Back to episode — Episode 2838 CWSA 05/13/25
Context —
er gesture of respect. And what I didn't know, I thought it was just going to be the crown prince and Trump, but apparently this is an enormous event with the top billionaires, at least the top American billionaires from BlackRock, Blackstone, KKR, Qualcomm, IBM. So you're getting the richest people in the world. But you're also getting, so these are people who are going to be at the same lunch,…
← Previous segment →nt everywhere, you know, how far you'd have to dig and how hard it would be. But wouldn't it be amazing to have something along the lines of the Boring Company? It would be all different technology because it would be drilling, not tunneling. But that would make everything work. You would have unlimited energy and it would be clean. Everybody would be happy with it.
All you need is technology to be able to drill a really deep hole where it gets really hot and do it reliably and economically. I'd love to see that.
Well, here is the least surprising news of the day. PJ Media's reporting on this, Matt Margolis, that apparently the Joe Biden job creation numbers were more fake than we imagined.
Now, how fake were they? You know, you're used to seeing job numbers come out and then later they get revised down. So we're kind of conditioned for the idea that employment numbers, you know, job numbers might be a little bit managed if you know what I mean.
Well, how managed were they? According to the new figures, and this is from the government. So this is not an outside entity judging the government. This is from the government. According to the new figures, the 399,000 jobs that the Biden team claimed that they created was not 399,000 jobs. So let's round that off to 400,000.
So it turns out maybe Joe Biden did not create 400,000 jobs. They're revising it down a little bit. Do you know what they rev
Context —
ised it to? Lost a thousand jobs. Or there's another estimate that says instead of adding almost 800,000 jobs during the middle of last year, the economy likely shed more than 160,000. So it wasn't only that they revised it downwards. It went from wildly positive to, well, it might have been negative, you know, could have been negative. Now, how many of you remember when I had my Democrat debate…
Next segment → →