Elon Musk Weighs In On The Economy

Elon Musk Weighs In On The Economy


  • A new global CBDC is being launched with the backing of the International Monetary fund.
  • An economic analyst addresses the elephant in the room: Is digital currency constitutional?
  • Texas lawmakers have introduced bills that would create the state’s own digital currency separate from the U.S. dollar, but would that be legal?
  • A new survey shows 70% of Americans are now under financial stress.
  • Elon Musk weighs in on the economy.
  • And Anheuser Busch comes out with an apology. Well… sort of.

All these stories and more when the Worldview Financial Report begins, right now!


Good evening and welcome to the Worldview Financial Report.

The Digital Currency Monetary Authority, or DCMA, announced on April 10th it will be launching a new global central bank digital currency, or CBDC, calling it an “universal monetary unit” that all of the world’s central banks can use for trade settlements between each other.

The DCMA describes itself on its website as a “world leader in the advocacy of digital currency and monetary policy innovations for governments and central banks. Membership within the DCMA consists of sovereign states, central banks, commercial and retail banks, and other financial institutions.”

The group has created what they call the “Unicoin Network… a decentralized international banking network open to central banks, retail and commercial banks, Fintech, governments, and cryptocurrency exchanges. Central banks can deploy a resilient CBDC monetary system adopting the Unicoin Network Crypto 2.0 protocol.”

The DCMA is also trying to establish a platform that will utilize a single currency they call “Unicoin,” by which their Unicoin Network is authorized and fully backed by the IMF. The currency itself is powered by artificial intelligence.

They claim this platform will allow central banks to convert their own currencies into Unicoin for easier international trade, while also allowing more stability against price fluctuations.

The DCMA announced these plans on April 10th during the 2023 International Monetary Fund Spring Meetings.

The DCMA explained:

“Universal Monetary Unit is an innovation in Store of Value cryptographic cash. It is a continuous demand money commodity leveraging monetary policy to minimize high volatility and to ensure continuous market demand.

Central banks will be able to enter into bilateral agreements if they prefer to hold Unicoin on their CBDC ledger.

The DCMA explained more about the rollout of their CBDC and the IMF’s praise of it in a press release, as follows:

“Today, at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Spring Meetings 2023, the Digital Currency Monetary Authority (DCMA) announced their official launch of an international central bank digital currency (CBDC) that strengthens the monetary sovereignty of participating central banks and complies with the recent crypto assets policy recommendations proposed by the IMF.”

This is clearly a propaganda front. No nation or national banking system will have its sovereignty strengthened by this digital system in any way, shape or form. It’s all smoke and mirrors to usher in the most efficient control grid the world has ever seen.


With all this talk about central bank digital currencies, one analyst has delved into a topic few in Washington want us to even think about.

Is digital currency a constitutional form of money?

Many fear that it would give governments complete control over individuals by allowing them to track, and even block, individual transactions for any reason or no reason at all. Governments could also impose taxes at will and automatically deduct them from your digital account.

Robert Wright, a senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, tackled this topic in an article for the Money Metals News Service.

In the United States, the term “money” is so tightly tied to and based in the Constitution that, despite its name, Wright says that a U.S. government CBDC would not qualify as money or even currency.

He writes:

“It could exist as one payment system among many, but without violating the U.S. Constitution it could not be forced on Americans as the sole final means of payment…”

In other words, a CBDC could not legally achieve monopoly status in the realm of legal tender.

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power “to borrow Money on the credit of the United States” and “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin.”

It also gives Congress the power “to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and CURRENT Coin of the United States” and “to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

Article I, Section 9 stipulates that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Laws; a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Article I, Section 10 says that “no state shall... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

Wright says Americans wanted their new nation to be a common currency area, so only the national government could have any “monetary policy discretion.”

The stickier question was always the extent of that discretion, particularly the federal government's ability to issue bills of credit.

After much study, he came to the conclusion that the Founders would have tolerated temporary periods of fiat money issued during wartime or other major emergencies, but that they would not consider a permanent fiat system constitutional.

He writes:

“That position is obviously not the prevailing one, but it is also not necessary to establish the fact that a CBDC is not an electronic form of fiat money or any other type of ‘currency’ under the Constitution. As shown above, all three types of money specified in the Constitution – bills of credit, foreign gold and silver coins, and domestic gold and silver coins – were (and remain) physical bearer instruments.”

In other words, they are “current” in the sense used in Section 8, meaning that mere physical possession provides sufficient proof of their ownership.

To tender current money is to turn over physical possession to another party in order to consummate a trade or pay a debt. Due to its physical nature and bearer-legal status, “money,” as used in the Constitution, can be used anonymously as a means of final payment.

In America's constitutional context, a CBDC is a payment system, a means of exchanging money over physical distance.

The American founding fathers had knowledge of the payment systems provided by 18th century banks and money changers, but wisely did not authorize them in the Constitution. 

As Wright explains, “They did not conflate checks, bills of exchange, or other orders for the payment of money with money itself, and never made deposits or even banknotes a legal tender.”

Can the Treasury or Federal Reserve declare that a CBDC is a new payment system that people have the option of using in place of existing payment services? Yes.

Can the government declare that a CBDC is now money and confiscate Federal Reserve Notes and bank deposits like it confiscated gold during the New Deal? 

No, says Wright. At least not lawfully.


If you want an example of how governments can use electronic banking systems for nefarious purposes, look no further than Iran.

Iranian women who resist the hijab law face the brutal prospect of frozen bank accounts, drawing chilling parallels to the repressive tactics of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau against protestors.

The RAIR Foundation reports that Iran is intensifying its efforts to enforce strict dress codes for women by instituting a new law that fines women 2.5 billion rials (equivalent to U.S. $60,000) for flouting hijab rules, then automatically deducts the fines from the victim’s bank account. Last month, Iran’s judiciary chief reiterated that “removing one’s hijab is equivalent to showing enmity to the Islamic Republic.”

This is all part of the Islamic Republic’s adherence to Sharia, as it ramps up efforts even further to counter protests. The Quranic verses that govern women’s attire, Quran 24:31 and 33:59, have been used to justify these oppressive laws, which are now being linked to electronic bank accounts.


As we’ve been reporting now for months, the global de-dollarization phenomenon is becoming increasingly severe, to the point where not only other nations, but even states within the United States are getting nervous.

Several U.S. states are trying to find alternatives to the dollar, among which Texas has proposed two bills, SB2334 and HB4903, to create a state-issued digital currency backed by gold that can be exchanged for dollars or gold. Residents of the state could choose to use or hold U.S. dollars, gold, or a supposedly gold-backed digital currency. 

Take a look at this analysis by Asian Quicktake.

WATCH VIDEO (clip from 1:01 to 4:55)


It sounds like someone may need to inform the folks down in Texas that Article 1, Section 8, as we reported earlier in this broadcast, reserves the power to coin money to Congress. It’s unlikely that states trying to create their own digital currencies would have the backing of the courts.


A bipartisan House majority overwhelmingly approved a measure last week to protect rural land critical for renewable energy production from Chinese investors.

The measure — an amendment sponsored by Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa — was approved in a 407-26 vote with 223 Republicans and 184 Democrats voting in favor. Just 26 Democrats voted against the bill while eight lawmakers didn't vote. The bill is an amendment to the Lower Energy Costs Act which the House passed later last Thursday.

“I’m proud that my amendment — which is derived from my Defend America’s Rural Energy Act — to the Lower Energy Costs Act passed the House of Representatives with wide support. China must be banned from buying American farmland suitable for ethanol and biodiesel production, which is vital to our rural economy in Iowa,” Feenstra told Fox News Digital.

“Simply put, my amendment keeps China far away from our farmland because American farmland belongs to American farmers,” he added.

The Defend America’s Rural Energy Act, which Feenstra introduced earlier this month, proposed to modify the Defense Production Act of 1950 to prohibit foreign adversaries from purchasing any real estate suitable for renewable energy or renewable fuels production. The lawmaker's home state of Iowa is a major wind energy producer and the nation's top producer of biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, according to federal data.

In recent months, Republican lawmakers and local leaders nationwide have increased scrutiny on land purchases by foreign investors. The increasing number of land purchases has sparked concern that foreign companies and investors, particularly those from China, may be establishing a stranglehold of key U.S. food and energy supplies.

According to Department of Agriculture data, Chinese agricultural investment increased tenfold between 2009 and 2016 alone.


Also, at the end of March, the House of Representatives approved an amendment — with help from several Democrats — that would prevent the Department of Energy from implementing strict new regulations on gas stoves that most stoves on the market today would not be able to meet.

The House voted 251 to 181 in favor of the amendment from Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Ala., to a larger energy policy bill, and 29 Democrats voted with the GOP.

Republicans have been looking to defend the use of gas stoves ever since the Consumer Product Safety Commission indicated it could ban stoves for nonexistent health reasons. That idea was scrapped, but it was followed by a proposed DOE regulation that would impose tough new energy efficiency standards for gas stoves.


A pair of CNBC surveys show increasing financial stress in the U.S. 

Mike Shedlock at Mishtalk.com reports that the surveys show 70% of Americans are financially stressed, while 58% live paycheck-to-paycheck.

“People are worried that the money they’ve saved won’t last and are worried they’re going to have to lean more on their credit cards and other sources of debt just to get by,” said Bruce McClary, a senior vice president at the National Foundation for Credit Counseling.

Here are some of the survey findings:

The Fed’s projection at the time of the March meeting included a mild recession starting later this year, with a recovery over the subsequent two years.

The unemployment rate was projected to rise above the staff’s estimate of its natural rate early next year. 

The Fed has never predicted a recession in advance. Is this a first or has a recession already started? That’s something that can only be determined by individual families and businesses.


The Gateway Pundit reports that Elon Musk is not buying the Federal Reserve’s handling of the economy nor its latest prediction about where things are heading.

The Federal Reserve last Wednesday said the United States will likely enter a “mild” recession later this year.

However, they are playing down the potential severity by claiming the economy will recover quickly over the next two years.

These are the same people who claimed over and over again two year ago that inflation was “transitory” and would soon decline. Their inaction back then combined with Joe Biden’s reckless spending policies are the reasons for the current economic crisis.

The Gateway Pundit has consistently reported on the awful state of the economy. Joe Hoft revealed on Monday that the real estate market has completely collapsed with some of the best properties selling at a 36% discount.

American credit card debt has also surpassed $1 trillion for the first time in history. This means Americans are having to risk ruining their credit scores in order to afford basic items.

It’s no wonder that Elon Musk thinks the Fed is once again downplaying the awful economy. He issued a warning that all Americans should pay attention to.



America might be in an actual depression by then should this prediction come to fruition.

No one should be surprised Musk thinks the Fed is full of it. Earlier this week, he mocked them by claiming a World of Warcraft economy would be better than the current financial system.

Musk has been a vocal critic of the rapid interest rate hikes the Fed has undertaken over the past year and has advocated for a different course.

On March 20, Musk called on the Fed to abandon its laser-like focus on fighting inflation and start slashing interest rates in order to avert a recession.




A top Anheuser-Busch executive emerged from the boiler room to deliver a boilerplate statement regarding the backlash against the beer giant following its decision to promote Bud Light by entering into a partnership with controversial transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

As noted by Resist the Mainstream, the “apology lite” made no mention of Mulvaney, the decision to partner with Mulvaney, or subsequent statements appearing to devalue Bud Light drinkers, and it seems not to have gone down smoothly with the beer brand’s once loyal customer base.

The bland statement was signed by Anheuser-Busch’s U.S. CEO Brendan Whitworth. Anheuser-Busch is a subsidiary of international beverage giant InBev.

Whitworth’s non-apology apology was presented in a press release titled “Our Responsibility to America.”



The closest the statement gets to an actual apology is this blather:

“We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people. We are in the business of bringing people together over a beer.”

Reaction on social media to the executive’s lukewarm “apology” — which the New York Post called “flatter than a day-old Bud Light” — was “scathing.”

Parent company InBev has lost upwards of $6 billion in market value since the launch of the ill-advised marketing stunt, which almost surely prompted the non-apology apology in the corporate statement.

Not everyone has had the same takeaway from the incident, however. Nike, for example, rushed to partner with Mulvaney, who promptly could be seen prancing about in tight Nike pants and a Nike sports bra while announcing the new modeling deal with the athletic apparel giant, which is based near Portland, Oregon.

As Bud Light’s sales plummet, other corporations have rushed to demonstrate where they stand, and Mulvaney has not been left thirsting for sponsorships.

Former consumers of the beer are not as impressed, however. As one wrote on social media regarding the executive’s statement, “NOPE. Not good enough. Boycott continues until full apology, fire VP Mrkt, and Mulvaney dropped. Either that or Anheuser-Busch becomes the next Schlitz.”

Budweiser long was known as “The King of Beers” prior to its recent transition, and whether its customer base ultimately returns or moves on to a different beer remains to be seen.


The Federalist reports that the federal government peddled technology to Big Tech companies to assist them in censoring Americans’ speech in the run-up to the 2020 election, according to emails Missouri and Louisiana uncovered in their First Amendment lawsuit against the Biden administration.

According to The Federalist report, the State Department marketed this censorship technology through its Global Engagement Center. 

The outlet writes that:

“In other words, our tax dollars not only funded the development of tools to silence speech that dissented from the regime’s narrative. They also paid for government employees to act as sales reps pitching the censorship products to Big Tech.”

Samaruddin Stewart, then a senior adviser for the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, wrote an early-February 2020 email to LinkedIn, allegedly requesting a meeting.

Stewart wrote in the email that: “I’ve been tasked with building relationships with technology companies.” 

According to the lawsuit, his email also suggested he would be reaching out to other social media companies interested in “countering disinformation.” 

On March 9, 2020, Stewart again contacted LinkedIn, referencing an earlier verbal discussion and writing:

“I’ll send information [to LinkedIn representatives] about gaining access to Disinfo Cloud — which is a GEC funded platform that offers stakeholders an opportunity to discover companies, technology, and tools that can assist with identifying, understanding, and addressing disinformation.”

As noted by The Federalist, these two emails are explosive. Yet because they were revealed in two passing paragraphs of the 164-page complaint filed by Missouri, Louisiana, and a handful of other plaintiffs against the Biden administration, they — and their enormous significance — have been overlooked.

That does it for this edition of the Worldview Financial Report. Thanks for watching, and thanks for lending your support to this viewer-supported broadcast.

Until next time, May God save America. I’m Brannon Howse. Take care.


Call 901-468-9357 for phone orders or to make a donation
Get your free, no obligation packet on precious metals by texting or calling Wes Peters with Swiss America at 602-558-8585
FREE SHIPPING - Click here and visit www.wvwtvstore.com to order emergency, freeze-dried food that will last 25 years. 

Please help us with the huge cost of producing and distributing FREE radio and television programs by making a contribution at www.wvwfoundation.com or by calling 901-468-9357 or by sending your contribution to:

WVW Foundation
P.O. Box 1690
Collierville, TN 38027 

Please go to www.Mypillow.com and use the promo code WVW to save up to 66% off and Mike Lindell will give a generous percentage back to WVW-TV to support our free broadcasts.

We're a 100% Listener Supported Network

3 Simple Ways to Support WVW Foundation

Credit Card
100% Tax-Deductable
100% Tax-Deductable

Make Monthly Donations



A One-Time Donation

Mail or Phone
100% Tax-Deductable
  • Mail In Your Donation

    Worldview Weekend Foundation
    PO BOX 1690
    Collierville, TN, 38027 USA

  • Donate by Phone