Price controls, they’re coming. Now. Kamala’s talking about it now, but it’s nothing new except for that. Now it’s making mainstream news, and they’re saying the quiet part out loud now. Again, another lawmaker, this time just happening to be Kamala, thinks she can now pick the price of bread, bacon, or lettuce, even though she probably hasn’t been to a grocery store in the last four years since she’s been in office, nor has she ever ran a farm or any business, for that matter. And just like here, dozens of other leaders, from the roman empire to the Soviets to Venezuela, and even the US president, Richard Nixon, thought he could give it a go.

And the results? Well, the results have always been the same, but because it’s been tried so many times with predictable results, we also have a playbook that we can follow to protect ourselves. So in this video, we’re gonna take a look at what Kamala and other politicians are saying. We’re gonna look at the prices to understand what price gouging is. We’re gonna look at soaring corporate profits since the pandemic. We’re going to examine Richard Nixon’s previous attempt right here in the United States, and we’re going to look at how we can protect ourselves as this progresses.

So let’s go now. Oh, just real quick. If you’re new to the channel, my name is Mark Moss, and I’ve been making these videos to help people understand economies, markets, business, so they could live a more wealthy life. Now, I’m not some academic. Instead, I’ve been in the trenches. I’ve been building businesses for two decades, dealing with the ups and downs of the Fed’s reckless boom and bust economies, trying to earn a profit, trying to keep my employees working while trying to make enough profit to provide for my own family. So I live this, all right? Something that, you know, these politicians have never done.

So let’s just go ahead and just jump right into it. All right, so price control is a brand new idea or. No, not really. As we’ve talked about, it’s something that we’ve seen since the roman empire all the way up till. Yeah, now, today. Now, what is basically being proposed is stopping price gougers, stopping greedy businesses from gouging people at prices, which sounds really good, gets public support. But what we’re really talking about is setting the price of goods. Now, let me just say that all goods, the majority of goods in the world, at least in America, are denominated in us dollars.

How much is a home? $400,000 how much is a gallon of milk? You know, whatever. I don’t even know. $5. How much is a gallon of gas? Right. So it’s all denominated in dollars. And when the government or really the Federal Reserve sets monetary policy, they are setting the price of money. And when they set the price of money, they’re setting the price of all goods. But we’re going to talk about actual goods and services today. So they’re setting the price of goods and services. We can see all the headlines. Of course, I don’t have to tell you.

I’m sure you’ve heard a million times by now. Kamala Harris unveils an economic plan, including a whopping 1.7 trillion in handouts. We’ll come back to that in a second. 1.7 trillion in handouts and a ban on grocery store price gouging. Those greedy grocery stores. We’re going to look at grocery stores specifically. So price gouging. So basically we’re going to set the price that they can’t sell above. Gouging sounds a lot better for their media so they get more public support. Basically, what she’s saying is we’re going to set a price that grocery stores cannot sell over.

That’s exactly what they’re talking about. Now, this has been coming for a long time. I’ve been talking about this for a long time. This is a trend. And so when we look at data, we look at charts, we want to understand the trend, the direction we’re going in. It’s not always what we have today. We’re trying to be in front of it. We’re trying to front run the information so it’s the trend. So we can see here, this was Senator Elizabeth Warren, no friend to any business or investor back in 2021. So several years ago, Senator Warren calls for the Department of Justice to actually go and investigate companies selling turkeys for what she called price gouging.

Top poultry companies anti competitive practices because turkey prices were so high. Okay. So she’s been talking about cracking down on these greedy businesses and setting the price of what they can sell turkeys for. We had President Biden go on and make sort of like a public service announcement right before the Super bowl last year. So when the time the most Americans are watching tv, at one time he ran a PSA. Let’s listen to what he had to say. Super Bowl Sunday. If you’re anything like me, you like to be surrounded by a snack or two while watching the big game.

You know, when buying snacks for the game. You might have noticed one thing, sports drinks bottles are smaller. A bag of chips is fewer chips. They’re still charging you just as much as an ice cream lover. What makes me the most angry is that ice cream cards have actually shrunk in size, not in price. I’ve had enough of what they call shrinkflation. I’m calling on companies to put a stop to this. Let’s make sure businesses do the right thing now. All right, so he’s saying that shrinkflation, you know, custom or brands are now selling less goods for the same price.

Shrinkflation. And he’s not going to stand for it. What does that mean? Well, he’s going to come in and tell businesses what they can sell for. All right, so this has been coming for a long time now. It’s not just partisan. It’s not just Republicans are scared about this or Democrats. It’s both sides. So here we have a video on CNN, which is, of course, more of a democratic news station. And let’s hear what they have to say about these plans that Kamala wants to roll out. We’ve seen it happen in Venezuela. We’ve seen it happen in the Soviet Union.

Price controls just don’t work. It expresses a level of economic illiteracy. We’ve seen this kind of thing tried in lots of other countries before, Venezuela, Argentina, the Soviet Union, etcetera. It leads to shortages, it leads to black markets. You know, plenty of uncertainty. It sounded a lot like this notion that we were going to set price controls and that if we were returning to the 1970s, you can’t pay more than, let’s say, $2.50 for milk. And if you do, we’re going to charge the grocery store with some criminal act. And obviously, this hasn’t worked, these sorts of policies in Venezuela or Soviet Russia.

Okay? So you can hear, everyone knows these are bad ideas. Everyone’s scared. And a lot of people are scared that she’s running on this platform because she thinks it could or they think it could actually torpedo her career. But the problem is it’s gaining a lot of public support because the public don’t know. But I’m going to break it down for you right now. I do want to just say real quickly something I’ve been talking about for a long time. Of course, I’ve been pounding the table on inflation, inflation, inflation. And I said that since the Fed has been stuck between a rock and a hard place, basically, whether they cut or they print, all roads lead to more inflation.

And I said there was a third scarier option. The third scarier option is, well, what if we just cut prices or cap prices? And that’s exactly where we find ourselves. Okay, so, all right, now, Senator Warren, Biden, and Kamala, they’re all talking about food. They’re talking about price gouging on food because, of course, that affects the poor people, and they can’t afford to eat anymore, apparently. So we’re going to look at food. But before we do, as a thought experiment, let’s just look at price gouging for a minute. And let’s look at maybe the most often cited example of price gouging, which is drug prices.

You hear about this quite often. So there was this tweet that went up the other day, and it was this guy. What is his name? Warren Gunnels. I don’t really want to give him a lot of credibility. You shouldn’t follow him. But he said that price controls are actually a good thing. Well, let’s just take a look at this. So, price of ozempic. First of all, you don’t need to pay for Ozempic. You can go to the gym and just eat less. You’re probably not going to like that. Leave me a comment. Tell me how bad that is.

But it costs. He says it costs $5 to make Ozempic $5. But in the US, they sell it for $969. What a ripoff. What a ripoff. Okay, well, let’s just take a look at that. Is it a ripoff? Let’s think about this for a minute. Now, like I said, you could just diet and exercise, or you could pay for this. Now, this tweet, Robert Sterling, was a really good take. And this is a thought experiment we’re using as an extreme example. Let’s just say a scientist invents a product that costs $5 per unit, like Ozempic. So they invented this, and it only cost them about $5.

All right, $5 for the raw materials and the direct labor cost to manufacturers. So obviously, the manufacturer are very cheap because the robots just basically compress the powder together. So the raw materials and the labor is about $5 to produce it. So then it costs $5 to make it. He asked, what’s a fair price to charge for that? Well, they shouldn’t be able to charge more than two or three times. Okay. Why? Right. Well, we’ll get to that. Should she be allowed to charge $10 for a 50% gross margin? Is that fair? What about charging 500 for a 99% gross margin on top of that? What if I told you, if you think about the second, 3rd, 4th order, thinking, what if I told you the scientist expects to sell 1 million units of this new medicine and that the scientists will generate nearly $500 million of gross profit off of that, off of just $5 million in direct cost because it’s only costing her $5 to make it? So what if she’s going to make 500 million off of only 5 million in direct cost? But see, the key word being direct cost, that sounds really unfair, right? Like, we can probably get Elizabeth Warren and Kamala to get a lot of support for that because it sounds so unfair, right? Why should she be allowed to sell something for such a markup that cost her less money? Why? That’s the question to ask.

But let’s just think through this, okay? So what if she had invested 1 billion of her own money to create the product so we’d looked at direct cost to manufacture it? But what if she had invested a billion dollars of her own money at risk to create that product? What if her gross profit before overhead is generating just a 50% return on her invested capital? You see, they’re looking at just the direct cost without looking at the money that was invested at risk and then using that to get a now a 50% return on investment. But what if I also told you, like an infomercial, in addition to the 1 billion she invested onto the research and development to design this new product, she had also spent 1.5 billion on R and D research development on other products that never made it to market.

Right. For products that didn’t work. So she spent a lot of money to design all these products. A couple of them didn’t work. One finally did. All right, so now she did that. They didn’t work, they didn’t get regulatory approval. Would that answer change knowing that her overall return on invested capital is now only 20% at most of. Well, you might still think that’s too high. Okay, well, let’s keep going then. Well, what if I told you the inventor could have taken her 2.5 billion and instead of putting it at risk and doing all that schooling and all that creativity and all that hard work and risking the 2.5 billion, she could have taken that and just invested it into real estate instead? And she could have made 15% as a return on her invested capital in real estate instead.

Now, would you change your answer knowing that this brilliant investor, I’m sorry, this brilliant inventor who went to all the schooling, was super creative and solved this big problem, knowing that she just didn’t create products that changed people’s lives. She just didn’t change or create change. She could have easily just taken her money, deployed it into passive opportunities and sat on a beach. She could have bought more single family homes so you couldn’t afford those things and done no contribution to society. If you don’t understand these why questions are relevant, if you don’t understand why these questions are relevant or why investor returns matter, you might want to put your phone down right now and stop making comments.

You see a lot of people have opinions on these things, but they don’t really understand this. Why would somebody invest their money into this without some expected return of profit? They wouldn’t. Why would they go to all the schooling to be creative to solve these problems if there was no return on profit? They wouldn’t. They could just go buy the real estate and sit on a beach. Hopefully that makes sense. Okay, now, why are prices increasing? Let’s just look at that for a minute. Now, people don’t know the answer to that. Apparently, supposedly right now we don’t know.

And part of the reason why we don’t know anymore is because they changed the definition of inflation. These are some really bad takes I found on Twitter. Obviously, like I said, this price fixing is all over the news. So there’s a lot of stuff going on Twitter. Here is Doctor Jane George from Tennessee. Now, Jane George is a 6th generation Tennessean, a candidate for us Congress. So this is somebody who’s running for us Congress. She says, are you kidding me? In 2022, Kroger reported an operating profit of over $4 billion. These greedy grocery stores. Kroger is one of the largest grocery store chains that are out there.

If you don’t know. They have made over $4 billion. Walmart had an operating profit of 21 billion. Costs have increased to the consumer every year since COVID The corporations are gouging consumers. She says, I want to run for Congress and Tennessee and I’m going to support Kamala and we’re going to stop this price gouging. Ok, so they made 4 billion. Let’s just take a look at that. Let me show you a couple more bad takes real quick before we look at the actual numbers of how much profit this $4 billion was that Kroger made. Here’s a couple more takes right here.

So you think price gouging is good and the corporation should be allowed to starve Americans so that CEO’s can get multi million dollar bonuses. Price gouging is fine. That’s what they’re saying, that’s the way they look at this. They should be able to just starve Americans. These grocery stores like Kroger, you must be a wealthy in a cult and unable to think for yourself. Or a troll. Maybe all three. So if you think that it’s okay for Kroger to make $4 billion while Americans are starving, you’re a trolleye. This guy, for the record, it says here, grocery chain seen a 300% increase in profits when the cost of goods are only going up by 10%.

This guy, modern man, if you look at his bio, he’s an economist. Hmm. But he says that grocery store chains are seeing a 300% increase in profits when the cost of goods will go by 10%. This guy down here, Al, what is wrong with ensuring food prices aren’t artificially inflated? Are you dumb? Of course we should make sure they’re not artificially inflated. Okay, okay, okay. Let’s just break this down for a second. I can’t go on past with this point. In a free market, there is no such thing. And there’s no possible way to do this.

So what happens is everybody operates on a profit. If I wanted to charge way more and I have this massive profit, guess what’s going to happen in a free market competitive environment. Someone is going to come compete with me and they’ll do the work for half the profit. But those margins are still pretty fat. So somebody else will come compete with me and charge me for even less and compete for even less. And eventually, in a free market, the competition drives profit margins down to where they’re barely sustainable. If you’re like a contractor or some sort of service provider, you already know this.

Your competition makes it where your prices get compressed. That’s what happens only in a system where the government imposes regulations and doesn’t allow competition. That’s the only way these fat margins could even be possible. Otherwise they’re going to get compressed all the way down. But let’s just look at some of these numbers from an economist. 300% increase in profit with only a 10% increase in goods. We’re going to look at that data here. But I just want to play this for you real quickly because this video also just came out. I was going to do a whole video just on this, but I decided to pivot.

And this is from the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. So this is the central bank, above central bank. I just put out this whole video. It says, ask an economist, inflation, why is it happening? So is it the greedy corporations? What the heck is going on? Well, let’s just go ahead and hear from an economist of the IMF and hear what they have to say. Well, there’s two big buckets of reasons. The first is when there’s shortages in supply or slowdowns in supply. The other big bucket is on the demand side. So people demanding or wanting more goods and services than there are available.

Okay, so there you had it. Two reasons why prices go up. And, of course, like you learned this in elementary supply and demand. Duh. Right? So when there’s less supply and there’s more demand, prices are gonna go up. Likewise, when there’s more demand and less supply. Right? It’s. It’s an equation, supply and demand. We didn’t need an economist from the IMF to tell us that. But let’s just think this through. So if we want prices to come down, we should add more supply, right? We should make it easier for business to compete. We should make it easier for business to do business.

Cut the red tape so we get more supply into the market, or we can reduce demand. Of course, that’s what the central banks are trying to do, reduce demand by making you feel more poor. Now, one of the ways we can cut demand is stop pumping in. What did Kamala want? $1.7 trillion. She wants to pump into the economy, which creates more demand. You cannot create more demand without increasing the supply. At the same time, it sort of looks like this. Now, there was a saying, it’s the economy, stupid. In this case, it’s the money, stupid.

You can’t just keep printing this much money. Kamala wants another 1.7 trillion. You can’t just keep doing that without also increasing the supplies. But when you threaten stores, you’re going to shut them down. Does that incentivize more stores to open, or does that incentivize less stores to open? If grocery stores can’t make a profit, are they incentivized to stay in business selling groceries, or will they pivot to something else they make better? Now, let’s look at the data here, because these economists are saying that these grocery stores are gouging us. They’re making $4 billion while people are starving, and that their profits went up by 300% when their cost of goods went up by 10%.

Is that true? Let’s look at the data. So the first thing I want to take a look at is, let’s just look at Kroger, who was called out, bye gouging people, one of the largest grocery store chains, and the money supply. So what we can see here, this blue line right here is the money supply. And what we can see since 2020, the money supply has grown by almost 40%. 38.86, to be exact. So we’ve seen about a 40% increase in the money supply. That’s the rate of debasement. Meanwhile, what we have here is Kroger revenue and Kroger total expenses.

So you have the total revenue minus the expenses equals your net profit. Right. And what we can see is that gross revenue went up by 23.39. Expenses went up by 23.09, which means they made about 0.30.3. Let’s break that down a little bit more so you can see that what we have here is a chart. Kroger and their profit margin. Now, the profit margin is not that high. This is 0% profit right here. Okay, so this is 1990, and here’s 2020. Right now, they’re making about 1.43% profit. 1%. Now, I mean, if a business can’t make, like, 10% profit, it probably shouldn’t be in business.

With my business, we’re aiming for 40 to 50, 50% profits because we’re trying to make, you know, a living. We’re trying to stay in business. Here. They’re making 1.4% profit. And there’s years where they’re negative profit. So some years they lose, some years they make back. Some years they lose, some years they make back 1.3%. What did that economist say? They’re making 300% gains. That’s certainly not what the data tells us. And it’s not just Kroger. Again, they’re one of the largest. But let’s just take a look. Here’s a bunch of food manufacturers. So here we have nestle Unilever, Pepsico, Coca Cola, General Mills.

And again, what we have here is 0% right here. And we can see that Coca Cola is the highest at 22%. Coca Cola’s gouging. Oh, my gosh. Cut out the Coca Cola, 22%. But most of them are in this ten to 12% range. Is that gouging to make 10% profit with all that risk, all that effort? I don’t think so. Not as a business owner. Now, here we have eggs. So they say that eggs. We’re being gouged by eggs. Here’s the largest egg producer in the United States. I put a red line here for 0%. And they’re making currently 11.9% profit on their business.

Not too. Not too greedy, in my opinion. But also, again, that makes up for all these years that they were losing. It doesn’t take that into consideration. So when you average these profits out, they’re not making this. They have to just make back from what they lost. You can see it in the data here and now let’s look past food. Let’s just look at all businesses. This is all businesses that are non financial. And what we can see, this black line is 0%. And look where we’re at right now. This is all businesses that are non financial.

Yes, there’s some big years, and yes, there’s a lot of losses. These gray shaded areas are recessions. So what you can see is after a giant loss, when you come out of recession, it sort of snaps back and we make some good profits. But then I lose below zero, we have a recession and I snap back. Right. And so they’re just trying to get back to, even if the profit margin got that fat, then lots of other competition would come in and take that profit away. All right, now for my favorite part, because you know that I love history so well.

What does it saying? Says that those who don’t know history are bound to repeat it. And that’s exactly what we’re about to do. So, warning, there’s past attempts, not just past attempts. Pretty much every government that gets out of control tries this at some point. The roman empire tried it with disastrous results. The Venezuela has tried it with disastrous results. You have empty food shelves. That’s what happens. Right? Either in capital, in a communist country like this, in Russia, in the Soviet Union, in Venezuela, you have bread lines. Under capitalism, bread lines up for you, right? That’s the way it works.

But let’s just look back at a more recent example, because it happened right here in the United States not that long ago. As a matter of fact, good old president Richard Nixon, he’s not just known for taking us off the gold standard, he’s also known for trying to fix the problems created by that. So I put out this long twitter thread over the weekend as I got inspired on this. If you’re not following me on Twitter, you should. It’s nmarcmoss. We’ll link to it down in the description below. I put a lot of daily commentary on there, so it’s a good place to get additional information.

So I put this long tweet thread out. But let’s just pull out a couple of examples of what he did in order to combat prices rising so high because he severed the gold standard, he had to do a couple of things, and he created an economic strategy known as the new economic policy, not like FDR’s new deal. This was the new economic policy. And basically, it was the suspension of the gold standard. Let’s just get off that pesky thing and print as much money as we can. The implementation of wage and price controls. So Nixon did this.

You don’t have to go that far back into history books. I believe Kamala was alive at this time. This happened although she was a very young child, probably. Okay, so phase one of what this looked like here in the United States in the seventies was a 90 day freeze on wages, prices, and rents. That was August of 1971. No one can raise their prices on anything. You can’t pay more for your workers. You can’t pay more for food. You can’t pay rent. None of that. At that time, inflation was 5%, which sounds relatively tame in today’s day and age, right? We were as high as, what, 8.59% just about two years ago.

Now we’re down in the 3.5% range. So five sounds pretty reasonable. But they calculated much better back then. Okay, so that’s what they did. No one could raise prices, but that wasn’t enough. So what we had to do was then start phase two. And in phase two, the controls were administered by increasing the size of the government. Of course, it’s always about that when FDR’s new deal. Let’s expand the government here. Phase two, let’s expand the role of the government so the government can spend more money. And what they did is they created all these new government bodies, including something called the price commission and something called the pay board.

So they created these government regulatory bodies to make sure people weren’t charging too much, and they just spent a bunch more money in the process. The price commission was literally responsible for approving or rejecting price increases so no one could raise their prices without being approved by the price commission. And then we saw companies like Amerco Steel, Champion Spark Plugs, Woolworth, et cetera, were ordered to roll back prices. So if they said, nope, you raise them without permission, you have to roll them back and provide refunds to customers. So now this money that you made, give it all back.

In addition, in some cases, the controls led to companies facing severe financial penalties and to pay triple damages for exceeding price limits. Triple damages. So grocery stores are making 1.4%, 1%. If you have to pay back triple damages, what does that do to your profit margin? Means you have no profit margin. Okay, let’s keep going, because that didn’t work. So what else could we do? Well, then what we want to do is micromanage the entire economy, because, of course, you know, a dozen, couple dozen guys in Washington know better than the entire market, so we want to micromanage the economy.

And they had a cost of living council. Sounds kind of dystopian, doesn’t it? No company was allowed to increase prices without prior government approval. Of course, none of that worked. There was massive unintended consequences of this. By freezing prices, input costs like raw materials went up. The control squeezed the profit margins for many businesses. This led to widespread shortages. So, again, they’re talking about food here. If I can’t, you know, whatever they would say, I can’t sell a loaf of bread for more than $2.50. Okay, well, if I can’t produce the bread for 250 and I can’t sell it for more than $2.50, then I can’t bake bread.

If my gasoline costs went up and my wheat cost went up and my labor cost went up and I can’t produce it, I can’t sell it. It’s just basic 101 here. Come on. If you can’t produce a good for less than you can sell it for, then you can produce the good. That’s why it leads to shortages every single time now. It got worse. Let’s keep going. It wasn’t just the prices, and it wasn’t just shortages of bread. All right? It wasn’t shortages of gas. So back then, you had to line up to get gasoline. And only certain people can get gas on certain days, for example, it’ll line up for food.

Then they created a new government body called the committee on interest and Dividends. And this is where things got really, really bad. They capped dividend increases. They capped how much publicly traded companies, businesses could pay out, distribute those profits. They capped that. What did that do? Well, of course, it discouraged investment. Well, if they can’t pay me part of the profit, why would I invest in the company? And that led to a decline in the stock market performance. Of course I’m not going to invest, which means the stock market comes down. And, of course, that caused potential investors to invest less.

And, of course, that created a ripple effect of decreased confidence in the economy. No one was investing, so that no one was building, inventing, no one was producing, of course. And then we hadn’t even got to phase three and four yet. Basically, phase three and four. Things got so bad, the economy got so bad, the markets got so bad, they had to throw in the towel. By 1973, inflation had reached double digits. So it had gone from 5% to over 10%. The consumer price increasing by 8% in a single year. And wholesale prices are up over 20% from 1972 to 1974.

So in just a couple of years, they completely distorted the entire economy. Shortages of food, shortages of gas, as well as a decrease in the stock market because of declining confidence. It was a complete wreck. And of course, Richard Nixon had to wave the white flag and cancel price controls. Not without a whole lot of damage and harm to a lot of people along the way. Okay, what do we do to protect ourselves? Like I said, this has been tried over and over and over and over again. So what do we do? Obviously. Yeah, right. Your politician go vote.

Sure, do all those things. But on a personal level, what do I do for my business and for myself? Well, there’s a couple of things. The first thing is there’s always goods available. So in the shortages that happened to in the market, what happens is you have this alternative market, a parallel market, a black market that pops up. So there’s always going to be goods and services. If you have enough money, it just has to be done on the black market. Okay, so then that means that I should just have more money. Okay, that’s number one.

But number two, what we want to do is we want to change our denominator. There’s something everybody can do. So this is kroger. Back to Kroger. This is their net income, not priced in dollars, but priced in gold. And what we can see is if we take away the dollar and just say, let’s say they priced everything in gold, what we can see is it’s remained pretty flat. Right here, it’s remained pretty flat. So what we want to do is change our denominator. So what do I mean by that? So you might see prices getting more expensive.

Home prices are getting more expensive. Gas prices are getting more expensive. Food’s getting more expensive. Maybe unless you change your denominator. So right here is the case. Shiller National Home index. This blue line shows the rate at which homes have been going up. And you realize that homes are getting priced out of the market, right. Homes are getting so expensive, how we ever afford it? Well, that’s priced in us dollars. If I price homes in gold, they’ve actually been going down. So if I used gold as my unit of account and I measured everything in gold as and not us dollars, things are actually getting cheaper for me, not more expensive.

We can look at it another way. Here is homes in Palo Alto, California. So Palo Alto, Silicon Valley, crazy high home prices. This blue line is home prices going up. This is since 2012. You can see it going up. But priced in Apple stock, the price of homes have been going down. So if I own explosive assets like apple stock, homes are getting way cheaper. For me. They’re not getting more expensive. What do you mean they’re getting more expensive for you? I haven’t seen that. Or of course, in bitcoin terms, we can see the same thing.

Priced in bitcoin homes in Palo Alto have gone through the roof. But in bitcoin terms, they’ve completely dropped off of a cliff. And so while just making more money isn’t the easiest thing to do, everyone can change their unit of account. And whether that’s gold for you, whether that’s Apple stock or whether that’s bitcoin, you can see that life gets easier when you look at things from a different lens. That makes sense. Let me know what you think. Leave me a comment down below. Let me know what lens that you want to price your assets in what will be your personal unit of account.

For me, it’s bitcoin. For you, it could be gold, it could be rice. It could be. It could be bushels or oranges. I don’t know. Let me know in the comments down below. Of course, as always, give me a thumbs up if you liked the video. If you don’t give me a thumbs down, that’s okay. But at least tell me why in the comments down below. Oh yeah. Subscribe if you’re not already subscribed. And that’s what I got to your success, I’m out.
[tr:tra].

See more of Mark Moss on their Public Channel and the MPN Mark Moss channel.