Episode 10 The Epstein Files: Can we reign in the Epstein Class?

The discussion traces how allegations and investigations span decades, why institutional responses repeatedly stalled, and how a political reversal amplified attention instead of defusing it. It also looks at how conspiratorial framing can obscure real issues, and why messenger credibility often determines whether concerns are taken seriously.

The conversation turns to prevention: whether a society can create meaningful consequences for people with extreme wealth and influence, and what policy shifts might limit the ability of a small group to shape institutions, media, and politics. The episode closes with the idea that sustained inequality and perceived impunity can push societies toward disruptive change, and asks what reforms could avert that path.

Links of shows and episodes mentioned in this episode

Your Brain Won’t Let You See What Epstein Really Was – Barry’s Economics
https://youtu.be/sS33crOQvrM?si=MzlamXPZqtGCQfui

The Epstein Class War – Organized Money
https://www.organizedmoney.fm/p/the-epstein-class-war

Episode Show Notes

• Reference date given in the conversation: February 16, 2026
• Framing the “Epstein files” as a long-running issue with renewed public attention
• Discussion of why coverage can become polarized along partisan lines
• The role of institutional inaction when subjects are wealthy and influential
• The “Streisand effect” idea applied to efforts to downplay the story
• How conspiratorial narratives can be dismissed due to incorrect details while overlapping with real structural problems
• Examples of whistleblowers and information-release models: WikiLeaks, Snowden, and Katherine Gunn
• Proposed prevention focus: reducing extreme concentrations of wealth and influence
• Examples of wealth shaping public discourse and media ownership
• Analogy to normalized risk using the Space Shuttle Challenger O-ring failure discussion
• Historical comparison: the 1890s, the Progressive Era, and antitrust as a response to concentrated wealth
• The concept of an “economic floor” and an “economic ceiling”
• The role of lobbying and money in politics
• Mention of Henry George’s “Progress and Poverty” as a possible next-episode topic

Episode Timestamps

00:00 – Episode 10 intro and context for the topic
00:02 – Overview of Jeffrey Epstein and why the story provokes outrage
00:03 – Emphasis on the decades-long timeline and bipartisan scope
00:05 – Barry Fern and “Barry’s Economics” introduced as a reference
00:06 – Why attention surged: promises to release files and a public reversal
00:07 – The “Streisand effect” and how dismissal attempts can amplify attention
00:08 – Institutions and investigations that went nowhere; wealth and power as a factor
00:09 – Conspiracies vs. valid underlying concerns; surveillance state discussion
00:13 – Whistleblowers: Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Katherine Gunn
00:19 – Core question: how to prevent impunity going forward
00:20 – “Organized Money” podcast and “monopoly power” framing
00:21 – Proposed solution: limit extreme wealth; “billionaire to thousand millionaires” idea
00:22 – Bill Gates example and concerns about undemocratic influence
00:24 – Media ownership examples and influence over public discourse
00:25 – Challenger/O-ring analogy and normalized risk comparison
00:28 – Why it’s front-and-center now; MAGA-base reaction to reversal
00:30 – Prevention and the feasibility of changing the rules of the economy
00:33 – Broader geopolitical context and economic pressure discussion
00:36 – Heather Cox Richardson reference: 1890s and the Progressive Era
00:38 – Inequality and social instability comparisons
00:44 – Scott Galloway reference on incentives and competitiveness
00:46 – Economic floor/ceiling and the idea of changing rules and referees
00:47 – Lobbying and “money in politics” as a structural issue
00:48 – Mention of calls to search properties for bodies and potential escalation
00:49 – HBO’s Rome scene as an analogy for how events get misread
00:53 – Henry George and “Progress and Poverty” teased for a future episode
00:54 – Closing and where to find the podcast

Entities Mentioned

People

• Emanuel (Emanuel Petrescu)
• Kevin (Kevin Carney)
• Jeffrey Epstein
• Donald Trump
• Pam Bondi
• Josh Johnson
• Stephen Colbert
• Naomi Klein
• Woody Harrelson
• John Cusack
• Julian Assange
• Edward Snowden
• Katherine Gunn
• Joseph Gordon-Levitt
• Vladimir Putin
• Bill Gates
• Jeff Bezos
• Elon Musk
• Ted Turner
• Heather Cox Richardson
• John D. Rockefeller (referenced as “Rockefeller”)
• Andrew Carnegie (referenced as “Carnegie”)
  
• Aristotle Onassis
  
• Joseph P. Kennedy (referenced as “Joseph Kennedy”)
  
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (referenced as “Robert Kennedy Jr.”)
  
• Ted Kennedy
  
• Scott Galloway
  
• Henry George
  
• Marcus Aelius (as named in the transcript)
  
• Caesar
  
• Pompey
  
• Simon Bolivar
  
• Martin Luther King Jr.
  

Organizations / Institutions / Groups

• Curious Pundits Podcast
  
• YouTube
  
• New York Police Department (NYPD)
  
• FBI
  
• Trump administration
  
• MAGA
  
• QAnon
  
• “Republican media”
  
• “Democratic media”
  
• United Nations (UN)
  
• UK security / UK signal intelligence
  
• US government / US
  
• WikiLeaks
  
• Organized Money (podcast)
  
• Congress
  
• Parliament
  
• NATO
  
• Washington Post
  
• Twitter
  
• Netflix
  
• HBO
  

Places / Locations

• United States
  
• New York
  
• Florida
  
• Washington, DC
  
• London
  
• Australia
  
• Russia
  
• Moscow (airport)
  
• Jupiter (joke reference)
  
• Canada
  
• Romania
  
• Europe
  
• Middle East
  
• Palestine
  
• Ukraine
  
• Japan
  
• Taiwan
  
• Germany
  
• France
  
• Iraq
  

Companies / Brands

• Rheinmetall
  

Media / Works (books, films, series)

• Barry’s Economics (YouTube series)
  
• “Snowden” (film referenced via Joseph Gordon-Levitt portrayal)
  
• HBO’s Rome (TV series)
  
• Progress and Poverty (book)
• Barry’s Economics (YouTube series) — Barry Fern 
• Organized Money (podcast) — hosted by Matt Stoller and David Dayen
• WikiLeaks
• Film reference: Snowden (Joseph Gordon-Levitt portrayal)
• Netflix documentary referenced as a three-part documentary about Epstein
• Heather Cox Richardson (videos referenced)
• Book: Progress and Poverty (1879) — Henry George
• HBO series: Rome
  

Events / Concepts (named in transcript)

• Epstein files
  
• “Streisand Effect” (referred to as “Barbara Streisand Effect”)
  
• Pizza-gate / “pizza parlor in DC” story
  
• COVID pandemic
  
• Space Shuttle Challenger explosion (“Challenger” / “space shuttle”)
  
• Prohibition
  
• Cuban Missile Crisis
  
• Second World War
  
• Progressive Era
  
• New Deal
  
• Antitrust legislation
  
• French Revolution
  
• Lobbyists / lobbying
  
• “traffic of influence”
  

About the Podcast

Hosted by Kevin Carney and Emanuel Petrescu, two curious minds exploring ideas, culture, and everything in between. Curious Pundits is a conversational podcast where each episode starts with a topic that caught our attention and unfolds into thoughtful, unscripted discussion. We follow curiosity wherever it leads, across disciplines, opinions, and perspectives, without pretending to have all the answers.

Listen to the Curious Pundits Podcast on Your Favorite App

Website: https://curiouspundits.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@curiouspundits
Podbean: https://curiouspundits.podbean.com
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/curious-pundits/id1874614249
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4nvSoNRrgPPBkdZiLGanYh
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26ab96d9-ab37-4369-bccc-fe2cf937f950
iHeartRadio: https://iheart.com/podcast/321051634
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/curiouspundits

Follow the Curious Pundits on Social Media

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/curiouspundits/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/curiouspundits/
Threads: https://www.threads.com/@curiouspundits
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@curiouspundits
LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/company/curiouspundits
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@curiouspundits
X: https://x.com/CuriousPundits
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/curiouspundits/
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/curiouspundits/
Medium: https://medium.com/@curiouspundits
Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/curiouspundits

Transcript

[00:00:00] Speaker: This is the Curious Pundits Podcast hosted by Kevin and Emmanuel. They explore bits of everything through thoughtful conversations, prioritizing curiosity over conclusions, and they thank you for joining them now onto the podcast.

[00:00:18] Emanuel: Hi everyone… to yet another episode of the Curious Pundits Podcast. My name is Emmanuel.

[00:00:25] Kevin: My name is Kevin.

[00:00:27] Emanuel: And today we’re celebrating the 10th episode. If I’m correct.

[00:00:33] Kevin: Celebrate may be too strong of a word, but this is our 10th episode.

[00:00:37] Emanuel: I take any… um…

[00:00:41] Kevin: Every win, no matter how small.

[00:00:42] Emanuel: Yeah, yeah. Oh…

Kevin, as for the past couple of episodes, you have proposed a topic of conversation for today.

[00:00:55] Kevin: Yeah, this one is a little more serious than the topics that we’ve been talking about. So just to give everyone a reference for a point in time.

Today is February 16th, 2026, and when I go on YouTube to see what is of interest today, 90% of what I’m seeing is related to the Epstein files.

The algorithm seems to have caught on that this is what people want to hear about and I’m paying some attention to what people are saying. And I kind of came to the realization that there are certain aspects of the Epstein files that are not being talked about much.

So I propose that we talk about them. Now I want to be clear.

[00:01:42] Emanuel: By we you mean mostly you, right? Because I haven’t followed, I know of it. My algorithm shows totally different.

[00:01:48] Kevin: Feel free to interrupt and ask whatever questions you want. So yeah, primarily, I mean me, but I want to be clear that we’re not going to talk about the things that everybody else is talking about.

Now, some people are talking about the stuff that we’re going to talk about, but there’s some… Aspects of this, or nuances of this that I think are being just under discussed, and I want to talk about it.

[00:02:12] Emanuel: I’m curious to learn that as well. But before I let you… is it Epstein or Epstein?

[00:02:23] Kevin: Well, I understand it’s Epstein, E-P-S-T-E-I-N.

[00:02:28] Emanuel: Okay, because I’m more inclined to say Epstein the first one, but maybe it’s just the pronunciation that I’m more accustomed to. Probably in Europe you’ll pronounce it like that.

Well… let’s start with some context. For, let’s say you are describing, talking to someone who never heard about it. What’s the… what are these? What’s going on? Who’s that?

[00:02:52] Kevin: I seriously doubt there are people on Earth who have never heard about this. It is the story all over the world right now, but just in case.

[00:03:02] Emanuel: Okay. Somebody not from Earth.

[00:03:04] Kevin: Yeah, somebody from Jupiter.

Like there’s this guy, Jeffrey Epstein. Incredibly rich, incredibly powerful, who has for some number of decades run what we would call a pedophile ring, finding young, underage girls to bring to places where rich and powerful men could have sex with them.

That’s it in a nutshell.

The reason that this strikes people in such a horrific way is because these are young girls. Apparently the youngest on record was like nine or 10, but many of them are like 15, and it’s created a very polarizing atmosphere amongst what I’m going to call news pundits and amongst politicians, primarily in the United States.

Sometimes when you hear what I’m going to call the Republican media versus the Democratic media talk about this, you would think they were talking about two completely different situations.

But to me, one of the things that I think is not getting enough press is this has been going on for decades.

Republicans want to blame Democrats. Democrats seem more open to accepting that members of both parties are doing it. But there’s a lawsuit floating around out there that alleges that this activity has been going on since 1985.

In Florida… actually no… in New York, there have been complaints about this activity to the New York Police Department and to the FBI from the mid 1990s, about 30 years ago.

And in Florida, police investigations into this activity started in the early two thousands. So this is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue. This transcends both major political parties and people on both sides.

So in my mind that’s issue number one… that I don’t think gets discussed enough.

This is not a new thing. This is not a recent thing. What’s recent is the knowledge of it and the outrage that is… I don’t know what the right word is… occurring as a result of the knowledge of it.

[00:05:36] Emanuel: Do you think that if people suspect this… happening for a while now, and they might just have said, oh yeah, we knew about it all this time, you just find out about it. Or only now it became mainstream or people talk about it more.

But can people say oh yeah, it’s been going on since forever. We knew about it.

[00:06:00] Kevin: Apparently there are people who have known about it since forever and didn’t come forward to talk about it.

And I’m going to mention him later, him is a guy named Barry Fern. He’s a comedian who does a YouTube series called Barry’s Economics. It’s kind of loosely based on Gary’s Economics, but Barry doesn’t talk about… economic issues from a math perspective as he does from a… why do we believe this? Why do we accept this? Perspective. And he did a very interesting video, which I’ll talk about a little bit more later.

[00:06:39] Emanuel: Maybe we’ll put it into the description. I personally don’t know…

[00:06:42] Kevin: It’s like a 20 minute video. Yeah, yeah, we’ll put the link in the description. I kind of misheard and I thought… we’ll include the video, but no, it’s a 20 minute video, so a link to the video is good.

So the other thing I want to mention is that… how do we now know about this?

And to me, this is one of the strangest parts of the whole story.

So Donald Trump campaigned… one of his campaign promises… “we’re going to release the Epstein files”. His attorney general, Pam Bondi, was being interviewed one day and she said… “they’re on my desk. I’m going through them. They’ll be released, soon”.

And then when the Trump administration, which includes President Trump, Attorney General Bondi, FBI Director… what’s his name? Uh, I forget his name. But when these guys all collectively did a 180, they did such a piss poor job of trying to dismiss the Epstein files as “there’s nothing to see here”, that it just pissed people off more.

It… I’m not sure that that reversal could have been handled any more poorly.

[00:08:02] Emanuel: I… there’s a term for that. It’s called the Barbara Streisand Effect or something like that. When you try to take the attention of something, it amplifies actually the attention of the thing that you’re trying to avoid people talking about.

[00:08:16] Kevin: Well, ironically, there are ways they could have taken the attention off of it that would’ve been more effective.

They could have said, for example. We’ve got some serious investigating to do. We’re going to dig in and do that investigating and we’ll get back to you later. And they could have just kept saying that until people stopped asking for updates. Like… that might have even worked.

[00:08:39] Emanuel: Didn’t do that for the past 20 years or so.

[00:08:42] Kevin: Um, well, effectively we’ve been doing that for the pa… well, I don’t know if we’ve been saying that we’re investigating it.

I really have no idea why these investigations went nowhere.

You know, the New York Police Department, the FBI, the police in Florida. Like, nobody made any significant headways in investigating.

[00:08:59] Emanuel: Take a guess.

[00:09:01] Kevin: Well… the people committing these atrocities are rich and powerful.

[00:09:06] Emanuel: That’s one possibility. Of course.

[00:09:08] Kevin: What’s your guess?

[00:09:10] Emanuel: Probably the same one. It’s… probably, yeah.

[00:09:14] Kevin: Anyway, the next comment I want to make, and so far I’ve only heard one guy make this comment and it’s comedian Josh Johnson, and he provided it in part of his comedic bit.

So the Q Anon conspiracy theorists have been telling us for forever that there’s this global pedophile ring of global elites, but because they’ve been getting details blatantly wrong, we’ve been dismissing them as kooks.

You know, when it’s all being coordinated in the basement of that pizza parlor in DC.

And I can remember, I think it was Stephen Colbert on his show… ridiculing it because the pizza parlor in question doesn’t have a basement. And it’s the pizza parlor where the guy showed up with the rifle and ended up firing a shot through the roof or something, and then he got arrested for just being an idiot and doing stupid stuff.

But what really kills me about this is that at the highest level, like there’s a global ring of elite pedophiles who believe they’re above the law… like… that’s true.

We now know that this is true, right? And we… we ridiculed these people because they got all the details wrong.

In fact, I can remember… this is some years ago. Naomi Klein had written a book and she was on the book tour and she’s doing interviews and she spoke about something similar to this, and she used a specific example.

Where all of these right-wing conspiracy theorists are talking about the fact that all of this facial recognition technology is out there and how this is a huge problem, and all of these people who are like politically opposed to them are joking about it on the Internet and saying… “just wait until these guys learn about driver’s licenses”.

As if that somehow dismissed the issue that we are in fact living more and more in a surveillance state, which is really the big issue. The fact that they didn’t recognize driver’s licenses as a part of that surveillance state was the basis for ridiculing their concerns.

Well the concerns are valid.

[00:11:29] Emanuel: It’s not state.

[00:11:31] Kevin: What’s that?

[00:11:31] Emanuel: Surveillance planet not state.

[00:11:34] Kevin: Yes, yes. Um… or surveillance states, plural. Yeah, you’re absolutely right. The fact that we are now so… I don’t think any society ever has been as surveilled as we are today. Uh, just for a variety of technological reasons.

[00:11:51] Emanuel: I’m… I like to think that they care, they care for me, and I’m at the center of the attention, right?

Am I that important to be surveilled? I always make sure I have my hair combed. We’re at least a decent shirt and whatnot.

[00:12:06] Kevin: Yeah, absolutely.

[00:12:07] Emanuel: The jokes aside…

[00:12:08] Kevin: Always brush your hair before you leave the house.

[00:12:10] Emanuel: Always, always.

[00:12:10] Kevin: You’re going to be on camera.

[00:12:12] Emanuel: Um… that’s the topic for another conversation in itself.

[00:12:16] Kevin: Yeah.

[00:12:17] Emanuel: And we touched on it previously, but back to the topic of today’s conversation and ridicule… of certain truth… truths that were probably framed… framed wrong or spoken by the wrong people because the messenger is important. So who delivers the message?

We know from history and even from our perspective if somebody tells us good news in a different… uh… certain expression, facial expression it might sound even bad, then bad news with a positive expression.

[00:12:54] Kevin: I think that’s spot on. We considered these messengers to be kooks, and therefore we dismissed the message because they got the details wrong.

[00:13:07] Emanuel: Woody Harrleson has a character in a movie called 2012, I believe, with John Cusack.

Anyway, he was a radio person that was keep talking about the apocalypse and how the world will end. And he turned out that he was right all the time, although he was still one of those I think they call it the crazies. Right.

[00:13:26] Kevin: Well, I think there’s a lesson to be learned here for the people who are trying to raise the alarm, as well as the people who are listening to them and thinking, these guys are kind of kooky, right.

And I’m going to bring up three specific people who attempted to raise the alarm in ways that worked.

[00:13:47] Emanuel: [Unintelligable], and they did it then.

[00:13:49] Kevin: What’s that?

[00:13:50] Emanuel: They didn’t attempt then, they did it actually.

[00:13:53] Kevin: Oh yeah.

They did it very effectively, at great personal cost. One of them… it turned out the cost appeared like it was going to be very great, and then fortunately for her, it turned out to be minimal. Right?

But the three people are Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Katherine Gunn.

Now Katherine Gunn is the least well known of them.

She worked in Signal Intelligence in the UK in the same way that Snowden worked in Signal Intelligence in the US, and she caught wind of the fact that the United States had asked the UK security people to dig up dirt on some of the… the people in the government of six specific UN nations, who they, the US and the UK wanted them to vote to go to war in Iraq.

And basically it looks kind of like a little blackmail scheme.

So she actually had the evidence, and she gave it to a reporter. It was top secret information. She gave it to a reporter. She could have gone to prison for her entire life. And I think the stories of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are much better known, so they probably don’t need any discussion.

But the main point is…

[00:15:13] Emanuel: Maybe five seconds context. For those, let’s say the younger ones, because they’ve been around for more than 10 years. Right? So let’s say you are a 20-year-old who just…

[00:15:22] Kevin: Well, Assange created a website called WikiLeaks where anybody could submit information anonymously and people submitted… evidence of war crimes, and evidence of political deception, and lying to the people and all that kind of stuff.

And I think the most interesting thing about WikiLeaks is apparently they’ve never had to release a correction. They never said we got this wrong, and apparently they never said they got that wrong because they’ve never actually gotten it wrong.

So they took this very seriously. Apparently they got the information, they went through it, they vetted it. They made sure that the information was true and accurate, and then they released it.

Now, one thing I find interesting about the WikiLeaks thing is they didn’t necessarily know who submitted the information, it was all submitted anonymously.

So they couldn’t even tell the authorities who they got it from because they literally didn’t know.

And then Edward Snowden, he worked at Signal Intelligence and he downloaded a ton of documents to a little… memory stick and you know… have you seen the movie where Joseph Gordon Levitt played him?

[00:16:37] Emanuel: Yes.

[00:16:38] Kevin: So in the movie, he stuck it into a part of a Rubik’s cube, and that’s how he got through the metal detector. He gave the Rubik’s cube to the guard, and the guard gave it back on the other side.

Um, so anyway, it was… like troves and troves of information, and then he met with three specific journalists whom he felt he could trust.

He gave them all of it and he trusted their discretion as to what he would and would not release.

And what makes, in my mind, what makes Snowden’s issue the most interesting is… people debate whether he was a traitor or a hero, but near as I can tell, he was both.

Like some of the information he released was about these lies that were being told that really needed to get out there.

And some of the information that he released was about intelligence gathering sources and methods and activities around the world that he should not have released.

But he didn’t take time to go through it. He just released all of it. Well, he gave it to the journalists, trusting them to use their discretion as to what would and would not be released.

So depending on what information he released that you focus in on, he can be a hero for some information and he can be a traitor for other information. And I think both arguments are relevant depending on what specific information you’re looking at.

[00:18:09] Emanuel: He was sentenced, if I’m not mistaken, right?

He is.

[00:18:12] Kevin: No, he is still in Russia. I don’t know if he was sentenced or not, but he was fleeing. I’m not sure where he was going, but he was at the Moscow airport when the US government canceled his passport.

And then Putin said… well… you can stay here.

[00:18:27] Emanuel: He’s…

[00:18:27] Kevin: And he’s still there.

[00:18:30] Emanuel: Uh, that was my next question.

Are these both Julian and uh Edward alive today?

[00:18:38] Kevin: I believe that Julian Assange is alive. I’m not sure where he is. He was holed up in the…

[00:18:44] Emanuel: Salvadorian

[00:18:44] Kevin: …embassy in London

[00:18:46] Emanuel: for the longest time, right?

[00:18:48] Kevin: Yeah, for like six years or something. And then he did get out and he might even be back in Australia now, I don’t know.

And then in Katherine Gunn’s case, she had a lawyer who was going to take it to trial. And when they showed up to start the trial, the government dropped the charges.

And what happened was… they had the receipts. Trials are public. If this goes to trial, exactly, who knew what, when, would be revealed in a very public forum.

And the government decided not to do that.

But she spent a couple of years believing that she was going to be prosecuted for treason.

[00:19:30] Emanuel: No comment there. Yeah.

Back to the today’s topic.

[00:19:36] Kevin: Yeah, the Epstein files.

So then, and I don’t think this gets enough press as well is… can we prevent this from happening in the future?

[00:19:47] Emanuel: We can try for sure.

[00:19:50] Kevin: Yeah, but how? I mean we literally have people who feel as if there are no consequences to what they do, and apparently that’s true.

So how do we create an environment where there are consequences?

[00:20:07] Emanuel: Well, I would like to say little kids sometimes think this is how the world works, right? With no . And… you can like teach them, there’s different ways of instructing them and have them learn that there’s consequences to this.

That was just a small note related to what you ask, but with not a particular answer because I don’t have an answer and I don’t think you do either, and…

[00:20:38] Kevin: Well… two guys, one of which is… well, three guys actually. Um, two… I guess podcasts, I guess… you know, Barry’s Economics is on YouTube, but I’m going to call it a podcast.

So Barry put forth an idea, and the other… a podcast I listen to is called Organized Money, and it’s hosted by Matt Stoller and David Dayen. And their whole thing is, they call it Monopoly Power, how Monopoly Power shapes economies.

Technically speaking, none of the companies they talk about are absolute pure monopolies, but they’re very large companies. They have a lot of power in the market and they just push smaller companies around.

And the common thread, and we should also post a link to the Organized Money episode, they did a whole episode just on the Epstein files as a bunch of people are doing right now.

[00:21:29] Emanuel: We’re not the only ones?

[00:21:31] Kevin: We’re not the only ones.

No. In fact, nine out of 10 YouTube recommendations is someone talking about the Epstein files, but they both came up with a proposed solution that I’ve been hammering on for the longest time in addition to, but for a different reason.

So fundamentally, we have people who are so rich and so powerful they are above the law and the answer is… don’t allow people to get that rich and powerful.

Now, it’s easier said than done.

[00:22:11] Emanuel: Marx.

[00:22:13] Kevin: Um, no…. so this is how I have framed it over the last five, six years… if we change the laws and turned every billionaire into a thousand millionaires. We would almost all of us be better off. The only people who would be worse off are the billionaires who are being turned into millionaires.

Now, why is a thousand millionaires better than a billionaire? It’s more democratic.

I’m going to use Bill Gates as an example, even though in the example I’m going to use, I don’t really know if this is a good thing or not.

During the COVID pandemic, Bill Gates became the Global Health Czar, and there was no discussion.

There was no debate… who should become the global spokesperson for this.

Bill Gates is so rich that he funds health research all around the world. So basically when he just stepped into that role, people said, well we need his funding, don’t rock the boat, let him do it. The reason he can do that is because he’s just so rich.

So if people aren’t rich enough to just take over something like being a global health czar or whatever… then there has to be a more democratic conversation about who should do what.

[00:23:40] Emanuel: I want to add something, be the devil’s advocate again and say that also, I think that Bill Gates is also well prepared and he’s a clearly very intelligent, probably one of the most intelligent people on earth, and also has the information.

So I wouldn’t necessarily consider him as someone bad to… have that role. If you are again, putting back our tinfoil hats and look at all the other…

[00:24:11] Kevin: mm-hmm.

[00:24:11] Emanuel: Uh, what’s legends going around him with vaccines, with the cheap implantation, all those things, then yeah. Maybe might be something to raise an eyebrow.

But if you are asking me, is Bill Gates a uh… person who can be the… I like how you call it the czar of… the spokesperson, at least when it comes to he healthy in terms of extreme emergency situations such as pandemics and whatnot. I believe he is definitely more qualified than I would say, even some people from some governments for sure.

[00:24:44] Kevin: That’s actually an irony of using him as an example because I agree with everything you just said. He does know a lot about this. He’s put a lot of time into it and he is probably a good person to be that spokesperson. What I dislike is the undemocratic way in which he became that spokesperson.

He basically bought that position, if you will, and we have the same thing happening in the media with Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post and Elon Musk buying Twitter.

Like they are able to shape the discussions that occur in society because they’re so rich, they just appoint themselves as the arbitrator of the discussion.

[00:25:25] Emanuel: This, yeah…. and this goes back… we touch on this topic in episode five about wrestling… Ted Turner. Going back to… who was probably the best example on how you can turn media into… how to use media to make anybody, anyone, essentially.

[00:25:46] Kevin: So I want to talk a little about Barry Fern’s video. Now, again, it’s called Barry’s Economics.

And again, let’s post a link by all means, but just a very, very quick summary.

So he used the explosion of the Challenger…. I can’t think what that was called, but like the, oh, the the space shuttle, it took off and it exploded like 72 seconds after, right?

[00:26:14] Emanuel: Yeah. When was this happening?

[00:26:16] Kevin: 1987, I think.

[00:26:19] Emanuel: 87.

That was one year I remember. Yeah.

[00:26:21] Kevin: Well I do remember it. I…

[00:26:24] Emanuel: I don’t remember because I remember it. I remember because it was one year after I was born or something like that.

[00:26:30] Kevin: I had been working nights someplace, so I would get home at like two, three in the morning, and then I would get up at like 10, 11… and I stopped and on my way to work for whatever… I needed a shirt.

So I stopped at a store to buy a shirt… and I’m oblivious. I’m not aware that this happened because I’m just not, I didn’t have a TV in the house and blah, blah, blah. Right.

So I’m in buying a shirt, and the sales person I’m talking to told me this was happening, and I thought he was joking and he got angry because I thought he was joking. So I remember that part of it.

But anyway, what happened was that an O ring, which formed a seal between two parts, had never been fully tested in cold weather.

[00:27:24] Emanuel: Right.

[00:27:25] Kevin: And it had been very cold in Florida that morning. The O-ring cracked and hydrogen leaked out, and when it hit the flame, it went boom. Right?

But what I didn’t realize, and what Barry claimed in his video is the fact that there had been O ring failures was actually well known, but a decision was made that… since there was a backup system and it had never failed and blah, blah, blah, if we go back to the drawing board and redesign this, we’re going to have to delay the next set of launches, and that’s going to be horrendously expensive.

So people kind of normalized knowledge of the O-Ring failures because it hadn’t produced any catastrophic effects.

[00:28:11] Emanuel: It’s like driving a car that you know, has problems with the brakes and says you’re just going to drive slowly or something.

[00:28:17] Kevin: Exactly. Same kind of deal, and then he basically equated this to not paying attention to the Epstein files. We didn’t pay attention to the O Ring reports because it hadn’t been a catastrophic issue.

And in the same way he says, we didn’t really pay attention to all these reports of Epstein because… there just hadn’t been a catastrophic failure. And like… what’s the big deal?

[00:28:44] Emanuel: Why? Why now. For example, one might ask why now? Why do we pay attention now?

[00:28:50] Kevin: My personal belief is, it’s what I mentioned earlier. Donald Trump campaigned on releasing the Epstein files.

His attorney General said she had them and they would be released soon. And then when they did a 180, their political base, the MAGA people in the United States are like… no, this is not acceptable to us.

[00:29:15] Emanuel: Let’s go back to the main character. Is he still around?

[00:29:19] Kevin: Jeffrey Epstein?

[00:29:20] Emanuel: Yes.

[00:29:21] Kevin: No, he’s dead. And again, part of the conspiracy theories, he hung himself in prison, except that he probably didn’t really, he was probably murdered.

Like I don’t have enough details there to talk one way or another, but he’s dead. But there’s all kinds of like really weird stuff.

[00:29:37] Emanuel: When was this happening?

[00:29:39] Kevin: Oh, I’d have to Google for it. I know that we said we’re not going to Google for stuff, but…

[00:29:43] Emanuel: 2019 before the pandemic.

[00:29:48] Kevin: I don’t think so. Um…

[00:29:49] Emanuel: Trump was still president, but you can, you can Google it.

And they, there were some fuss about it. I remember seeing some of the news back then as well… and I believe Netflix has a documentary… has a three part documentary that kind of like describes and shares the story, right.

And then I suspect that it never actually… blew off, turned off.

People were still kind of like interested in it, and I believe perhaps the president kind of saw this as a great opportunity to hype that up as you said. Now it became kind of like the center of of attention. I wasn’t surprised because I don’t necessarily have a… the best opinion on some of the people that were mentioned in those files.

So I wasn’t shock and I suspect most people were not like, oh my God, how, how, how come I wasn’t expecting this. Probably not. I think most people, the entire world kind of like knew something like this was going on. I think it’s obviously a good thing that the truth surfaced.

And to your point, what can we do to prevent this from happening again?

[00:31:08] Kevin: The only thing I can come up with is what these three guys on their respective podcasts said, but… I don’t… I don’t have a sense that… that’s actually going to happen. Like, are we going to change the rules of the economy such that no one can become a billionaire? Like if you’ve got a hundred million dollars, you’re good.

I don’t know, but that would help fix the problem because then the… the… first… I mean it would fix a lot of problems believe it or not, but it would make the overall discussions much more democratic and it would mean that a lot more people would have to be involved in a coverup of this nature.

[00:31:51] Emanuel: Well… there’s a couple of ways of getting there. First of all you can fix some other problems like the world debt. We won’t get to details on who owns what or who owns this debt. Essentially, when we hear that United States have so and so, this much debt… Canada has this much debt and so forth. But one is… there’s arguably throughout history..

There’s two ways of getting rid of something like that. One, a mega ultra inflation where you’ll buy a coffee with a couple of hundred bucks. Yeah. And then most likely will become millionaires sooner rather than later.

[00:32:33] Kevin: But that’s not what I’m proposing or these guys are proposing.

[00:32:36] Emanuel: The with two millions, you’ll probably buy a car or something like that.

The other one is war. Where you know, the loser will pay whatever the… he owed and whatever the other guy owed the winner, and then some as well. Where does this…

[00:32:59] Kevin: Yeah, I mean…

[00:33:00] Emanuel: …in all this…

[00:33:01] Kevin: Basically what you’re saying is if something like radically altered what I’m going to call the fabric of society, like these are the times at which people say, okay, the rules need to change, but hopefully we don’t need some world war to…

[00:33:18] Emanuel: Hopefully…

[00:33:19] Kevin: Move us…

[00:33:19] Emanuel: …and I’ll definitely pray for this, but our reality in 2026 is that if we look at what’s going on in the middle East era slash uh, even Palestine, that was always a conflict, but never so intense as it was for the past couple of months. But I think it’s been a year or already, right?

A year or so.

[00:33:43] Kevin: Yeah, over a year yeah.

[00:33:44] Emanuel: Over a year. We have the, um… Ukraine, Russia situation as well.

Germany is kind of like started building their own army. They invested a lot.

[00:33:54] Kevin: That number ends poorly, right?

[00:33:56] Emanuel: They’ve committed to arming themselves with.. Funny enough… the name is the company that will build the manufacturing company’s called Rheinmetall. I know exactly how you pronounce, but that Rhein in the Rheinmetall is uh… is at least worth exploring.

I recently read a report on Japan’s new prime minister, progressive, a woman who has apparently… open relationship with the US, and Donald Trump likes her because she enforces some of his politics and his ideas as well.

And one of them fairly important is Japan to also become a more significant player in that part of the world in case of a… to some imminent invasion of Taiwan.

And as we know, or for some context and maybe for some younger audience that actually don’t know. Germany, Japan were on the losing side of the Second World War.

Part of the terms after losing was that they were not… allowed to have their own army.

Why I’m saying this because I’ve heard many influencers around the world when especially in the first time when Trump was, I think, was a little bit more aggressive when it came to the amount of money all the NATO members contributed.

And to, to an extent… it was fair because many people could have given… many other countries could have given a little bit more. But, part of the reason that Germany doesn’t have an army is because they were not allowed to.

And I remember between 2016, 2020, and even now… right now people were saying, why should we, the US pay for Germany, right?

Why don’t you make your own army? And all those things. It’s like… you’re putting gasoline on the fire, essentially. So that’s why we’re giving up. I like to give some context as well. So when we think about this… maybe a ultra inflation… a couple with a more global war.

I would say… let’s say not World War, but more global conflicts here and there. That will probably result at one point soon in a… couple of sides fighting one against the other. I hope we won’t get there, but it’s highly likely because it serves some purposes. One of them being if you’re on the winning side, getting rid of some debt that can cripple you.

Right now, where does this come into today’s topic?

Again, because we like to deviate. That’s one of the things that we do here on this podcast.

[00:36:46] Kevin: I am hopeful that we don’t need anything that drastic to reign in what’s now being called the Epstein class.

There’s a historian that I now pay some attention to. Her name is Heather Cox Richardson, and she does like a little video almost every day, and I can’t watch all of them.

But she did one fairly recently in which she pointed out that the last time in the United States that so few people owned so much, was the 1890s, and that led directly into what was called the progressive era.

Which created antitrust legislation, the New Deal and all that kind of stuff. So her main point is… this is how this shook out the last time we were here, and I see no reason that it won’t shake out that way again.

[00:37:38] Emanuel: That was before Rockefeller and Carnegie, right?

[00:37:43] Kevin: I’d have to look up… i’m not sure exactly when…

[00:37:47] Emanuel: Funny enough that you mentioned it, I just remember that I saw a another report with a graph comparing the difference and the sentiment of the middle class compared to the rich.

[00:38:01] Kevin: Mm-hmm.

[00:38:01] Emanuel: Being the graph was like on par with, what was it in France in the late 18 hundreds that went, that started off the French Revolution that… eventually shape the world as we kind of like say it today more or less… and that…

[00:38:22] Kevin: Well the French Revolution I believe was in the late 17 hundreds. But your point is valid, right? I mean…

[00:38:26] Emanuel: Oh yes.

[00:38:28] Kevin: When so many have so little and so few have so much, people get pissed… and they… they do things like chop other people’s heads off.

I mean there’s a certain point in time when… “eat the rich” becomes something that people put into action. And I am hoping that we can avoid that because like those are never pleasant transitions to go through.

But we do now have, what is increasingly being called the Epstein class, and we need to find a way to reign them in.

It’s not acceptable that there are a group of people who are so rich and so powerful that the law literally doesn’t apply to them. That’s not okay.

[00:39:17] Emanuel: I had to check exactly as 17 nineties… late 17 hundreds, early 18 hundreds… that’s the period of the French Revolution.

[00:39:24] Kevin: Yeah.

[00:39:25] Emanuel: That didn’t… end up so well for the society, how you call it, the probably royal society back then. So that could give us a clue of how the sentiment is against what you just call the Epstein Society.

Who’s a member? And how you get there is just the wealth, the only criteria?

[00:39:47] Kevin: I heard the strangest thing, and I forget where I heard it. I heard it just recently, but apparently people in the Epstein class view, being in the Epstein class as having made it. Now it does require having enormous wealth. You don’t have to be born into wealth. Like Bill Gates was born into a upper middle class household, and then he became enormously wealthy.

[00:40:13] Emanuel: Say wealth.

[00:40:14] Kevin: Well, yeah, but not like super rich. I mean, he wasn’t like… trying to think of that Greek shipping magnate, I can’t think of his name.

[00:40:22] Emanuel: Aristotle Onassis.

[00:40:23] Kevin: Yeah, yeah. So he was actually born poor and became rich. So that’s a little bit different, right.

But when you become enormously wealthy, we tend to cut you a lot of slack.

In fact, I’m going to talk about the Kennedys very briefly, like the entire Kennedy family.

It’s fairly well known that Joseph Kennedy, the guy who made the money, made it bootlegging during prohibition. Once they became super rich, they became the closest thing America had the royalty in forever. We excused how they became rich…

[00:40:55] Emanuel: Until today.

[00:40:56] Kevin: Well, yeah, I mean… I think the family is still well regarded. There’s this one guy that even the family is trying to distance themselves from, but…

[00:41:06] Emanuel: We all have that cousin, eh?

[00:41:07] Kevin: We all have that cousin, right. Unfortunately…

[00:41:10] Emanuel: …my cousin…

[00:41:10] Kevin: That cousin for them, is in a position of power right now. But I think the family is still well regarded.

There’s been a couple of… you know… Robert Kennedy Jr., Teddy Kennedy, Chappaquidick, all that kind of stuff, right?

But for the most part, we tend to have positive feelings about the family overall in spite of the fact that they originally became rich doing something that was at the time illegal.

[00:41:35] Emanuel: And that’s the case with most people.

They tend… we tend to disregard the origins or the fact that they became what they are today due to… I dunno… something that will not go into the good books, essentially. I wanted to say that Kennedy although I was on the wrong one, he got assassinated. I remember that the sentiment was a lot of people suffered from that.

And even my mom was saying that people were, even in Romania, people were crying. Because he was, as I understand, and based on what I read, he was probably the best president. At least for that era, in that context.

[00:42:21] Kevin: We have this habit of putting attributes onto people after they die that we would probably not have put onto them when they lived.

Legislatively, his administration was kind of average. Like he had no major legislative wins or losses. Probably what he’s known best for is the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[00:42:44] Emanuel: And the acceleration of a space.

[00:42:48] Kevin: Oh yeah, yeah. How could I forget that? That was kind of a big deal. Yeah.

[00:42:51] Emanuel: And overall the sentiment… sometimes you don’t necessarily need to do something major because it was after the World War, so he was the tension of course, with the Soviet Union, but it wasn’t… minus the Cuban Missile Crisis, which could have ended like poorly for the entire Earth. So we dodge that.

[00:43:12] Kevin: Yeah. And he gets credit for having handled that well. Although it’s hard to say what the other possible options were. I mean, obviously I was not in the room. Well, plus I was just a young kid, right?

But it’s not uncommon to, after someone dies, to treat them in ways we didn’t treat them in life. And probably an extreme example, and I’m kind of segueing off, but when the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was alive, he was pretty hated. And after he died, he’s beloved by all now.

He wasn’t hated by everybody, but he was pretty hated by a lot of people. And now he gets treated like a saint, which is not necessarily inappropriate, but it’s not consistent.

I mean even… we spoke about in a prior episode how Simon Bolivar is regarded in death much more than he was regarded in the last three, four years of his life.

It just happens.

[00:44:11] Emanuel: Some people are more precious dead than alive, right? There’s been many…

[00:44:16] Kevin: That appears to be the case.

[00:44:18] Emanuel: … conspiracy theories where…

[00:44:19] Kevin: Anyway, how do we fix it?

Well, I mean, I don’t have a better answer than the one that Barry Fern, Matt Stoller and David Dayen came up with… update the laws of the economy so that every billionaire becomes a thousand millionaires.

In fact, Scott Galloway has an interesting take on this. I forget exactly when he said it, I’m not sure I could find the video, but he brought up the same idea in some kind of a discussion and someone said, “but that would take away their incentive to succeed”.

And he’s like… “no it won’t”.

Right?

These people are incredibly competitive people and what really matters is winning. And the idea they would consider earning a hundred million dollars, losing, is ridiculous.

[00:45:04] Emanuel: And you know, you get to a hundred million dollars and then you start all over from scratch. They would get more. Of that a hundred million dollars. That can be an incentive by itself.

I, from my experience, people in different contexts behave differently. And the, it’s important at what moment they interact with one thing or another. I can see this here. Because I’m an immigrant from East Europe and I live in Canada, and I’ve seen many of my colleagues doing well in Europe or in other places where, whereas if they have stayed in that context where they were brought up in, they would have ended up on a completely different spectrum of society altogether.

That’s probably something that we can talk about in a different episode, but a conclusion, a recap, and a conclusion of today’s episode.

[00:45:59] Kevin: There are a class of people who are so rich and powerful they are literally above the law, and this is not acceptable to almost everybody else.

Like, that’s it in a nutshell.

Now, whether we do anything about this, like I’m a big believer that the Barry Fern, the Matt Stoller, and the David Dayen, and the Kevin Carney solution is a good solution. But are we going to do it? I hope so, but I’m skeptical, like I doubt it.

[00:46:31] Emanuel: I don’t even want to go into the exercise of imagining how the logistics will play in that one.

First of all, although technology might…

[00:46:41] Kevin: The logistics is that Congress or Parliament passes laws to just restructure the rules of the economy. We’ve done this over and over again in the course of history, but starting about maybe 50 years ago… I wish I could remember where I heard this, but it’s a great quote, right?

So people tend to look at economics and finance as a game, but it’s the only game where when you start to win, you get to change the rules and pick the referees. And we need to change that part of it. Like, yeah, by all means win, but in the same way that there ought to be some kind of an economic floor in society, there ought to be some kind of an economic ceiling.

Now, maybe a hundred million is not the right number. Maybe 200 million is right, but it ought to be like no one should earn less than this, and no one should earn more than that because when we let it get way outta whack, society becomes fundamentally undemocratic and leads to authoritarian governments, and we don’t want that.

So let’s not do that.

[00:47:43] Emanuel: Same example, context is important. In North America, you have this thing called lobbyists…

[00:47:48] Kevin: Uhhuh…

[00:47:48] Emanuel: …which is perfectly legal in many entities. Corporations pay a lot of money to some people to essentially drink coffee and have…

[00:48:01] Kevin: Yeah, that’s got to be reigned in, we’ve got to get money out of politics.

[00:48:04] Emanuel: On Epstein and the likes around Congress and to influence a view of politics from a legal standpoint.

For example, in my country, the same thing is punishable by law. It’s called traffic of influence, and it’s forbidden and punishable by law and as it is in many countries in Europe as well. So it’s about the context. For me, it’s always about the context and the people.

[00:48:29] Kevin: It occurs to me, and we do have to kind of close, it’s been almost an hour now, but it occurs to me that there is one thing that could probably piss everybody off so much that they simply demand that we change the rules of the economies and do away with billionaires.

People are starting to demand that Jeffrey Epstein’s properties be searched for dead bodies. If we start searching his properties for dead bodies and we start finding them, that’s just going to make the whole thing worse.

Right now, I’m not saying we’re going to find dead bodies, but if we do… like, okay, enough is enough.

You can’t just kill people and bury them and get away with it, right? That would probably create enough momentum behind political change, that we could do it.

[00:49:18] Emanuel: And there’s always coupled with some other events as well that need to be taken into context. And I’ll close with a scene from a HBO’s Rome.

It was a two season series.

[00:49:31] Kevin: I saw it.

[00:49:32] Emanuel: Fantasy, so it adds characters around real events. But don’t take that as history, first of all. And there’s a scene when Marcus Aelius, as the council had veto, right? So he could out vote whatever the Senate has voted. The ceremony… so the meeting wasn’t officially closed the day before, so he could still have veto.

The I don’t remember which one. I think about Caesar being accepted as a Roman citizen or as a somebody who wants to seize power and condemn him. I don’t remember exactly which one in that scene, but nevertheless, Marcus Aelius surrounded with few, I think 20 or 30 guards bodyguards. Was marching towards the Senate so he can express, manifest his vote.

Where in fact, somebody attacked one of his bodyguards, not him, one of his bodyguards because he owned him some money, at cards or something. He played how you call the dice game or a version of the dice game. He lost some money. The guy owed him and he saw him and he attacked and everybody, it went into a small ruckus because they were thinking of, they were trying to assassinate the console not to get to the vote.

And that’s how they ended up chasing… I think that’s the scene, right when they ended up not voting, so Caesar chased the Senate and Pompey away from Rome.

[00:50:58] Kevin: Yeah, I remember that scene. That was…

[00:51:00] Emanuel: But the idea is that because that guy owed the other guy some money and he attacked him, everybody thought that was the other stuff.

So…

[00:51:07] Kevin: Yeah.

[00:51:07] Emanuel: Where I’m going with this, obviously discovering something like that will give that extra push, but also it’s about the economic context, you know, people not making as much money or having being burdened with all the other stuff.

And you, we discussed earlier, I wanted to give the example, my generations for example. It’s clear that we don’t have the, we have more opportunities for sure.

And there’s ways of making it, whatever that might mean, make money. More than it was back, but the average is suffering more than the previous generations. Somebody my age is hard to afford a house I need to put in three or four times. Sometimes it feels like the effort of somebody my age four years ago, something like that, if that makes sense.

[00:51:54] Kevin: Yeah.

[00:51:54] Emanuel: Right. And it’s true. And we see this more and more probably. That’s what I see in the algorithm because I’m targeted… millennials are suffering. But, but it’s true, right? Everything comes at a greater cost. You’re not the same as you were 30 years ago, right? Somebody, let’s say a bank teller, right?

A bank teller with a job at a bank. In 2026, not even half of what a bank teller could do. In 1996, let’s say. Not even, I would say argue even 2006. You still could get to do more stuff.

And I lied. I’m going to end it with another anecdote, a story. When I came to Canada, I worked for a very brief period of time as a security guard.

When I changed shift, the person as a security guy, he had his house and his car, and one child in university, all paid off by himself with that security guard job that he’s been working there for like 30 years or something like that. He was close to retirement, and that was 2016. Do you think that’s possible today with a security job?

[00:53:01] Kevin: No.

[00:53:02] Emanuel: Salary to buy even the car. Obviously wasn’t driving a Mercedes or anything like that, and the house was like semi detached three bedrooms or something like that, but still… car, house, children’s university paid off with a security guard job.

[00:53:19] Kevin: I’m going to take an opportunity to plant a seed for a future episode.

We don’t have time to go into it in great detail.

But a guy named Henry George published a book in 1879 called Progress and Poverty. And he was trying to answer the question, why in the areas of the greatest affluence do we also have the greatest poverty? He came up with what I thought were some really interesting answers and some really interesting… like policy proposals, and he was very famous for like 20 years.

And like nobody knows who he was today, right.

[00:54:00] Emanuel: Now I’m curious, so that’s essentially the topic for the next episode.

[00:54:05] Kevin: Yeah, let’s do that. Yeah.

[00:54:07] Emanuel: What’s…

[00:54:07] Kevin: Let’s just leave it right there as a teaser. I’ll go through his book again and refresh my memory and we’ll talk about that next episode.

[00:54:14] Emanuel: Maybe I’ll have time to read it and get myself caught up.

[00:54:18] Kevin: Yeah. It’s called Progress and Poverty. And I actually thought it was really insightful. And there are people to this day who call themselves Georgeists and believe in Georgeism, because a lot of his fundamental insights are pretty valid, I think.

[00:54:37] Emanuel: I’m curious now. You may be curious. I’m a pundit and I’m curious, I guess I’m in the right place.

That was an interesting episode. Thank you so much, Kevin, for sharing all that information. If you like or dislike what you heard, feel free to contact us where you can do that to on our website, curiouspundits.com, we have all the episodes live available.

Yeah. On YouTube, on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify, Amazon music, stitcher, wherever you’re listening to your podcast, we most likely be there, so like, follow, subscribe, and thank you.

Until next time, my name is Emanuel.

[00:55:17] Kevin: My name is Kevin.

[00:55:19] Emanuel: And we are the Curious Pundits, signing off.

[00:55:21] Kevin: Take care.

[00:55:22] Speaker 2: Thank you for listening to this episode. If you like the podcast, please like, subscribe, and tell others. Visit curious pundits.com to learn more and stay tuned for the next episode.