fbpx

Ep.316: Political Discourse IV

Cannabis Economy Podcast
Ep.316: Political Discourse IV

Ep.316: Political Discourse IV

Recorded in Las Vegas at MJ Biz Con in November, Charlie Rutherford returns for Political Discourse IV. At the time the tax bill being debated came under the guise of tax reform. We now know that it became simply a tax cut. We discuss the benefit of corporate taxes coming down while unpacking the short-term middle-class tax cuts resulting in those middle-class taxes actually going up over a 10 year period. We discuss killing the State and Local income tax or SALT deduction and it’s effects. We discuss the realities facing the Reagan tax cuts- corporate profits being low and interest rates being high- the opposite of the current economic reality. We talk about that economic reality as a playing field for We The People. And we discuss the definition of a free market.

Transcript:

Speaker 1: Political discourse part four recorded in Las Vegas at Mj Biz in November. Charlie Rutherford returns for political discourse part for at the time the tax bill was being debated, came under the guise of tax reform. We now know it became simply a tax cut. We discussed the benefit of corporate taxes coming down while unpacking the short term middle class tax cuts, resulting in those middle class taxes actually going up over a 10 year period. We discussed killing these state and local income tax or salt deduction and its effects. We discussed the realities facing the Reagan tax cuts, corporate profits being low and interest rates being high, the opposite of the current economic reality. We talk about the economic reality as a playing field for read the people and we discussed the definition of a free market. What can they? Cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the Hammock can economy.

Speaker 1: That's two ends of the word economy. Political discourse. I wouldn't argue it all at a. They make really great heart at wearing really great software. Just I've never been an apple guy. I think it's started when the iphone came out. What was it, a decade ago? Yeah. Two thousand six. And I was not in a spot where I could afford one and I think I resented people that type of deal. I then I just never got ya. Yeah. So they were like, there's an APP for that. And Charlie's like, not for me. No, there is no bastards. Right? I mean I had an ipod. Sure. And uh, so yeah, especially with the new developments with that cigar, find her out from cigar aficionado not being on the APP store anymore. Oh, because they don't want to promote where people can go and enjoy a legal pleasure. Yeah.

Speaker 1: So, well, um, there's a, there's a, a fair amount of that these days. Yeah. Well, and that's the thing is that I think there are more alliances that can be made between the cannabis community and the cigar community because even though they might have hostility towards one another about what it is that they're smoking, the reality is that they are both fighting the for personal freedom. Here's, and I'm with you, and I think that if you are someone that has hostility towards anyone and you're from the cannabis industry, you're doing the wrong thing. I would tend to agree because the mountain top. Are you shouting from friend? Yes. Yeah. I mean there was people that blazed trails before cannabis to allow for easier integration into society and we joked around Bova even as recently as six, seven years ago, that, uh, there would be a day where it would be more acceptable to consume cannabis than it would be cigars.

Speaker 1: Well, we're seeing that already. I mean, we've been seeing it happen for a number of years, especially in California where you can't have a cigar outdoors in a totally isolated patio in your own patio type of thing. Well, I don't know your own personal private residences, but I remember we'd go to a restaurant and there's no one else out on the patio. Yeah, no. Well, so then you bring up a, your company. This would be a good time to remind folks that, uh, all of your opinions expressed here on these political discourse, uh, episodes are on my own. Yeah, yeah. People don't want company I am from. What's that? If people know what company, I mean, if they go back and look at the Pantheon of Charlie Rutherford episodes, they, they can certainly figure it out. But you just did mention the company by name, which I think we should keep in a because it's so apropos.

Speaker 1: Political discourse part four recorded in Las Vegas at Mj Biz in November. Charlie Rutherford returns for political discourse part for at the time the tax bill was being debated, came under the guise of tax reform. We now know it became simply a tax cut. We discussed the benefit of corporate taxes coming down while unpacking the short term middle class tax cuts, resulting in those middle class taxes actually going up over a 10 year period. We discussed killing these state and local income tax or salt deduction and its effects. We discussed the realities facing the Reagan tax cuts, corporate profits being low and interest rates being high, the opposite of the current economic reality. We talk about the economic reality as a playing field for read the people and we discussed the definition of a free market. What can they? Cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the Hammock can economy.

Speaker 1: That's two ends of the word economy. Political discourse. I wouldn't argue it all at a. They make really great heart at wearing really great software. Just I've never been an apple guy. I think it's started when the iphone came out. What was it, a decade ago? Yeah. Two thousand six. And I was not in a spot where I could afford one and I think I resented people that type of deal. I then I just never got ya. Yeah. So they were like, there's an APP for that. And Charlie's like, not for me. No, there is no bastards. Right? I mean I had an ipod. Sure. And uh, so yeah, especially with the new developments with that cigar, find her out from cigar aficionado not being on the APP store anymore. Oh, because they don't want to promote where people can go and enjoy a legal pleasure. Yeah.

Speaker 1: So, well, um, there's a, there's a, a fair amount of that these days. Yeah. Well, and that's the thing is that I think there are more alliances that can be made between the cannabis community and the cigar community because even though they might have hostility towards one another about what it is that they're smoking, the reality is that they are both fighting the for personal freedom. Here's, and I'm with you, and I think that if you are someone that has hostility towards anyone and you're from the cannabis industry, you're doing the wrong thing. I would tend to agree because the mountain top. Are you shouting from friend? Yes. Yeah. I mean there was people that blazed trails before cannabis to allow for easier integration into society and we joked around Bova even as recently as six, seven years ago, that, uh, there would be a day where it would be more acceptable to consume cannabis than it would be cigars.

Speaker 1: Well, we're seeing that already. I mean, we've been seeing it happen for a number of years, especially in California where you can't have a cigar outdoors in a totally isolated patio in your own patio type of thing. Well, I don't know your own personal private residences, but I remember we'd go to a restaurant and there's no one else out on the patio. Yeah, no. Well, so then you bring up a, your company. This would be a good time to remind folks that, uh, all of your opinions expressed here on these political discourse, uh, episodes are on my own. Yeah, yeah. People don't want company I am from. What's that? If people know what company, I mean, if they go back and look at the Pantheon of Charlie Rutherford episodes, they, they can certainly figure it out. But you just did mention the company by name, which I think we should keep in a because it's so apropos.

Speaker 1: Alright, so here we are again, right? Political discourse. I like it better when we're in person, but you and I know each other well enough that we can do these my phone and it's fine. But, but here we are together in a literally sin city. Las Vegas we talked about on the way over here at, uh, it doesn't bring out the best and the brightest from everybody. Yeah. Yeah. There's um, and there's no culture because there's a million cultures and in a different way than New York City is what I would have to say as a New Yorker because I think that's in some ways inauthentic culture. This is a manufactured 100 percent of a bunch of people living in an area that should have, be able to support human life. It's in the middle of a desert in the middle of a valley and uh, it, uh, it should support human life, but it, it certainly does.

Speaker 1: And thanks to Bugsy Siegel and the voice and because at the time it was the boys. That's right. So, um, so, okay, so we're here and we're on the precipice as we dive in on topics. We've got tax reform on the, uh, on the docket here. Um, we got, um, well let's, let's just talk about that. I think there's a lot to talk about. So I sent you an article and, uh, now now that's what we're doing is I'm sending you articles is what we're, it's like the cliff notes for what we're going to be talking about people. We really do not prepare for this. It's really just winging it. Flowers and advance. But there was an article that exchange stance and in that article I found it interesting because here I am. All right, right. Um, so I'm, you know, I'm, I come from the left, try to be in the middle.

Speaker 1: And you, how do you describe yourself again? I come from the right and try to stay there. Sounds, sounds about right. And, uh, that's the first time you said it that way and keep that because that's, that's good. Um, but, you know, in tax reform, uh, conversations in the past, not between you and me, but between kind of everybody. It's always been, well, we're going to reduce people's taxes and that's what a kind of usually on the right one to do. Usually on the left people are like, well, but, uh, the deficit and then the folks on the right side. Yeah. But you weren't worried about the deficit when we were talking about x, y, and Z. anything else other than defense and, uh, so that's why I find myself trying to be in the middle because I don't, you know, I'm not trying to be on a team here.

Speaker 1: I already have a team. It's the United States of America right now. We are actually on the same team. Absolutely. Right. So, um, so let's start with those two things, right? So, uh, I see tax reform coming, first reaction, you know, and it's like visceral deficit. Your thoughts. Uh, well, uh, you made see tax reform coming, but that train is driven by a bunch of knuckle faces. It will be shocking if they get anything done. Okay. Um, but yeah, the, the, the question becomes whether the decrease in taxes can spur enough business and enough people to invest in, create and hire in order to make up for what would not be coming into the government. Right. There you go. And my case I would make is let's have government spend less. Sure. Okay. So you're saying we might be talking about the wrong thing here. Even if even even though I do believe that in some ways lowering taxes will give people more incentive to grow a business.

Speaker 1: Hire people pay more. I mean, you can pay. No, you wouldn't get paid more because you pay yourself. Right, exactly. I might get paid more if corporate taxes are lower shortcodes because once again it showed up in the last episode that even though my bosses might look like they are super, super wealthy, the reality is that they do their taxes in a certain way, that they are an individual. Right. And so if you give them more money, odds are good that I'm going to make more money. What does that mean? Well, it means I'm probably going to spend more money. I'm an American. We like stuff. Yeah. But I'm also going to give more to my church. Yep. Also going to have more money to give to people in need because I, um, it's a responsibility of mine to do that. Yup. And so I do believe that it does have the chance of increasing the economy.

Speaker 1: But even if it did not, let's not, I wouldn't argue it on those terms. I wouldn't argue it on the terms of making up by growth. What we lose in not having the confiscation. Right. I got not that thing. The confiscation, I would say that give people more of their money back. Make us a competitive place to do business. Stop scaring people overseas. Yup. And then spend less money. All right. So. And spend less money. I'm with you on spend less money and you know, way back, I think it was three of these ago when he first got elected. I said, all right, now do the thing. Do the thing that you got elected to do you when you cut everything. Let's see how that goes, you know, so spend less. Let's try it. Let's see how it goes so that we can at least say so that we don't have to every time say, well, if we just spent less than it would be x, let's find out about ecs is my point of view.

Speaker 1: However, it seems like we're not doing that. So, um, so let's, uh, dive in on, on this a tax proposal. And when you say giving most folks back, you know, more money or taking less, confiscating less as you mentioned. Um, I, I kind of support that. I can see how that makes sense. Completely. Here's, here's my, my issue here. Is that the whole thing? Yes. It's sold as a middle class tax cut. That is not, um, what is it true? Because over the 10 years, taxes go up on everybody with the exception of that one percent, that one percent includes, of course, uh, you know, businesses and I know the competition right from other countries as far as taxation is concerned, more higher than other countries. I get that, but that's not where most of the tax revenue comes from anyway. So to reward corporations and the top one percent while over the tenure, a span taking more money from all of the we, the people, I don't get it.

Speaker 1: I literally don't understand how, how they get to this conclusion. Does this. Does that make sense? You're right. Okay, fair enough. You are correct. Which is why this multiple tiered system is ridiculous. Oh, I know. So I'll, I'll ping you there though. I liked the multitiered system and I'll tell you why. I saw a different article that I didn't send you, but I only read that headline. I only read the headline. Top one percent of global wealth a owns 50 percent of global wealth. So the top one percent across the world now has 50 percent of global wealth. That didn't used to be the, uh, the case ever before. And so if you don't multitiered the thing, then that kind of happens. Well, I would submit that that happens because those people have the influence to be able to gently favorable tax loopholes written for them.

Speaker 1: Indeed. So I would submit that if we had a flat tax where there are no deductions, where there is a, maybe you only get deductions or there's for dependence. It's kind of a steep Forbes type of format, a flat tax, no deductions, that means no loopholes. That means that government is no longer picking winners and losers. And so on one hand I would make the case that people that own all of that wealth know how to do it and once you have some, it becomes easier to gain more. Right? But I also would agree with the idea that they have probably certain advantages in the tax code that you were, I can't reach. So for example, Amazon looking for another headquarters, 280 some cities across the country, including a number of them in Minnesota, have submitted proposals tripping over themselves. What are those proposals will, hey, we're going to give you a favorable tax environment.

Speaker 1: Is that the same tax environment that the company down the road that's been there for 30 years has. No, it is not. Exactly. So. So you, you don't like that because I am, that's what I don't understand. So you know, uh, Dave's batteries who has been there in Minnesota for a hundred years and it's just been Dave and Dave's dad whose name was also Dave, and they don't get any tax break. Exactly. They don't get any tax breaks for 100 years. Here comes Amazon big giant conglomerate. Don't need the tax breaks. Dave does. Dave's dad does. Right? So where do you come down on that? Because I'm with you 100 percent there because I come, come down on if states recognize that low tax structures are going to be attractive to business, but they only do it to attract a new business, why don't they do it for the existing businesses?

Speaker 1: A. Okay, fine. I gotcha. So, but uh, if the whole thing is broken, I guess is here's, here's what we have to be when we're having this conversation in today. So if it is today, right, and all of these hundreds of cities across the United States or maybe dozens, whatever are saying, but this is what we'll do for you. Your point is we'll do this for everybody. Yeah. Because a low tax structure that allows people the freedom to be able to move their money around and be able to use it in ways to invest in their business, hire people, buy products, buy supplies. That's good stuff. So that's where you're saying, hey, corporate rate, let's go, let's cut that down for everybody. And then, you know, we don't have to do this crazy Amazon stuff. Uh, well, the point being is that if you want to use a certain structure to attract somebody, why not use that certain structure to keep people around?

Speaker 1: Fair enough. And so that's one example that we were just talking about a minute ago of special cutouts for influential companies because it would look good for any state to have a new Amazon headquarters in it. And so what they're, I think they're doing is recognizing that at least Minnesota is some of the highest corporate taxes in the country. Some of the highest personal income taxes is that we are not competitive, but we'll make it competitive for you. Amazon. Right? What kind of fairness is that? Okay. So now I do want to take this tangent because I read another different article. It shows the top that the 50, the top 50 states, it shows the 50 states and their tax burden and their tax reward essentially to the United States, to the federal government. And so guess who comes out? Number two, look and beautiful Minnesota. So Minnesota is giving way more than they're getting from the federal government. I was shocked. Eight of the 10, uh, states that receive more the or the most from the federal government. Um, you know, your, your welfare states by definition are states like Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, which have in them voters who are very, very much against the welfare state. [inaudible].

Speaker 1: Weird, right? Well, um, so are you trying to say that states that would generally lean red are bigger, are sucking off the teat of government more if you look top 10 and bottom 10, Minnesota being in the bottom 10, we are fine. We don't need federal money and Minnesota kind of blue, right? Purpleish blue type of Polish. Lean blue. Yeah. Uh, yeah, that's what happens is that the, the, the Bluer states, New York is like 34 a California is like 42 a Minnesota is 49. I'd have to see that in context because that seems counterintuitive to me, but what that might tell me in Minnesota is that Minnesota is effective enough. It's stealing our money that they don't need to take any much more from the federal government. Let's go here then. Here we go. Right? So, uh, so New York and California, those nut jobs. Uh, and, and all of those, by the way, are two states as I think I understand it.

Speaker 1: Yes. Who can write off their state income taxes go on, they can write off their state income taxes on their federal return, basically get that money back or not have to pay it into. I understand that if this tax bill passes, this tax bill takes the correct opportunity away from doing that. Hence panelizing the blue states. Uh, no blue fair for all of the other states that aren't subsidizing the tax money they aren't putting in that aren't subsidizing the tax money they are putting in because of California and in New York for two examples, get their state tax money back on their federal taxes. Yeah. It's not all that. It means that they are not participating financially like the rest of the country is. So I wouldn't say that it is a target on blue states as much as it is fairness across all of the states.

Speaker 1: So. So it evens the playing field, I think is what your point is. Yeah, that sounds like it's calvinism. California. And uh, well you like fairness, right? Everyone is after fairness, so okay, so equity should have done that. I shouldn't have done the communism thing even though it was valid. Uh, that was a little bit too raw. Um, so equity equality, fine, fair enough. So what you're saying is these states are taxing too high and they're, they know it, so they're allowed to deduct these states. And I think maybe our taxing a little too low like Minnesota, not Minnesota, like Mississippi or Alabama. And so maybe what we're saying is they need to bring their tax rates up. I'm following your thinking through to a conclusion where if everything is equal going into the federal government, everything is equal coming out of the federal government at state level.

Speaker 1: What were the, where that breaks down in my mind is looking at the states that don't have a state income tax. We're in one of them right now and yes, we know that this state has runoff casino money. Okay, but look at the Florida's of the world. Look at the Texas, Texas, South Dakota. What is it, New Hampshire. And so let's look at that. And so it does that same thing. Apply there with no state income tax. Do they have an outsized amount of federal money that they're receiving? I don't know where this list all of that. I looked at the list enough to know all of the states you just mentioned are at least in the middle, which is where we're saying we would like to be. As far as this piece of the conversation. No. Okay. All right. So I can see what you're saying here.

Speaker 1: Uh, however, I still don't understand, um, this rewarding. Uh, I, I got you on corporate. Fair enough. You know, and so then this way we don't have to do the wacky Amazon stuff. Um, but the top one percent owning 50 percent of the global wealth, I feel like that when we've talked about fairness, you know, I as you know, uh, work as hard as I possibly can. Yes, that's absolutely true. So actually editing videos in the bathroom, audio, audio, brand and not a desk, but late at night is the point. Yeah. Um, so okay, fine. That's wonderful. But, and so I do believe in that kind of libertarian kind of, you know, it's on me. Um, or even conservative, like I gotta do my part, but if we look at what it was in the 19 seventies as far as tax reform or going into the eighties and back to this article a versus what it is now, corporate tax rates, um, uh, excuse me, corporate profits were low, corporate profits are high, interest rates were high, interest rates are low, like all of the constructs of what made those tax breaks work for the economy.

Speaker 1: It won't do anything other than just plopped money. More money into like the wealthy pockets. And I don't get how, that's a thing, you know what I'm saying? Like I don't get, I really like literally don't understand it. You could see my face. Yes. I can't see your face. And what do you think they're doing? What is the point there? Are they, could they be, you know, uh, maybe let's look at the bottom in the middle and you know, get the main street back online. Like I drive a travel a lot. We talked about that. And every main street in every little city is like a dust bowl. So like let's just, instead of the $800,000,000,000 or whatever that you're going to just take from here and put into the pockets of those people, why don't you just put it onto main street, literally. Well, I think that might go back to your question about the states and where they take their, get their money and where they give their money from the federal government anyway, because the reality of the state's giving certain amount of money might be due to the effectiveness of their politicians. [inaudible]

Speaker 1: money is a powerful tool and wielded incorrectly will come, will result in a different outcomes. But different outcomes are going to happen anyway because human beings have every choice, every day, every minute to how they're going to spend their day there. There's nothing literally preventing you or me from being one of those one percent total ultimate. But I don't know that I have the right idea, the right skillset, the right. So yeah, I. It does not bother me that people have figured out how to. That Bill Gates has figured out what he figured out. It doesn't bother me that Jeff Bezos has figured out what he's gonna, what he's figured out. I refuse to have any personal hostility about seeing someone else succeed. Certainly not as long as they are doing it on their merit. And I'm with you a hundred percent, 100 percent. If you are successful, I applaud you and without question, but that promise of Charlie can do it too.

Speaker 1: Um, that's, I think what I'm talking about that, that they're playing field. We're not on that playing field. You're kind of mentioning it with the powerful can influence the tax little poles which keep it going the way that it's going, which is more wealthier and less welfare. Well, here's a great example that if you are. I were born or, or time traveled back about six years ago, six and we had the idea of ways before the people in Israel had the idea of ways by in instead. I was just reading a book recently and it gave the example of Nokia trying to get into the mapping business and they went out and spent eight point $2,000,000,000 on a company that had physical assets to be able to map roads. Yeah. Shortly thereafter ways comes up and they said, you know what? People carry the only device necessary to map almost every road on the planet and in however many years they've got 50 million users and they map more of the world than anybody does.

Speaker 1: Yeah. So. And they sold that idea, that company to Google for one point, $1,000,000,000, so love it that way. That would probably put us in the top one percent if it would happen to be you or I. That came up with an idea. Totally. So there's no impediment other than ourselves. That's excellent. Oh sure. Of course. When my buddy who runs an ad tech company who came across kind of the big guys and was doing pretty well, all of a sudden the rules changed and his company can't do what his company was doing and make as much money as he was making. They literally influenced the system to kick out the smaller player and look at main street again, like look at all, you know, Dave's batteries is there is no days batteries anymore, right? Because it's pep boys or it's or, or, or. So. That does not though prevent them from doing anything else.

Speaker 1: Well that is where innovation comes in and automation and all of that. And maybe we'll get to that because what I would submit to is look at Kodak. Kodak still has the patents on digital technology, digital photographs, and look what happened to them. Look what happened to them. Okay. Yeah. So it is the first movers. It is the thinkers that are basing things off of information instead of these legacy models where, um, you know, it was a companies that do the same thing that they've always done because that it's, it's somebody, it's the renegade that comes in. Tesla comes in and is starting to revolutionize the car market with computers that are cars or not cars that have computers, but that, those examples, while excellent examples are, are fewer and farther between then, you know, just days, batteries being able to, to make, uh, the grade.

Speaker 1: Like we had, um, you know, regulations in place that have been, uh, removed for very large banks, a glass steagall which was in a place and then taken out of place by, uh, your friend and mine, Bill Clinton and a that Republican Congress, um, which led to the economic downturn a or an economic apocalypse. Because I think that really powerful companies actually do need regulations. And here's why. I think that this was brought up by my dad. I don't know if I've said this to you yet. I come very excited right now, human being show up on earth, right? What's literally the first one of the first things that God does? Regulations Ten Commandments. Here's the. Okay guys, hold on, hold on one second. Here's 10 rules. Please stop doing these 10 things because if up to our own devices we will do terrible things. So it's so those regulations and they're sensible regulations, right?

Speaker 1: There's not a ton of them. I think we need those and that that's where I come down on that we're in the cannabis industry where all we want a sensible regulations, we don't want more and we can't have less. And so I think that that's my same point on wealth, if that makes sense. And once again you won't get any disagreement from me and somebody picked those winners or losers based on money. So when Minnesota has been expanding at the pace that it's been expanding, what did some of the outlying suburbs do for the new Walmart's or the new super targets? Yeah. Hey, we're going to give you some tax deductions for x amount of time and so all of a sudden I'm Kim and Karen's. Yeah. Since they're married to the both of the Dave's and they run a little supermarket, sure. All of a sudden they're squashed.

Speaker 1: Why? Because somebody was given something special and it's not as though they would not have gone there anyway unless the town next door said, hey, we'll give you something special. So I honestly believe in. Yeah, we are. We are on the same page. We just are, I think are arguing if this can be considered that the volume of the frequency of and who should make it. Because the great thing about capitalism is that anyone can really do anything, but the reality is there will be winners or losers. There's going to be winners or losers. Even that's an even though that's an uncomfortable subject for some people. I'm sure. I mean I've been part of a business, a family business that failed after 2011. There were things that we may have been able to do or maybe not have been able to do in order to save the business or resurrect it, but it failed and so I'm not all of a sudden, gosh, that really stunk.

Speaker 1: We kinda got outsmarted are out worked or outplayed or out muscled because we were in a perfect, I'll give you a perfect example. My father's company, cell phone business that he pioneered in the, in Minnesota, uh, selling for a t and t he still has the largest record for the largest contract ever written by a t and t. well, what happens is when you go and sign up a huge medical facility and get them all on a t and t, all of a sudden a t and t goes, that's worth us paying attention. And they'll go directly to that hospital group and they'll say, hey, we'll give you a little bit better. Right on phones. We'll give you a little bit better rate on time if you come directly to us. Okay. Thank you for your work, your decade of work, Mr. Rutherford. Farewell. Huh? And so there's a great example.

Speaker 1: Now, did we get hostile? Did we say, did we get hostile? Did we say, oh, we need help? Uh, yeah, no we didn't. That's how the sand game is sometimes played. Sure. So I've, I've also known what it's like to start over, you know, nine, 10 years ago, uh, and need some government assistance. Yeah. And I saw it as a safety net to get through this small period of time. Totally understood. I happen to have higher aspirations than being comfortable with that lifestyle as a lifestyle, but some people are okay with that. Well, so then this is also where we agree in that I, you know, if we're, if we're talking about, you can have this, my next question is, but what are you doing for that? So if we're talking about, you know, Free College, which I think is that those two words together don't make sense to me, but if you want to sell it that way, how is that person actually going to pay for it?

Speaker 1: Is it, you know, national service? Is it military service? Is it, how is the person paying for the education that they're getting as opposed to just a giveaway? I am squarely with you on that 100 percent. What I am missing though is how we're okay with that big, you know, very large company. Just going ahead and taking whatever they want in the, you know, uh, we had the big antitrust, uh, stuff back in the twenties and thirties were a big, huge conglomerates were broken up so that, you know, Joe American, we, the people could survive and, and compete. Um, and people like JP Morgan, we're cool with that at the time. You know what I mean? I like it is, where's the line? I, you're saying there is no line. It's just kind of lord of the flies unknown. Not saying that I almost made a piggy reference, so not even close to that, but I just didn't even want.

Speaker 1: But that's where the mind goes immediately when someone brings up the Lord of the flies. Of course. Give me the conch shell. It's my turn now. Exactly. Um, no, I, I don't necessarily agree that it should be a free for all. I think that there should be some reasonable regulations in place because yes, that's what we're trying to put in place here in the cannabis world. But I can assure you that once government gets their ICKY, parasitic hands on about anything, that they're going to screw it up like they do just about everything else. And then that's where I think like the most, uh, the electorate, at least, you know, we've said before world war two, everybody was going to be rich after World War Two. Uh, no one's rich and you know, except for one percent. And so everybody's like, well, wait a second, hold on, this isn't working.

Speaker 1: So it, we literally now get to ask the question and I think it's a positive thing. Here's the silver line. What is the United States of America? If we get to ask that question again, we've got three inch and 50 million people, right? And so if we're saying, yeah, sensible regulations on top and safety net on the bottom, but it's not a Hammock, as you've said in the past and you know, here's what you've got to do to participate in the safety net and here's what you got to do to be, you know, big and bad and, and rich on top. You know what I mean? There are, there are some rules for you too, which you can't get around. Then kind of, Whoa, look, we're, we're kinda pushing everything back down into a middle as opposed to kind of two different things. We'll look at probably gonna happen in the cannabis world.

Speaker 1: I'm right now downstairs on that floor are people that are going to be probably of noxious Lee, rich, that may or may not have been obnoxiously rich before they got into this, but what they probably had at least a little bit or cultivated over time was a network so that they could go from, Hey, I've got a great idea or a great process where I have a really great product and you should help me get this product to market. And ultimately, once we all want a happens that we hope will wear, uh, it, uh, the federal government changes their mind in a few ways of those people are going to be fantastically rich. And those companies will hire businesses, hire or hire employees and biased by business. Now the reality is that there's gonna be a lot of small people who really got us to the door and through the door and a lot of ways who unfortunately are going to go away because all of a sudden, once it's federally legal, all of the establishment money, the institutional money's going to come in.

Speaker 1: Yeah. And it will be a budweiser type of owned a kind of thing. And my hope is that it's also with craft breweries or uh, you know, vineyards, uh, around the country and world for that matter. But that does bring us to the fact that, um, we know that communism doesn't work. It feels like capitals was a little bit broken as far as what you're talking about. Like I don't like the, uh, so me and my uncle is a, a grateful dead song. And at the end of the song they, he leaves his uncle and the way that he says is he leaves his dead ass there on the side of the road. I'm not a fan of doing that. I feel like if you know, yes, if these smaller players don't make it in quotation marks, like we've got to be able to not leave them for dead I think is yeah and well, and that would be ideal and some people have different models and that's fantastic.

Speaker 1: Some people want to stay small and Boutique and, and, and smart to the craft and I think that's great. It's going to have its place. And there has been other people who say, okay, they anticipate that someday money's gonna come in and want to snatch stuff up. Well, what's the best way to do that? Well, it's to buy something that's already existing and successful. And so there are some people that have the model of I want to have a lot of stores, I want to cover a lot of area and I want to be, you know, it's ubiquitous. People say I want at least have this kindness. I want to be the starbucks of cannabis. And so, um, they are on a aggressive buildout mode in order to be most attractive to that big money comes in. So that their strategy is to be able to sell out and be done.

Speaker 1: Yeah. So that they are not one of the people who get pushed out when they can no longer do it at scale. And that's the current system. Uh, I, I'm with you, but like when we go up this ladder of, you know, unbelievable and catastrophic, a wealth. Is there a ceiling, you know, I understand, yes, you should be rewarded for all of your work and all of that. But should there only be two companies at the end? No, I don't think that there should be. And that's what will happen, right? That's what happened in this industry and that industry. There's always six companies or what's happening now or companies in the, in the browser space. Uh, I mean you've got google that dominates almost all of it and then, you know, might have being weighed down on the list and then there's, I mean, just fractions of percents, I would think.

Speaker 1: Anyway, of the rest of them, that's getting pretty darn close to a trust right there. Laura monopoly, monopoly. And there's actually, I've been, I've read recently that there are some better products out there that are being kept out of the market because there we got to have the power that they do, so it's a fine line really, I think is that, I mean 10 years ago Google wasn't as big as they were and people weren't worried about it and they thought, oh, this is kind of Nice and it's a fun little name and now all of a sudden it became the thing that you say you do, even if you are using a different service to try and do it. Another Rochester, New York company, Xerox, I used to xerox things. That's right next to Kodak. Um, okay. So we're basically on the same page here, you know?

Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, fine. But once we get to this kind of level of 18 and t buying time warner, maybe it's time to stop there because yes, I get it, that you're going to be able to provide a customer experience that's unparalleled. But maybe we should actually have a, you know, a, a true free market that's not a free market. Once we are pushing products out and you know, making regulation so that only my company went well and I would wonder too, once again going back to the money side of things, how much is a google of the world spending in lobbying in order to be able to maintain their monopoly, how much was an atnt of the world spending on whatever in order to push my hardworking father out. And so thankfully he's been very successful in doing other things. He goes, okay, that's a thing that ended.

Speaker 1: Yeah, okay. I'll do another thing. And I understood that my mindset, like that's exactly what I would. Oh, that doesn't work. Okay, fine, I'll do something else. And you know, that is what I do think that everyone does need to have in the United States, United States of America. It's United States of America by the way, and not a America. And so it's interesting to me that when people say, um, people are saying make America great again, that's almost a, from a federalist point of view, old federalist, federalist point of view of, you know, strong central government. It's a, it's an interesting concept because what it does is it removes in the mind power from the states, and I have come a long way on this because when I grew up to 10th amendment states rights where the dog whistle was about slavery, right? I no longer think that the world has changed and so has my mindset on states rights.

Speaker 1: I am absolutely more power to the states. Yes, absolutely. I totally agree because the further, the further you get away from something, the less in tune it is. So the central planning, everything coming out of DC, the Department of Education, the EPA, the, the, the, the. How do they know the specific needs of Minnesota or that part of Minnesota or that city or that side of the road, they don't. And so the central planning thing that all of a sudden bureaucrats, unelected knuckle faces are even elected and elected and I'm elected norcal faces that are making decisions for you and for me and for our friends and their families that aren't necessarily good for them and they're notoriously slow to respond. There are notoriously expensive and the bigger it gets, the smaller we get. Yeah. And it all of a sudden no longer becomes the United States. It's just a central planning commission.

Speaker 1: Who is advocate or who is dictating things about our lives that they know nothing about. Yep. And so that's why I would, yes. I advocate for federalism and giving the power back to the states and let them, letting them decide what is good for them. Huh? You'd set it up almost like a, the EU. Do you see what I did there? This is, I'm getting under your skin on purpose. I was just in Germany the other week. Delightful, delightful people. They're in Berlin about Europe specifically is how like instead of going from New York to New Jersey, you're going from like get Germany to Poland, like it's a totally different, you know, well, and all of the. Even with all of the bruises and the warts that the United States has, where does everyone want to go? And this is my whole point about the fact that, uh, when we can compete with higher tax on a corporate tax to other countries, if we're make America great again, if we're, I mean we know that we are, you know, so we could compete, but whatever we've had this conversation, I feel like we've done well here just very quickly because it's in the news as we're talking.

Speaker 1: It's kind of November of 2017. I just have to ask you because it is political discourse pro or anti pedophilia a heavily anti what they have the death penalty for. Right. Okay, good. No, just because of the Roy Moore guy in Alabama of people are kind of coming out pro, you know, pedophilia using, by the way, the good book to justify it. And have you read these things that Joseph and Mary situation, which you know was, he was much older and she was much younger. But I think that the point there was that there was no fornication. Right? Isn't that the whole. I don't that. That to me is almost actually putting politics above religion because it is, it is making decisions based on a belief system that, um, uh, that the politics is superseding the religion, uh, because, and that's not usually a thing of the right, exactly.

Speaker 1: Because it usually have a different religion other than politics. And so I think it's disgusting. Uh, I think that, um, I think that the Bill Clinton thing years ago really set a certain tone. So even though Roy Moore is responsible for his actions and his actions only and they're despicable and then somebody should drag them behind a truck. Yep. That somebody should have done that for two Bill Clinton to yet since he was the darling of people who own the outlets for the TV, for the radio, for the newspapers. And it was okay. Yeah. And I mean there was a pretty big mayor Kulpa sort of by a New York Times reporter columnist the other day that said, you know what? I kinda stuck up for him then and it's kind of disgusting now. It was more from making an excuse for why she did it. Then the fact that she did it, but I really think that set a certain tone because the Harvey Weinsteins of the world when they can go, holy Moly, look at the runway I've got now that the president can get off on something like that.

Speaker 1: I can do, excuse me. Yeah. Um, and especially that they're pals. Yeah. What kind of tone did that set for America in what is acceptable? I'm with you right there and absolutely. And I think that as long as we can allow each other to kind of learn, in other words, I had, not until this week thought about Bill Clinton the same way that you're talking about. I'm a, I'm on that same page. So if you'll allow me to be on that same page and not kind of admonish me for not getting there sooner, I think that that's how we move forward. Right. Hey, because I mean in anything that we're talking about, you know, uh, I told you so, it was not something that I'm going to say in our friendship or relate or, you know, our discourse. It'll be more about like this, this sports team.

Speaker 1: One I told you, so that's where we put I told you so. Yes. Yeah, so I, I don't. It's great that people are coming around to that and it seems like now that it's safer because the, the, the Clintons are basically neutered, they won't probably be anything ever again. And so now it's safer for those people to come out and be brave in quotation marks now to say, now what they should have said back then when it's, the political opponents were saying about Clinton and so on one hand, since politics is tribal by nature, then even though I have to believe that there was a sneaking suspicion and people are going, that's really frigging incredible. I mean the Paula Jones thing though, Juanita broaddrick thing, the, the, the Lewinsky, the. Yeah, but he's on my team. This is my tribe. I have to advocate for my tribe.

Speaker 1: So, uh, with you, politics is always about exchanging a hypocrite, hypocritical moments, right? And uh, and I, and I think that I'm in this way with people that are defending Roy Moore than it is, is a hypocritical of them because you can be assured that assuming they have the same politics back then, that they were really criticizing Bill Clinton. So yeah, anyone to stick up for them and say, Hey, it doesn't matter. We need this seat as disgusting because Republicans in my mind should be about the how and not the what, because I don't necessarily think that's the case on the democratic side by evidence of Bill Clinton because they don't care about saying. Yeah. But what I'm saying is if, if everyone, you know, if the New York Times and the New Yorker and New York magazine and the Huffington Post and slate and all of the left things that come into my stream, just like the right things do, um, if they all are with you now, can we move forward from, oh, okay.

Speaker 1: They do see it now. Let's move to something that maybe we can work on together type of thing. Right? Right. Until the next one comes up. And then each side is defending their side, but I think that my hope here is that this thing is so crazy now that reasonable. You and I are like begging each other to talk to each other, you know. And my hope is that, yeah, there's always going to be the 20 percent all the way left, always going to be the 20 percent all the way. Right? Or hopefully not, but at least, you know, for the time being, that's what it is. They're 60 percent here, you know, in the middle where we can actually, let's actually have cognitive conversation. Let's really discussed this in a way that, you know, we can find something, a, find a path forward. And, and to that end on, on Russia, I heard a, a fun, a little suggestion, which is, um, if, if there's suspicion of a Hillary Clinton about Russia, which there is, and there's always something with her, which is why we have the president that we have and their suspicion, uh, you know, on the other side, let's have both of them resign from their current positions and move forward.

Speaker 1: And then this way we put the Russia thing behind us who becomes president in that scenario? Well, it's pence. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't some extra constitutional idea. The point is, is that she doesn't have a job. Hey, I was still coming after. I'd be much more thrilled with pence as president to. Okay. It's not a bad idea, but the whole point is like, look at the time that you're wasting with going after her again. Yes. We understand, you know, come on. But uh, well they were campaign promises that he made to. I mean he made a couple of offhand jokes about putting her in jail and, and that a republic type of thing to say it's crazy. Right? Well, it is at the same time. Um, I don't disagree that it isn't true based on the stuff that she did.

Speaker 1: But that aside, yeah. Where we should be spending our government dollars are investigating someone that doesn't have a job and unemployed person. Well, on one hand I say no, I'm sure. On the other hand, I say how many, okay, if we set a certain standard or lack of one God in terms of sexual assault with right, how many illicit things have the clintons done over the years, so uranium one, and I'll be bill speaking gigs in Russia and Hillary being secretary of state then and getting a favorable thing, the whole thing company that are family members to them, how can we punish the people? So it might be the current. What standard are we setting? If we say, you know what, you get powerful enough. Does this sound familiar to the business world? You get powerful enough. You're not accountable. Fair enough. I just don't like the fact that we got to spend money on it.

Speaker 1: Really Conservative today. Alright, last question. Always on the soundtrack of your life. Here we are. One track, one song that's got to be on there. I haven't taken a trip down memory lane with a lot of a nineties rock. Oh Wow. Poison. Oh, Motley crue. Guns and roses. Yeah. And what was it recently that. Who did we lose recently? That got me more interested in the tragically hip guy. He's nineties band. Oh yeah. Hairbands man. And I mean the DEF Leppard's if I've just been really who died from them. No, it was. Oh shoot. Who was the.

Speaker 1: Oh No, it was Lincoln Park. Oh, I went on to Lincoln Park tear for about a week after a gesture at past. Now this is that. These are different decades. I mean poisoned thousands, but that's eighties. Really. Lincoln Park for thousands. Less hair. Less hairspray I think. Yeah, less makeup for sure. Um, I would like to think that they both have an equal amount of groupies though, right? Um, I'm going to go with something that I just found. So I found a Amazon music because I have prime and I see it. It's a $100 a year and you get the free delivery and then now there's video and there's also music. And I used to love going to tower records and buying records and so I would have to like save up and like every week I would get like one or two and I go into Amazon music and then you just add, you just add albums. So I literally stayed up one night just adding hundreds of albums and I refound

Speaker 1: the headhunters, Herbie Hancock. And the first song on that album, which is a word that isn't used anymore, is chameleon, which will rip your face off if you're not careful. And also is apropos for these conversations. You know what I mean? If you want, why not take a little bit of red have from over here, a little bit green from over there. Yeah. You know. Well, and we, we kind of need each other, I think in that way because, uh, in my position in the industry, there is a, you know, my story that people may or may not be familiar with is that, you know, I'm of course Christian Conservative, Republican Nra, member gun carrier, but I'm also a huge cannabis advocate because of my personal story of how it changed my life, right? The industry needs people like me because I can have authentic conversations with people in places that they cannot.

Speaker 1: And so in that same way in this industry, the same thing exists in the, in, in real life. I would rather walk around, see somebody that's center or center left and think the best of them instead of the worst. Totally. And instead of walking around and disgruntled, they're looking for reasons to dislike them. Yeah. I would rather ignore those things and look for reasons to like them because odds are good that even if our politics are different, we probably have some interests that intersect and friendships can be made on that. So once again, don't let a p a opinions get in the way of human interaction. Yeah, I'm with you 100 percent. And uh, to that end, I love you man. Love you too brother. It's really great to see you again. You got it. I feel like we'll do this again. That's hope. And there you have Charlie Rutherford and political discourse.

Speaker 1: While Charlie and I spoke past each other a few times there we were able to find common ground, you know, we spent a fair amount of time talking about Amazon and making special exceptions for them and a kind of making sure that we have some sort of playing field that makes sense. And then at the end I go ahead and log a Amazon music for its ease of use and how, you know, I just have tower records right here in my phone realizing that I'm only paying $100 for what I use to pay thousands of dollars for the industry of course has been disrupted, but there are different middlemen as opposed to the money finding its way to the creators. So I guess it's about a personal, short term sacrifice for long term collective gain.

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.