, and I totally understand. So if we're in complete control, there's no reason to not just do it the way that we want it. Why are we even playing around here? And my call is please do that. And the reason that I'm saying that is because I think that it will be proven wrong if you make the whole thing a tax cut, but I think that instead of that, it's, here's where we will come to the table. We're in complete control. We're going to jam this thing through. Here's what we will give you. we'll take down the walls in between the states. We will do, we will take out the mandatory whatever because no one likes that. Here's what all americans don't like you telling me what to do, right?

Speaker 2: No american likes that from all the way left to the all the way. right? Why a, could we do that? could we say if, if, if we do these, we'll do these three things, vote for it, you know what I mean? Why not take down the walls? Why was that not in the eight? Like where do you see? because I don't think that the left thinks that there shouldn't be a free market as far as that's concerned. I think that that's capitulating to the insurance companies. Uh, it absolutely could be. Um, uh, what we definitely know and I think they've done a horrible job of selling the healthcare repeal, replace whatever the heck they're calling it. Yeah. Whether we agree with it or not, but they're the worst salesman on the planet because you've got this smoldering fire of insurers who are dropping out of the obamacare exchanges because it is.

Speaker 2: They're taking millions and multiple millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and the republicans can't sell their alternative in the face of something. That's my, that's just been going to integrating and up and up and up. All I should be doing is listening. Let me ask you this. Is healthcare supposed to be a for profit business? Because what I've been thinking more and more after reading charles krauthammer, by the way, I read this spectrum of news now, you sure do, and he says he thinks that the single payer thing is now on the table. He of course hates the idea of it. my new thinking is maybe healthcare shouldn't be this for profit thing. However, while it still is, take down the walls between the states, add single payer as an option, right? To compete against the insurance company so they actually have a competition. So they actually have to provide us with a product that makes sense.

Speaker 2: A price. That makes sense. Well, I absolutely agree and that's what the problem with the current in this proceeds obamacare. Sure. But that's the problem with going to the doctor. You don't know what anything costs. You get an explanation of benefits and you're like, do I need to pay this fricking thing or not? Even though it says do not pay up at the top because then you'll know you'll get a bill from whatever service. ExActly. So look at the industries that work well when there is a transparency in what's your pink lazic that's not a complicated thing. Nope. And now you can go get your eyes fixed for a thousand dollars. What? Which sounds about right? Yeah. You're going to fix my vision forever and it costs me a thousand dollars. Yes. That price makes sense for the service that you're providing, right? I need to go in and I need to get an adjustment for my prosthesis more.

Speaker 2: Right now I'm in the market for a new one because this one is three years old and there's better technology. Go back and listen to the first charlie rutherford a episode to understand what he's talking about. Go on a. I sometimes forget that. And um, there is, I mean, what this actually costs and what my insurance company ends up paying our way different and there's huge money in it and there's a passive. The, I don't know how much it costs, it's just my insurAnce company paying the provider. And so if we get Back to a spot where, hey, you know what, I've got a sore throat. The minute clinics or something like that, if you go in and you go get a strep test, you know a strep test is going to cost you 50 bucks. You go to the emergency room, that's five, $800 to do the same thing.

Speaker 2: So without answering the question, we both agree that there needs to be clarity and price clarity and service clarity of cross the board because no one has any idea what the hell is going on. Having said that, I'll ask you again. Do you think charlie, that healthcare is a for profit industry? I think it is. Yeah. I think it is because ends with people dying, right? I really did help bring me along as to how it could be in my really rosy world of idealism if the free market was going to control this and there was going to be transparency and what things cost if there was going to be erased the borders on insurance. All of a sudden we, I'd hope That we'd see the cost of things start dropping in that scenario. People are paying less. Um, and if there is not money leftover at the end of the day, it's impossible to innovate.

Speaker 2: So while I don't like the idea that choices would be made between, you know, who gets care and who doesn't get care, hopefully everyone would have care because it'd be easier to find good insurance for a low price that doesn't have a deductible, that basically means you don't have insurance because that's, even though you have insurance, that doesn't mean anything unless it's paying out. That's right. Unless You don't have to spend 10 grand before it pays out. That'S right. That's not insurance. That's just a biding by the law. Because your requirement is to own it. Well, yes, exactly. Which is the mandatory thing which we hate also. I'm hundreds and hundreds of dollars each month. I'm just paying for nothing because then when I actually go to the doctor I got to lay out more because what are the rules and what am I paying for? What's what?

Speaker 2: Right. All right. So we're, we're kind of somewhere, you know, close on that. So how many innovations have been saving people's lives because they're figuring out everyday, hey, that doesn't work, this is a better way to do it, better equipment, that kind of thing, because they are, they are a business. I think they need to be run as a business and part of it is also whether you think that healthcare is a right or if it's a privilege. So then I think what we're saying is at least for the time being, I think it's a right. You think it's a privilege, is that fair? Yes. Right. And we'll come back to that one. But again, there is some common ground there. I just finally on that part of it pharmaceuticals. So I found, I saw the most fascinating commercial the other day, opioid induced constipation.

Speaker 2: SO you have now opioid induced constipation. And so here's a pill that solves the opioid induced constipation. Here's the issue with that. The reason that I have opioid induced constipation is because of the opioid that you prescribed me. So now you're selling me through the television somehow in some way there's an advertisement that's a whole different conversation. A pill to solve the pill that you sold me. What? Yes, it's, hey, since made a mistake or I maybe got you hooked on something that can kill you, let me at least help you out by giving you this so you can evacuate properly and we wonder why there's such costs in healthcare. RighT? It is such a racket and, and that's what I get a kick out of. As I see more and more states and we're, we're trying to be there on the ground helping them write legislation that makes sense.

Speaker 2: And is that they? They're always talking about things, but through the lens of opioids. Oh, dosing. Oh, in the hands of children. Oh, all those things. They all might have their merit, but they're also thinking of them through the, through the lens of opiates. Yeah. The reason that you're talking about dosing or the reason that you are worried about setting a cap is because if there weren't a camper opioids, many more people would be dying. That's not going to happen with cannabis. And so, um, it, it, it boggles my mind how they, um, and maybe it does come down to money and, and contributions of how you can have an industry that mark started marketing a product as the safe opioids are safe. These are safe. Sure. So whenever you hear somebody call something the safest, you usually have to wonder really, is it because that's how the company that invented oxycodone started marketing it?

Speaker 2: Sure. Safe, safe. So, and it's killing people. Yeah. So I, um, which is annoying as cannabis people because we actually know that this is safe, you know, it's, it's whatever you do to cannabis that would make it something other than safe. But if you grow it from the ground, no matter how pretty it looks when it comes out, that stuff's not going to kill you because it never has. That's right. Unless you try to eat on it, eat it, and your choke on it or something like that happened several times in history. Iran, right? You know, there's the moron rope. We're allowed to cite that. So. All right, so we're there together. Of course, you know, cannabis being our, uh, ultimate partnership. So finally, what the hell's going on here? I mean, what is, you know, so I want to let, I just want you to take it. I'm not gonna say anything.

Speaker 2: You gotta eat every. This isn't a surprise to anyone. This is all baked in. You knew this. everyone knew this when they did or did not vote for this guy. Fair. And he has severe deficiencies. He has questionable character. Yes. He has a huge mouth. Yes. He is an attention seeker. Yeah. He loves to hear the sound of his own name. He loves to make news. All of those things are happening now. Granted there's a little bit more at stake. And so for a guy that, um, there's no question that most of the media is out to get him. Well, usually he's also handing them the rope and then pulling his color down so they can securely wrap it around his neck. Right. So it's crazy to me. I just saw something yesterday that in his national security briefings, they need to pepper it with his name so he reads it.

Speaker 2: OtherwiSe, if it does not have his name, he doesn't read It. We knew all of this. This is not a surprise. We knew this about this egomaniac, right? That is a loose cannon. So I, uh, I have really largely unplugged and except to get educated because I knew that we would have this conversation and I didn't want to be a month behind. Right? But it hurts my head, seth. Hey, it really, really does. And so I can't defend then the largely indefensible or the guy that's gonna, you know, figure out a way to go step on his own press secretary six minutes after the guy makes an unequivocal statement. Right? But that's the world that we're living in. Some of us, sadly. And I just, um, it's, it is frustrating to see all of the mistakes and foibles, but I think that, uh, you know, he is the president and uh, I want, if it were hillary, I'd want to see her do well, would have some differences in policy.

Speaker 2: But, uh, listen, he's my president and I want them to do well because I want to see the country do well. Um, and uh, even though I voted for him doesn't mean I agree with him on everything and yeah, I would have much rather had him prove everyone wrong and come out and all of a sudden find character at 70, all of a sudden decide that he is going to be a humble human being. Right? But we really knew that wasn't going to happen. So you're just not surprised. And I mean, I would imagine this is frustrating because literally we can't, that tax thing that we talked about. We're not going to probably talk about that until 20, 18 now. No matter what, like nothing. What is frustrating to me as an american is that, um, well, first off, I mean the language is tearing us apart the way that it's discussed.

Speaker 2: And I hate that, you know what I mean? I hate that as an american, I wouldn't want any democrat to do that. I wouldn't want any politician to. Why would we, what are we doing, which are supposed to Be the same country, you know what I mean? So that's the thing that I think that I hate most about the approach. Um, and then I'll let, I won't even speak anything. I won't even add to what you just stated because I agree with you completely. Well, what I hope is that, okay, let the, let the politicians who will forever be skeptical of the other side's motivation. Let's go ahead. Let's let them do that. American people, because we all have what? Thirteen percent trust in them. The only people that have a lower favor ability than the president or congress. So let's let them fight. But let's let you and me sit here and talk.

Speaker 2: Why are we going to have what is happening in one small place that isn't even a fricking state? Yeah. Why are we going to let them dictate whether or not I create a relationship with you? Why are we going to let those people create a divide between us? Why are we going to let their vitriol informed the way we speak to one another even if we don't agree on stuff. And so I think that if we are too close to the politics, then all of a sudden that infects us and that makes me skeptical of somebody who might not think like me. Well, you know what, I have a weird world right now where I sit here with you and I might be one of the few republicans in building, but when I go to and talk to legislators in Florida, I have everything in common with them except cannabis.

Speaker 2: Right? And so I'm a man without a state almost everywhere I go because I don't completely fit in any one spot. That's it. But I talked to everybody because I don't, I don't want to have an opinion. Yeah. Stand in the way of being able to create a relationship. That's exactly why we are doing this. Every quarter I couldn't have said that better myself. And as we go here, I'm more and more, less and less agreeing with george carlin who said we should stay on the sidelines as politics and more and more agreeing with glen peterson from [inaudible] who says, uh, well I, I, I feel this way or that way. But I'm a political party of one, right? Yes, I can get that. Absolutely. So I just don't want to be consumed by it. There's so many beautiful things in the world that, uh, or I mean in life that are happening and I just don't want to miss it by, uh, by, by always paying too much attention to stuff because it, uh, it's just fun.

Speaker 2: It's just hiring well, paying too much attention to stuff means not thinking for yourself, meaning if you just watch msnbc all day. And I just watched fox news all day. I did it that way on purpose. Um, and we kind of get that kind of drilled into our brains and we're not actually thinking when the, when that information is kind of getting eat buried into are burrowed into our brains, I then start to sound exactly like fox news. You start to sound exactly like msnbc and where are we? We're nowhere. I'm, I'm here thinking for myself happily. And it sounds like you're here thinking for yourself happily as well. Yeah. Yeah. It just gets in the way of relationships. And uh, I think that, I think that we could, people can have great conversations on because it comes down to philosophical differences. We all want the same thing.

Speaker 2: Yup. But once again, we have a philosophy on how it should happen. We all want healthcare. You want, I want everyone to have healthcare. Even though I see it as a privilege, I would just rather people pay for it instead of you or me paying for it on behalf of people who, who could pay for it themselves. But we didn't even see how that just came up. That's not even the point. We didn't even talk about that when we talked about healthcare, what we talked about with setting up a system that actually makes sense. You know what I mean? That's the ancillary kind of, you know, who pays for this? No, no, no, no. First off, what are the insurance companies doing? How much are we paying into that and what services are they providing and what is their competition that. That's number one. Let's just get through number one first before we discuss the kind of the next thing. Right, right. Oh charlie, I think this is successful. I feel like we're, you know what I mean? We're finding common ground, we're doing the thing and other people you know, can hear it and hopefully do that too. Right. You know, what's the point of not listening and not thinking. Yeah. I think the main takeaway was a, was that one statement that don't let opinions be a, to creating relationships,

Speaker 1: whereas we're humans. We're ending it there. I would ask you for a song if you have a song, tell me really hooked on ben howard these days. I think it's called small things or little things. Yeah. Oh, good stuff. It's, it is the little things in life, charlie, isn't it? Agreed. Great to see a south. Of course. Likewise. And I can't wait to do it again. You got it. And there you have political discourse. Very much appreciate charlie's time. Really appreciate just talking about we, the people talking about, uh, you know, our government and what the hell is going on, right? To steal a phrase. So check back on episode 13 if you want to know charlie's backstory and thanks for listening.

Read the full transcript:

Become a member to access to webinars, quarterly reports, contributor columns, shows, excerpts, and complete podcast transcripts

Become a Member

Already a member? Login here.

Subscribe now to get every episode.

Cannabis Economy is a real-time history of legal cannabis. We chronicle how personal and industry histories have combined to provide our current reality.