Back to episode — Episode 2793 CWSA 03/29/25
Context —
wanted. We've seen other countries, you know, I guess April 2nd will be the real test. That's when a whole bunch of tariffs go into effect. But I feel like Trump's totally out-of-the-box approach to the whole tariff situation, I feel like it's starting to come into focus. And that even if he's not, let's say, technically right about everything that is true about tariffs, I feel like he's going to…
← Previous segment →yes, the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination. So that's good to say that first because it sounds like Trump wants to conquer them, but we don't want to conquer them. We want them to say they think it's a good idea to join with the US. He says we hope that they choose to partner with the US. Now he's calling it partnering. That's good framing because we're the only nation on Earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security. Now that might be true. Well, Canada might, I suppose. But it's a good opening argument.
But I don't think you're going to convince the Greenlanders, the 56,000 locals, unless you say directly you're going to make money. You will be richer if you do this. How much richer? Maybe 20 or 30 percent. And then you could probably get them in. So Denmark does do economic support for Greenland, not totally, but they put a lot of money into it. All we'd have to do is say that we're going to do more than that or that we're going to do some kind of productive business with them, you know, like do some mining and split the difference with them. I think you could bribe them, and when I say bribe I don't mean in a bad way. I mean they get something, we get something. But I don't think anything is going to cause Greenland to want to partner with the US unless we can say directly and with some level of certainty that they're all going to make more money. So without that, I'm not expecting any self-determination to want to partner with us. They're going to want to make money in the real world.
Well, remember that story about DOGE found that billion-dollar annual expense that was only to make a dumb little survey that looked like a high school student made it? And it was used as one of the best examples of how easy it is to find fraud and how gigantic the fraud is and how ridiculous the expenses are. Everybody remember that story? It was from yesterday. Well, according to Jessica Tarlov, I saw on The Five, it's not true. It's just not true that there's any billion-dollar expense for nothing but a survey. There I think the organization exists and the funding is real, but that it's not just for that one thing, that it was for something larger.
I think going forward my take is that I'm not going to believe any of the c
Context —
laims of DOGE because I feel like the DOGE claims, if there's like a really good anecdote that somebody can understand, there is a tendency for them to believe it. And probably a lot of these cases are not as clean as that. So remember the first time you heard that there was a billion dollars a year for nothing but a little survey that looks like you could have done it in 10 minutes, what was your…
Next segment → →