WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.140 Man, trying to keep up with everything going 00:00:02.140 --> 00:00:04.320 on these days, it's like drinking from a fire 00:00:04.320 --> 00:00:06.259 hose, isn't it? It really is. You finally feel 00:00:06.259 --> 00:00:08.060 like you've wrapped your head around one story, 00:00:08.220 --> 00:00:10.900 and boom, five more just explode onto the scene. 00:00:11.080 --> 00:00:14.759 And they all seem so urgent, demanding your attention 00:00:14.759 --> 00:00:17.600 right now. That's why we do this. Absolutely. 00:00:17.920 --> 00:00:20.039 Welcome to the deep dive. We're going to take 00:00:20.039 --> 00:00:22.140 a breath together, and we're really going to 00:00:22.140 --> 00:00:24.559 try to dig into what matters most. That's the 00:00:24.559 --> 00:00:27.820 goal. And today, well, you've... It's certainly 00:00:27.820 --> 00:00:30.460 given us a lot to work with. I have. Oh, yeah. 00:00:30.859 --> 00:00:33.520 This stack of sources you've provided, it's fascinating. 00:00:33.679 --> 00:00:36.060 It covers everything from the current political 00:00:36.060 --> 00:00:39.320 landscape right through a really deep analysis 00:00:39.320 --> 00:00:41.560 of what the Federal Reserve is up to and then 00:00:41.560 --> 00:00:44.500 a crucial investor's guide to all these tariffs 00:00:44.500 --> 00:00:46.560 that are just around the corner. OK, wow. Sounds 00:00:46.560 --> 00:00:48.920 like we have our work cut out for us. We do. 00:00:49.679 --> 00:00:51.560 But that's what we're here for. We're going to 00:00:51.560 --> 00:00:54.979 pull out the really essential insights from all 00:00:54.979 --> 00:00:57.439 of this material, give you the information that's 00:00:57.439 --> 00:01:00.619 going to make you say, aha, now I understand, 00:01:00.799 --> 00:01:02.740 and maybe even surprise you a little along the 00:01:02.740 --> 00:01:04.799 way. And don't worry, we're not going to get 00:01:04.799 --> 00:01:08.260 bogged down in the weeds. Perfect. Well, why 00:01:08.260 --> 00:01:11.079 don't we start with trying to untangle some of 00:01:11.079 --> 00:01:14.379 the, well, to put a mildly, strange happenings 00:01:14.379 --> 00:01:16.859 in Washington. Let's jump right into the political 00:01:16.859 --> 00:01:19.319 arena then. OK. One of the sources you flagged. 00:01:19.390 --> 00:01:22.689 uses a rather colorful term, I have to say, to 00:01:22.689 --> 00:01:24.650 describe what's been going on with the U .S. 00:01:24.750 --> 00:01:27.430 defense establishment. They call it a clown show. 00:01:27.609 --> 00:01:30.269 Oh, wow. And that's all stemming from this really, 00:01:30.269 --> 00:01:33.129 really eyebrow -raising security lapse that you 00:01:33.129 --> 00:01:34.829 highlighted in your note. Eyebrow -raising might 00:01:34.829 --> 00:01:36.590 be putting it a little too politely, honestly. 00:01:36.969 --> 00:01:39.090 So here's the picture that emerges from these 00:01:39.090 --> 00:01:41.849 sources. You've got these top -ranking Trump 00:01:41.849 --> 00:01:44.790 administration officials using the Signal app, 00:01:45.170 --> 00:01:47.250 which, for our listeners who might not be familiar, 00:01:47.430 --> 00:01:50.700 is designed for encrypted messaging. And they're 00:01:50.700 --> 00:01:54.480 using this app to have conversations about incredibly 00:01:54.480 --> 00:01:57.480 sensitive stuff, like the bombing of Houthi fighters 00:01:57.480 --> 00:01:59.400 in Yemen. You would think that would be about 00:01:59.400 --> 00:02:01.120 as secure a communications you could get. You 00:02:01.120 --> 00:02:03.180 would think. Right. That's what end -to -end 00:02:03.180 --> 00:02:05.239 encryption is supposed to do, theoretically. 00:02:05.319 --> 00:02:07.480 Right. And you see that reflected in these sources. 00:02:07.579 --> 00:02:09.719 You've got figures like JD Vance, who you'd expect 00:02:09.719 --> 00:02:12.740 to be aware of and maybe even advocating for 00:02:12.740 --> 00:02:15.500 this kind of security measure, actively participating 00:02:15.500 --> 00:02:18.379 in these chats. But here's where it takes this 00:02:18.379 --> 00:02:21.460 truly bizarre turn. Oh, boy. Hold onto your hats. 00:02:22.139 --> 00:02:24.759 OK. Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor -in -chief of 00:02:24.759 --> 00:02:27.879 The Atlantic, no less, ends up being accidentally 00:02:27.879 --> 00:02:31.099 added to this very signal group chat. So here 00:02:31.099 --> 00:02:33.960 he is, witnessing real -time discussions about 00:02:33.960 --> 00:02:37.759 a planned military operation. Wow. It's almost 00:02:37.759 --> 00:02:39.460 unbelievable when you think about it. It is. 00:02:39.479 --> 00:02:41.120 And I love this quote from one of the sources. 00:02:41.159 --> 00:02:43.419 They call it, and I quote, unbelievably stupid 00:02:43.419 --> 00:02:46.039 and careless. It really is hard to find a more 00:02:46.039 --> 00:02:48.599 apt description. I know, right? So what's the 00:02:48.599 --> 00:02:51.900 lesson here? Is Signal not as secure as we all 00:02:51.900 --> 00:02:53.819 thought? I think one of the key takeaways is 00:02:53.819 --> 00:02:56.280 that while an app like Signal can offer a layer 00:02:56.280 --> 00:02:58.099 of security through its encryption, it doesn't 00:02:58.099 --> 00:03:00.939 actually address vulnerabilities at the device 00:03:00.939 --> 00:03:04.759 level. If a phone itself is compromised, then 00:03:04.759 --> 00:03:07.539 all that encryption becomes useless. It's like 00:03:07.539 --> 00:03:09.659 having a super high -tech lock on your front 00:03:09.659 --> 00:03:11.979 door, but leaving all your windows wide open. 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:14.139 That's a really good analogy. It really highlights 00:03:14.139 --> 00:03:16.960 the weak point in the chain. It does. And speaking 00:03:16.960 --> 00:03:20.699 of weaknesses, I mean the sheer lack of, what 00:03:20.699 --> 00:03:23.280 did the source call it? Message hygiene? Yes, 00:03:23.659 --> 00:03:26.699 message hygiene. It's staggering. 18 people in 00:03:26.699 --> 00:03:29.560 this group chat. We're talking NSA official Mike 00:03:29.560 --> 00:03:32.699 Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hagseth, then CIA 00:03:32.699 --> 00:03:35.539 Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco 00:03:35.539 --> 00:03:38.580 Rubio, Stephen Miller for goodness sake. I mean, 00:03:38.840 --> 00:03:40.939 the more people you add to a conversation like 00:03:40.939 --> 00:03:42.979 that, the higher the chances of something going 00:03:42.979 --> 00:03:46.250 wrong. It's simple math, almost. Every new participant 00:03:46.250 --> 00:03:48.789 increases the attack surface. That just means 00:03:48.789 --> 00:03:51.870 more potential points of vulnerability. And look, 00:03:51.889 --> 00:03:53.610 it doesn't even have to be malicious. It can 00:03:53.610 --> 00:03:56.789 be a simple mistake, a misclick, an autocorrect, 00:03:56.990 --> 00:03:59.750 gone rogue. But the fact that they didn't realize 00:03:59.750 --> 00:04:03.110 a journalist, of all people, was in their midst 00:04:03.110 --> 00:04:06.110 until his story went live, it just shows a complete 00:04:06.110 --> 00:04:08.569 lack of attention to the basics. It really does. 00:04:08.889 --> 00:04:12.229 And then you layer on top of all of this, this 00:04:12.229 --> 00:04:14.539 incredible hypocrisy. Remember all the scrutiny, 00:04:14.759 --> 00:04:17.699 all the criticism around. Hillary Clinton's emails, 00:04:18.180 --> 00:04:20.079 the whole potential for classified information 00:04:20.079 --> 00:04:22.180 being exposed. Right. And it was all about the 00:04:22.180 --> 00:04:24.740 potential risk, the hypothetical. If we connect 00:04:24.740 --> 00:04:27.040 that to what we're seeing here, it's almost a 00:04:27.040 --> 00:04:29.459 mirror image, but reversed. In this case, you 00:04:29.459 --> 00:04:31.680 have high ranking officials in the Trump administration 00:04:31.680 --> 00:04:34.319 actually exposing the details of an active military 00:04:34.319 --> 00:04:36.360 operation. So it's not a potential risk anymore. 00:04:36.379 --> 00:04:38.540 It's an actual leak. It's a real leak happening 00:04:38.540 --> 00:04:41.319 in real time. And this wasn't just scheduling 00:04:41.319 --> 00:04:44.519 details or some logistical minutiae. This was 00:04:44.519 --> 00:04:46.279 sensitive information. I mean, we're talking 00:04:46.279 --> 00:04:49.300 about details that, if leaked, could have had 00:04:49.300 --> 00:04:52.360 severe consequences. Fatal consequences, even. 00:04:52.519 --> 00:04:54.379 Exactly. That's a point that really comes through 00:04:54.379 --> 00:04:56.699 in the reporting. Absolutely. I mean, when the 00:04:56.699 --> 00:04:59.379 details of a planned military action become known 00:04:59.379 --> 00:05:01.899 outside of the proper channels before they're 00:05:01.899 --> 00:05:04.839 supposed to, it can jeopardize the entire mission, 00:05:05.079 --> 00:05:07.699 put lives at risk, and seriously damage national 00:05:07.699 --> 00:05:10.199 security. It's not something to be taken lightly. 00:05:10.420 --> 00:05:12.420 And the irony here is just so thick you could 00:05:12.420 --> 00:05:14.970 cut it with a knife. Remember Mike waltz one 00:05:14.970 --> 00:05:17.290 of the signal group chat participants. Yes. Yeah, 00:05:17.410 --> 00:05:19.410 he was actually one of the people who was most 00:05:19.410 --> 00:05:23.110 vocal in Criticizing Jake Sullivan, you know 00:05:23.110 --> 00:05:25.189 for how he handled classified information during 00:05:25.189 --> 00:05:27.449 the previous administration All right, and there's 00:05:27.449 --> 00:05:29.269 this quote from waltz in one of the articles 00:05:29.269 --> 00:05:32.329 last We checked Sullivan never leaked plans for 00:05:32.329 --> 00:05:35.050 an imminent military strike to some random magazine 00:05:35.050 --> 00:05:37.550 editor I mean, come on talk about a foot -in 00:05:37.550 --> 00:05:40.680 -mouth moment, right? The hypocrisy is just mind 00:05:40.680 --> 00:05:43.040 blowing. It really highlights how the standards 00:05:43.040 --> 00:05:45.500 seem to shift, depending on who's in power. Exactly. 00:05:46.079 --> 00:05:48.879 So what was the official response from the Trump 00:05:48.879 --> 00:05:51.399 cap when all of this came out? Well, pretty much 00:05:51.399 --> 00:05:54.660 what you'd expect. Trump himself completely dismissed 00:05:54.660 --> 00:05:57.339 the Atlantic, called it fake news, of course. 00:05:58.980 --> 00:06:00.980 bizarrely, tried to claim it was a hoax, even 00:06:00.980 --> 00:06:03.839 though there's clear evidence. And you have Speaker 00:06:03.839 --> 00:06:07.019 Johnson offering a vague promise that, oh, it 00:06:07.019 --> 00:06:09.199 won't happen again, you know, that kind of thing. 00:06:09.319 --> 00:06:11.160 There's a pattern there, isn't there? Oh, yeah. 00:06:11.339 --> 00:06:13.620 It's interesting how the response often focuses 00:06:13.620 --> 00:06:17.180 on discrediting the source or downplaying the 00:06:17.180 --> 00:06:19.100 significance of the issue rather than actually 00:06:19.100 --> 00:06:21.720 addressing the core problem. Right. Like in this 00:06:21.720 --> 00:06:24.279 case, the core problem is a serious breach of 00:06:24.279 --> 00:06:26.740 operational security. Exactly. But instead of 00:06:26.740 --> 00:06:28.839 grappling with that, they deflect and distract. 00:06:29.100 --> 00:06:31.319 Absolutely. It's classic political maneuvering. 00:06:31.439 --> 00:06:35.079 Yeah. And Holly, he seemed more upset about who 00:06:35.079 --> 00:06:37.600 was in the text message chain than the fact that 00:06:37.600 --> 00:06:39.660 highly sensitive information was being discussed 00:06:39.660 --> 00:06:43.240 so carelessly. Then you have Will Kane, who actually 00:06:43.240 --> 00:06:46.199 tried to spin this as a positive example of transparency. 00:06:46.500 --> 00:06:48.639 That's an interesting tape. Right. It's almost 00:06:48.639 --> 00:06:51.300 Orwellian. And then, of course, Ingerham and 00:06:51.300 --> 00:06:53.199 Hannity, they just went after the messenger, 00:06:53.839 --> 00:06:56.399 as you'd expect. Predictable, perhaps, but still 00:06:56.399 --> 00:06:59.519 concerning. It suggests a reluctance to engage 00:06:59.519 --> 00:07:02.459 with legitimate criticism and a tendency to circle 00:07:02.459 --> 00:07:05.019 the wagons rather than address the underlying 00:07:05.019 --> 00:07:07.779 issues. Exactly. And the thing is this whole 00:07:07.779 --> 00:07:11.860 signal situation, it reveals more than just incompetence 00:07:11.860 --> 00:07:14.699 and hypocrisy. It also gives us a peek behind 00:07:14.699 --> 00:07:17.819 the curtain, you know, a glimpse into some of 00:07:17.819 --> 00:07:20.160 the internal dynamics within the Trump administration. 00:07:20.180 --> 00:07:23.660 Oh, right. Like. It turns out JD Vance was actually 00:07:23.660 --> 00:07:25.819 a dissenting voice in all of this. He wasn't 00:07:25.819 --> 00:07:28.240 really on board with bombing Yemen politically, 00:07:28.740 --> 00:07:30.399 strategically. He just didn't think it was a 00:07:30.399 --> 00:07:33.319 good idea. Interesting. And apparently, he also 00:07:33.319 --> 00:07:35.720 suspected that Trump himself didn't really fully 00:07:35.720 --> 00:07:38.360 grasp the potential ramifications of the decision. 00:07:38.589 --> 00:07:42.649 Which suggests a level of, shall we say, skepticism 00:07:42.649 --> 00:07:45.029 about the president's understanding of these 00:07:45.029 --> 00:07:48.550 really complex foreign policy issues. And from 00:07:48.550 --> 00:07:50.730 what the reporting indicates, this wasn't an 00:07:50.730 --> 00:07:53.310 isolated sentiment. That kind of skepticism was 00:07:53.310 --> 00:07:55.290 pretty widespread among those who worked closely 00:07:55.290 --> 00:07:57.490 with Trump. Yeah, and they didn't always use 00:07:57.490 --> 00:07:59.790 the most flattering terms to describe him in 00:07:59.790 --> 00:08:02.430 private. Like nitwit, for example. Exactly. And 00:08:02.430 --> 00:08:04.990 it wasn't just about Trump. Vance and Hegseth, 00:08:05.009 --> 00:08:07.050 they apparently weren't too fond of our European 00:08:07.050 --> 00:08:09.670 allies either, calling them freeloading gold 00:08:09.670 --> 00:08:13.329 -brickers. Yeah. So that gives you a sense of 00:08:13.329 --> 00:08:16.009 their approach to international relations. Not 00:08:16.009 --> 00:08:18.949 exactly the language of diplomacy. No. But here's 00:08:18.949 --> 00:08:21.310 the really key point. While they were ostensibly 00:08:21.310 --> 00:08:23.750 discussing national security, it seems the main 00:08:23.750 --> 00:08:26.449 focus of this signal chat was actually the messaging 00:08:26.449 --> 00:08:29.139 surrounding the Yemen attacks. how we'd play 00:08:29.139 --> 00:08:31.139 with the public, how it would affect the voting 00:08:31.139 --> 00:08:33.379 base. Which speaks to this constant political 00:08:33.379 --> 00:08:35.340 calculus that seems to drive decision -making 00:08:35.340 --> 00:08:37.740 at the highest levels. And sometimes it feels 00:08:37.740 --> 00:08:40.080 like those political considerations might overshadow 00:08:40.080 --> 00:08:42.580 other crucial factors. Right, like the actual 00:08:42.580 --> 00:08:45.299 effectiveness of the policy or, you know, the 00:08:45.299 --> 00:08:47.500 ethical implications. Absolutely. And then there's 00:08:47.500 --> 00:08:49.700 this final detail, this little tidbit that really 00:08:49.700 --> 00:08:53.379 stood out to me. It's Mike Waltz's reaction. 00:08:53.549 --> 00:08:56.529 to the Yemen bombings. Oh, right. The bombings 00:08:56.529 --> 00:08:59.129 that resulted in at least 50 deaths, by the way. 00:08:59.889 --> 00:09:03.090 And how did he react? Let me guess. With a celebratory 00:09:03.090 --> 00:09:06.090 fist emoji, an American flag emoji, and fire 00:09:06.090 --> 00:09:08.590 emojis. Oh, wow. While other participants were 00:09:08.590 --> 00:09:11.070 responding with praying hands emojis. That's 00:09:11.070 --> 00:09:13.970 a pretty stark contrast. It is. It really speaks 00:09:13.970 --> 00:09:16.090 volumes, doesn't it? It does make you wonder 00:09:16.090 --> 00:09:17.929 about the different perspectives and priorities 00:09:17.929 --> 00:09:20.990 within that group. Absolutely. So the big takeaway 00:09:20.990 --> 00:09:23.879 from this whole signal saga, I think, is this. 00:09:24.379 --> 00:09:27.840 It's a master class in how not to handle sensitive 00:09:27.840 --> 00:09:30.779 information, a huge dose of hypocrisy, and a 00:09:30.779 --> 00:09:32.720 pretty revealing look at the internal culture 00:09:32.720 --> 00:09:35.120 and priorities of the Trump administration. I 00:09:35.120 --> 00:09:37.340 think that's a fair assessment. But let's move 00:09:37.340 --> 00:09:39.980 on now to another, let's call it unconventional 00:09:39.980 --> 00:09:42.100 policy proposal from the same administration, 00:09:42.600 --> 00:09:45.899 these secondary tariffs on Venezuelan oil. Ah, 00:09:46.100 --> 00:09:50.539 yes, tariffs. Back in the news again. And this 00:09:50.539 --> 00:09:53.759 time, it's not your typical straightforward bilateral 00:09:53.759 --> 00:09:56.600 trade measure. What we're looking at here is 00:09:56.600 --> 00:10:01.340 a proposed 25 % tariff on all goods imported 00:10:01.340 --> 00:10:03.659 from any country that decides to do business 00:10:03.659 --> 00:10:06.639 with Venezuelan oil. So not just goods from Venezuela 00:10:06.639 --> 00:10:09.740 itself. No, that's the twist. It's an attempt 00:10:09.740 --> 00:10:13.019 to indirectly influence Venezuela's economy by 00:10:13.019 --> 00:10:15.600 targeting its trading partners. One of the sources 00:10:15.600 --> 00:10:18.759 calls this a trilateral tariff. A new invention, 00:10:18.960 --> 00:10:20.759 apparently. It's certainly creative, I'll give 00:10:20.759 --> 00:10:22.799 them that, but whether it's effective, that's 00:10:22.799 --> 00:10:25.299 another question altogether. And the expert analysis 00:10:25.299 --> 00:10:27.659 we have here expresses, shall we say, a healthy 00:10:27.659 --> 00:10:29.539 degree of skepticism about how this is going 00:10:29.539 --> 00:10:31.659 to be received globally. I mean, it makes sense, 00:10:31.759 --> 00:10:33.679 right? It's basically saying to other countries, 00:10:33.879 --> 00:10:35.940 hey, if you want to access the lucrative US market, 00:10:36.299 --> 00:10:38.080 You better fall in line with our foreign policy 00:10:38.080 --> 00:10:40.580 on Venezuela. Exactly. I can't imagine that's 00:10:40.580 --> 00:10:42.059 going to go over well with everyone. I think 00:10:42.059 --> 00:10:44.460 the risk of retaliatory tariffs from the countries 00:10:44.460 --> 00:10:46.399 affected is pretty high. Yeah, it feels like 00:10:46.399 --> 00:10:48.700 it would just escalate tensions and hurt everyone 00:10:48.700 --> 00:10:51.360 in the end. It might. And there's this other 00:10:51.360 --> 00:10:53.179 question that keeps coming up in the reporting. 00:10:53.360 --> 00:10:58.210 Oh. Why this? laser focus on Venezuela specifically 00:10:58.210 --> 00:11:00.169 I mean the article points out that there are 00:11:00.169 --> 00:11:02.370 plenty of other countries in Latin America even 00:11:02.370 --> 00:11:05.389 Africa that share some of the same Characteristics 00:11:05.389 --> 00:11:07.929 the administration attributes to Venezuela around 00:11:07.929 --> 00:11:10.350 populations histories of corruption governments 00:11:10.350 --> 00:11:13.070 with socialist leanings But for some reason it's 00:11:13.070 --> 00:11:15.850 Venezuela that's being singled out It does make 00:11:15.850 --> 00:11:18.330 you wonder about the underlying motivations and 00:11:18.330 --> 00:11:20.789 strategic goals, doesn't it? It does. One of 00:11:20.789 --> 00:11:22.570 the sources even makes this kind of tongue -in 00:11:22.570 --> 00:11:25.649 -cheek observation about the axis of evil maybe 00:11:25.649 --> 00:11:28.129 being updated to include Venezuela. Oh, wow. 00:11:28.389 --> 00:11:30.370 It highlights the sense that the administration's 00:11:30.370 --> 00:11:33.309 focus on Venezuela might be a little bit disproportionate. 00:11:33.830 --> 00:11:35.929 Interesting. OK, well, let's shift gears now 00:11:35.929 --> 00:11:38.789 from international intrigue to something a bit 00:11:38.789 --> 00:11:41.149 closer to home. And I have to say... This is 00:11:41.149 --> 00:11:44.190 refreshing. We have a Republican senator, John 00:11:44.190 --> 00:11:47.009 Curtis from Utah, who's been surprisingly candid 00:11:47.009 --> 00:11:49.190 about the challenges facing Social Security. 00:11:49.470 --> 00:11:52.289 That's encouraging to hear. Honesty is a rare 00:11:52.289 --> 00:11:54.970 commodity in politics these days. It really is. 00:11:55.289 --> 00:11:57.549 And he's not just paying lip service to the issue. 00:11:57.690 --> 00:11:59.710 He's actually acknowledging the elephant in the 00:11:59.710 --> 00:12:03.470 room. He said, and I quote, We're not being honest 00:12:03.470 --> 00:12:05.370 when we look people in the eye and say we're 00:12:05.370 --> 00:12:07.549 not going to touch it. If we don't touch it, 00:12:07.730 --> 00:12:10.580 it touches itself. You know that, right? That's 00:12:10.580 --> 00:12:12.279 not being honest with the American people, and 00:12:12.279 --> 00:12:14.460 I think that's one of the things that makes them 00:12:14.460 --> 00:12:17.179 not trust us when we say something that they 00:12:17.179 --> 00:12:20.740 just know is not true. Wow. That's pretty blunt, 00:12:20.919 --> 00:12:23.399 right? It's incredibly blunt for a politician, 00:12:23.500 --> 00:12:25.179 especially when it comes to entitlement programs. 00:12:25.200 --> 00:12:27.179 I know. It's not something you hear every day. 00:12:27.519 --> 00:12:30.559 So what's his proposed solution? Well, he didn't 00:12:30.559 --> 00:12:33.559 really offer specific solutions, but he did emphasize 00:12:33.559 --> 00:12:36.519 the need for an open and honest conversation 00:12:36.519 --> 00:12:38.960 about the future of the program. especially for 00:12:38.960 --> 00:12:41.840 younger generations. He acknowledged that current 00:12:41.840 --> 00:12:45.100 retirees are probably okay, but there needs to 00:12:45.100 --> 00:12:47.519 be a plan for the long term. And that's the crucial 00:12:47.519 --> 00:12:49.879 point, isn't it? Acknowledging the problem is 00:12:49.879 --> 00:12:52.940 the first step towards finding a solution. Exactly. 00:12:53.159 --> 00:12:55.659 And this kind of candor from a Republican senator, 00:12:55.659 --> 00:12:58.580 it's really refreshing. In fact, one of the sources 00:12:58.580 --> 00:13:02.379 we have positions Curtis as a potential leader 00:13:02.379 --> 00:13:04.980 for the Republican Party in a post Trump world. 00:13:05.320 --> 00:13:07.840 Interesting. So maybe a glimmer of hope for a 00:13:07.840 --> 00:13:10.720 more honest and pragmatic approach to policymaking. 00:13:10.879 --> 00:13:13.100 We can only hope. Now, speaking of the future 00:13:13.100 --> 00:13:15.100 of the Republican Party, there are those two 00:13:15.100 --> 00:13:17.480 special elections coming up in Florida to fill 00:13:17.480 --> 00:13:20.460 the House seats vacated by Matt Gaetz and, ironically, 00:13:20.759 --> 00:13:24.139 Mike Waltz. You know, this signal guy. Oh, right. 00:13:24.500 --> 00:13:27.440 So what's interesting here is the significant 00:13:27.440 --> 00:13:29.399 fundraising advantage that Democratic candidates 00:13:29.399 --> 00:13:31.840 have, even in districts that are generally considered 00:13:31.840 --> 00:13:35.000 to lean Republican. In Florida's first congressional 00:13:35.000 --> 00:13:38.259 district, the Democrat, Gaye Valamond, has raised 00:13:38.259 --> 00:13:41.740 a whopping $6 .5 million. That's a lot of money 00:13:41.740 --> 00:13:44.320 for a House race. It is. And in the sixth district, 00:13:44.480 --> 00:13:47.600 which is a bit less solidly Republican, the Democrat, 00:13:47.799 --> 00:13:50.480 Josh Weil, has raised almost $10 million. That's 00:13:50.480 --> 00:13:52.899 even more impressive. It is. And on the Republican 00:13:52.899 --> 00:13:55.700 side, in the sixth district, you have Randy Fine, 00:13:56.039 --> 00:13:58.240 who has raised considerably less, under $600 00:13:58.240 --> 00:14:02.639 ,000, in fact. Wow. That's a huge discrepancy. 00:14:02.720 --> 00:14:05.360 It is. And it could be a sign that Republican 00:14:05.360 --> 00:14:07.759 donors aren't feeling particularly enthusiastic 00:14:07.759 --> 00:14:10.600 about fines chances. It's certainly possible. 00:14:10.720 --> 00:14:12.600 I mean, that kind of financial disadvantage can 00:14:12.600 --> 00:14:15.120 be really difficult to overcome in an election. 00:14:15.399 --> 00:14:17.340 It can be, especially when it comes to things 00:14:17.340 --> 00:14:20.000 like advertising and get out the vote efforts. 00:14:20.460 --> 00:14:22.559 Exactly. Yeah. Now, the Democrats are probably 00:14:22.559 --> 00:14:24.960 looking back at that special election upset. 00:14:25.200 --> 00:14:27.799 in Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district 00:14:27.799 --> 00:14:31.259 in 2018 as a reason for some optimism. Right. 00:14:31.340 --> 00:14:33.299 That was a district with a similar Republican 00:14:33.299 --> 00:14:35.700 lean where the Democrat managed to win. Yeah. 00:14:35.820 --> 00:14:37.740 But it's definitely an uphill battle in Florida. 00:14:37.919 --> 00:14:39.860 It always is in those kinds of districts. But 00:14:39.860 --> 00:14:42.700 with that level of financial firepower, maybe 00:14:42.700 --> 00:14:45.519 we'll can pull off an upset. Well, it's a reminder 00:14:45.519 --> 00:14:48.379 that in politics, especially in special elections, 00:14:48.940 --> 00:14:52.039 anything can happen. True. Okay, last but not 00:14:52.039 --> 00:14:53.720 least in our political roundup, we have this 00:14:53.720 --> 00:14:56.620 really interesting look at the potential Democratic 00:14:56.620 --> 00:14:59.259 field for the 2028 presidential election. Oh, 00:14:59.340 --> 00:15:02.200 that's a long way off. I know. But the Washington 00:15:02.200 --> 00:15:04.340 Post has already started putting together a list 00:15:04.340 --> 00:15:06.899 of potential contenders, and the analysis you 00:15:06.899 --> 00:15:09.049 shared is fascinating. So who's on the list? 00:15:09.529 --> 00:15:11.450 Well, there are a lot of familiar names, mostly 00:15:11.450 --> 00:15:14.129 governors and senators. You've got Tim Walz, 00:15:14.269 --> 00:15:17.549 Josh Stein, Andy Beshear, Gavin Newsom, Wes Moore, 00:15:17.769 --> 00:15:20.710 Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro. And then on the 00:15:20.710 --> 00:15:23.090 Senate side, you have Raphael Warnock and Ruben 00:15:23.090 --> 00:15:25.330 Gallego. And then there's John Fetterman, of 00:15:25.330 --> 00:15:28.149 course, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg. A pretty 00:15:28.149 --> 00:15:31.730 diverse group. It is. And the analysis really 00:15:31.730 --> 00:15:34.289 digs into their strengths and weaknesses. Like, 00:15:34.330 --> 00:15:36.889 for example, Beshear is seen as a real asset 00:15:36.889 --> 00:15:39.750 because he proven he could win in a deeply conservative 00:15:39.750 --> 00:15:42.190 state like Kentucky. But then you have Newsom, 00:15:42.389 --> 00:15:45.070 who's perceived as maybe too progressive to California 00:15:45.070 --> 00:15:47.850 to appeal to a broader national electorate. Right. 00:15:47.970 --> 00:15:50.409 And then there's Gallego, who, with his background 00:15:50.409 --> 00:15:53.549 as a Latino Marine veteran representing a swing 00:15:53.549 --> 00:15:55.970 state, is seen as a really intriguing prospect. 00:15:56.149 --> 00:15:58.490 Makes sense. He ticks a lot of boxes. He does. 00:15:58.700 --> 00:16:01.620 And the analysis also highlights some potential 00:16:01.620 --> 00:16:03.940 challenges for certain individuals. Right. There 00:16:03.940 --> 00:16:05.879 are still lingering concerns about Federman's 00:16:05.879 --> 00:16:08.120 health after his stroke. And there are questions 00:16:08.120 --> 00:16:10.480 about Buttigieg's ability to connect with certain 00:16:10.480 --> 00:16:13.059 demographics. Interesting. It really feels like 00:16:13.059 --> 00:16:15.740 the Democrats are already starting to strategize 00:16:15.740 --> 00:16:18.419 for the post -Trump era. It's never too early 00:16:18.419 --> 00:16:20.480 to start thinking about the next election cycle. 00:16:20.620 --> 00:16:24.100 I guess not. But here's the real curveball. There's 00:16:24.100 --> 00:16:27.019 this speculation about Mark Cuban. the billionaire, 00:16:27.580 --> 00:16:29.659 potentially making a run for the presidency. 00:16:29.940 --> 00:16:34.100 Mark Cuban, really? Yeah. And get this, he'd 00:16:34.100 --> 00:16:35.940 be running on an anti -billionaire platform. 00:16:36.019 --> 00:16:38.220 That's a bold strategy. I know. He's talking 00:16:38.220 --> 00:16:41.700 about radical tax reforms, like a 91 % top marginal 00:16:41.700 --> 00:16:45.639 tax rate, a 95 % estate tax on fortunes over 00:16:45.639 --> 00:16:47.899 a billion dollars. I mean, it's pretty wild. 00:16:48.100 --> 00:16:49.879 It's certainly a different kind of populism. 00:16:49.940 --> 00:16:52.340 It is. But it's fascinating to think about. It 00:16:52.340 --> 00:16:55.120 is. OK, well, that's quite a tour of the current 00:16:55.120 --> 00:16:57.919 political landscape. A lot to digest there. There 00:16:57.919 --> 00:17:01.080 is. But now let's turn our attention to the economic 00:17:01.080 --> 00:17:04.140 front and let's really dive into the Federal 00:17:04.140 --> 00:17:07.180 Reserve's latest moves and the potential fallout 00:17:07.180 --> 00:17:10.220 from these new tariffs. Sounds good. And I think 00:17:10.220 --> 00:17:12.619 the theme that really ties all of this economic 00:17:12.619 --> 00:17:16.460 analysis together is uncertainty. Uncertainty. 00:17:16.599 --> 00:17:19.319 Yeah, it's a word that comes up again and again 00:17:19.319 --> 00:17:22.019 in the sources you provided. Interesting. Well, 00:17:22.059 --> 00:17:24.420 the Fed just wrapped up its latest meeting and 00:17:24.420 --> 00:17:27.180 they decided to hold interest rates steady, which 00:17:27.180 --> 00:17:30.119 was pretty much what everyone expected. But it's 00:17:30.119 --> 00:17:33.059 the changes to their economic projections that 00:17:33.059 --> 00:17:35.019 are really raising eyebrows. What kind of changes? 00:17:35.500 --> 00:17:38.180 Well, they're now forecasting higher inflation 00:17:38.180 --> 00:17:41.000 than they were previously. And at the same time, 00:17:41.400 --> 00:17:43.039 they've lowered their projections for economic 00:17:43.039 --> 00:17:45.130 growth. So they're basically saying we're going 00:17:45.130 --> 00:17:47.809 to have slower growth and higher prices. Yeah, 00:17:47.869 --> 00:17:49.930 essential. And not a good combination. It's not. 00:17:50.170 --> 00:17:51.930 It has led some people to start talking about 00:17:51.930 --> 00:17:54.910 the possibility of stagflation. Stagflation, 00:17:54.910 --> 00:17:57.789 that's a pretty scary word. It is. And for our 00:17:57.789 --> 00:17:59.170 listeners who might not be familiar with the 00:17:59.170 --> 00:18:02.730 term, stagflation is basically a situation where 00:18:02.730 --> 00:18:07.109 you have slow or stagnant economic growth happening 00:18:07.109 --> 00:18:10.630 at the same time as high inflation. It's a recipe 00:18:10.630 --> 00:18:14.500 for economic pain. I see. So are we headed for 00:18:14.500 --> 00:18:16.720 stagflation? Well, the analysis we've reviewed 00:18:16.720 --> 00:18:18.819 suggests that the Fed isn't predicting full -blown 00:18:18.819 --> 00:18:21.700 stagflation just yet, but it's definitely a possibility 00:18:21.700 --> 00:18:23.839 they're taking seriously. I understand. And how 00:18:23.839 --> 00:18:26.240 about the Fed Chairman Jerome Powell? What did 00:18:26.240 --> 00:18:28.619 he have to say about all of this? Well, his main 00:18:28.619 --> 00:18:31.240 message was pretty clear. uncertainty. In fact, 00:18:31.500 --> 00:18:33.700 he actually said, I didn't know anybody who is 00:18:33.700 --> 00:18:35.819 confident in their forecast. Wow, that's pretty 00:18:35.819 --> 00:18:37.460 blunt coming from the head of the central bank. 00:18:37.460 --> 00:18:40.859 It is. Yes. And he even went on to point to specific 00:18:40.859 --> 00:18:44.480 policies from the current administration as major 00:18:44.480 --> 00:18:46.680 contributors to this uncertainty. Like what? 00:18:47.019 --> 00:18:49.440 He specifically mentioned immigration restrictions, 00:18:49.960 --> 00:18:52.759 tariffs and the future of tax policy as factors 00:18:52.759 --> 00:18:54.480 that are making it really difficult to predict 00:18:54.480 --> 00:18:56.819 where the economy is headed. So he's basically 00:18:56.819 --> 00:18:58.980 saying the government is making his job harder. 00:18:59.259 --> 00:19:02.539 Yeah. Pretty much. It highlights the interconnectedness 00:19:02.539 --> 00:19:05.079 of government policy and the financial markets. 00:19:05.160 --> 00:19:08.220 It does. The Fed can't just operate in a vacuum. 00:19:08.619 --> 00:19:10.660 They have to react to what's happening in the 00:19:10.660 --> 00:19:13.500 broader political and economic landscape. And 00:19:13.500 --> 00:19:15.160 that landscape is looking pretty unpredictable 00:19:15.160 --> 00:19:19.079 right now. It is. So how is the Fed reacting 00:19:19.079 --> 00:19:22.660 to all of this uncertainty? Well, they're taking 00:19:22.660 --> 00:19:24.940 a cautious approach. They're holding interest 00:19:24.940 --> 00:19:27.339 rates steady for now, not because they're super 00:19:27.339 --> 00:19:29.619 confident in the economy, but more because they 00:19:29.619 --> 00:19:31.819 want to wait and see how things play out. Makes 00:19:31.819 --> 00:19:34.240 sense. There's also been some interesting movement 00:19:34.240 --> 00:19:37.599 in the dot plot, which basically shows where 00:19:37.599 --> 00:19:39.680 individual members of the Federal Open Market 00:19:39.680 --> 00:19:42.019 Committee expect interest rates to be in the 00:19:42.019 --> 00:19:44.599 future. What kind of movement? Fewer members 00:19:44.599 --> 00:19:47.519 now anticipate two interest rate cuts in 2025, 00:19:47.640 --> 00:19:50.599 and more of them are projecting only one cut. 00:19:50.940 --> 00:19:53.519 So they're becoming a bit more hawkish on inflation? 00:19:53.869 --> 00:19:55.890 Yeah, it seems like it. They're concerned that 00:19:55.890 --> 00:19:58.029 inflation might be stickier than they initially 00:19:58.029 --> 00:20:00.589 thought. And that's not good news for consumers. 00:20:00.670 --> 00:20:03.470 It's not. So what's the bottom line? The bottom 00:20:03.470 --> 00:20:05.869 line is that the Fed is in a wait -and -see mode. 00:20:06.349 --> 00:20:08.470 They're watching the data closely, and they're 00:20:08.470 --> 00:20:10.430 ready to adjust their policies if necessary. 00:20:10.549 --> 00:20:12.849 Sounds like a prudent approach. It does. But 00:20:12.849 --> 00:20:16.069 now, on top of all of this uncertainty from the 00:20:16.069 --> 00:20:19.089 Fed, we have the added wrinkle of these new tariffs 00:20:19.089 --> 00:20:21.170 that are expected to be announced any day now. 00:20:21.529 --> 00:20:24.819 Ah, yes, the tariffs. Always a hot topic. They 00:20:24.819 --> 00:20:27.599 are. And we have an investor's guide here that 00:20:27.599 --> 00:20:29.420 gives us a little bit of insight into what we 00:20:29.420 --> 00:20:31.940 might expect. Play it on me. Well, first of all, 00:20:32.160 --> 00:20:34.180 the announcement is expected to come on April 00:20:34.180 --> 00:20:37.779 2nd, which also happens to be the day a previous 00:20:37.779 --> 00:20:40.339 temporary suspension of tariffs on certain goods 00:20:40.339 --> 00:20:43.359 from Canada and Mexico expires. Those were the 00:20:43.359 --> 00:20:45.920 tariffs related to the USMCA, right? Exactly. 00:20:46.259 --> 00:20:48.599 So it looks like we're headed for a pretty significant 00:20:48.599 --> 00:20:50.650 shakeup in the trade landscape. Interesting. 00:20:50.809 --> 00:20:52.930 And what's the scope of these new tariffs? Who 00:20:52.930 --> 00:20:55.309 are they targeting? Well, the expectation is 00:20:55.309 --> 00:20:57.730 that they'll be quite broad in scope. They're 00:20:57.730 --> 00:21:00.609 being framed as reciprocal tariffs, which basically 00:21:00.609 --> 00:21:02.650 means they're aimed at various countries or trade 00:21:02.650 --> 00:21:05.509 blocs that the U .S. sees as having unfair trade 00:21:05.509 --> 00:21:08.569 practices. I see. So not just one country, but 00:21:08.569 --> 00:21:11.390 potentially a whole range of them. Exactly. And 00:21:11.390 --> 00:21:13.750 there's also talk of industry specific tariffs 00:21:13.750 --> 00:21:16.670 with the automotive sector, semiconductors and 00:21:16.670 --> 00:21:19.369 pharmaceuticals being mentioned as potential 00:21:19.369 --> 00:21:21.390 targets. So it could affect a lot of different 00:21:21.390 --> 00:21:24.549 companies and consumers. It could. The estimates 00:21:24.549 --> 00:21:26.769 suggest that these tariffs could be applied to 00:21:26.769 --> 00:21:30.410 as many as 17000 different product categories 00:21:30.410 --> 00:21:33.670 from 193 countries. That's a lot of tariffs. 00:21:33.930 --> 00:21:36.269 It is. And it gets a little bit complicated because 00:21:36.269 --> 00:21:39.369 they're talking about this concept of tariff 00:21:39.369 --> 00:21:41.890 rate reciprocity. But what that really means 00:21:41.890 --> 00:21:44.630 in practice is that the US isn't necessarily 00:21:44.630 --> 00:21:47.470 going to match the exact tariff rates that other 00:21:47.470 --> 00:21:50.569 countries impose on us. So they have some leeway 00:21:50.569 --> 00:21:53.109 in how they apply these tariffs. Yeah, it seems 00:21:53.109 --> 00:21:54.970 like it. They're taking a more flexible approach, 00:21:55.490 --> 00:21:57.289 setting their own tariff levels based on their 00:21:57.289 --> 00:21:59.700 own assessment of the situation. And that assessment 00:21:59.700 --> 00:22:02.180 probably includes a lot of non -economic factors, 00:22:02.220 --> 00:22:04.980 right? Oh, absolutely. There are definitely geopolitical 00:22:04.980 --> 00:22:07.480 considerations at play here. Well, for example, 00:22:07.880 --> 00:22:10.000 there are indications that the U .S. might be 00:22:10.000 --> 00:22:12.980 willing to offer lower tariff rates to countries 00:22:12.980 --> 00:22:16.019 that cooperate with them on other issues, like 00:22:16.019 --> 00:22:18.940 immigration control, drug trafficking, defense 00:22:18.940 --> 00:22:21.859 spending. So it's not just about trade anymore. 00:22:22.200 --> 00:22:25.980 It's about using tariffs as leverage to achieve 00:22:25.980 --> 00:22:28.559 broader foreign policy objectives. It's a pretty 00:22:28.559 --> 00:22:31.279 blunt instrument though, isn't it? It is. And 00:22:31.279 --> 00:22:32.859 there's a lot of debate about how effective it 00:22:32.859 --> 00:22:34.940 actually is. And how about the economic impact 00:22:34.940 --> 00:22:37.380 of all of this? Well, the analysis we have suggests 00:22:37.380 --> 00:22:40.480 that these new tariffs are unlikely to have a 00:22:40.480 --> 00:22:42.940 significant positive impact on the U .S. economy. 00:22:43.240 --> 00:22:45.640 So if it's not about boosting the economy, then 00:22:45.640 --> 00:22:47.740 what is it about? It seems like the main goal 00:22:47.740 --> 00:22:50.430 is geopolitical. It's about using tariffs as 00:22:50.430 --> 00:22:53.630 a tool of statecraft, a way to punish or pressure 00:22:53.630 --> 00:22:56.009 other countries. I see. So it's more about politics 00:22:56.009 --> 00:22:58.250 than economics. It seems that way. So what's 00:22:58.250 --> 00:23:00.250 the potential fallout from all of this? How will 00:23:00.250 --> 00:23:02.950 it affect different countries and regions? Well, 00:23:02.950 --> 00:23:05.130 let's start with the European Union. It's a bit 00:23:05.130 --> 00:23:07.730 unclear right now exactly how these reciprocal 00:23:07.730 --> 00:23:10.670 tariffs would be applied to the EU. But the U 00:23:10.670 --> 00:23:12.910 .S. has expressed concerns about their value 00:23:12.910 --> 00:23:16.470 added tax or VAT in the past. So that could be 00:23:16.470 --> 00:23:19.890 a point of contention. It could. And the analysis 00:23:19.890 --> 00:23:22.250 suggests that if the U .S. were to impose a 25 00:23:22.250 --> 00:23:25.970 % tariff on all goods from the EU, it could potentially 00:23:25.970 --> 00:23:29.730 reduce the EU's GDP by about 0 .8 % in the short 00:23:29.730 --> 00:23:33.130 term. That's a significant impact. It is. However, 00:23:33.430 --> 00:23:35.390 there are some factors that could potentially 00:23:35.390 --> 00:23:38.349 mitigate that impact. Like what? Well, Germany, 00:23:38.450 --> 00:23:40.589 for example, is investing heavily in defense 00:23:40.589 --> 00:23:43.210 and infrastructure right now. And the European 00:23:43.210 --> 00:23:45.410 Central Bank is likely to continue cutting interest 00:23:45.410 --> 00:23:48.009 rates. So those measures could potentially offset 00:23:48.009 --> 00:23:49.630 some of the negative effects of the tariffs. 00:23:50.069 --> 00:23:52.309 Interesting. So the EU might be able to weather 00:23:52.309 --> 00:23:55.269 the storm. They might, but it's still a risk. 00:23:55.390 --> 00:23:57.910 And how about North America? Well, that's where 00:23:57.910 --> 00:23:59.970 things get a little bit complicated. How so? 00:24:00.170 --> 00:24:02.869 Because of the USMCA. Remember, those tariffs 00:24:02.869 --> 00:24:05.390 on certain goods from Canada and Mexico are set 00:24:05.390 --> 00:24:08.329 to expire on April 2nd. So it's unclear whether 00:24:08.329 --> 00:24:10.650 those tariffs will be renewed or whether they'll 00:24:10.650 --> 00:24:13.009 be replaced by these new reciprocal tariffs. 00:24:13.230 --> 00:24:15.309 I see. So it depends on how the U .S. decides 00:24:15.309 --> 00:24:19.289 to proceed. Exactly. But either way, Mexico is 00:24:19.289 --> 00:24:22.650 particularly vulnerable because they're so reliant 00:24:22.650 --> 00:24:25.589 on exports to the U .S. They could potentially 00:24:25.589 --> 00:24:27.869 face a recession if those tariffs are implemented. 00:24:28.230 --> 00:24:30.230 And Canada. Canada could also be hit pretty hard. 00:24:30.410 --> 00:24:32.869 They're also a major exporter to the U .S. So 00:24:32.869 --> 00:24:35.210 it's not looking good for North America. No it's 00:24:35.210 --> 00:24:37.230 not. And what about China. Well China is a bit 00:24:37.230 --> 00:24:40.289 of a different story. How so. The U .S. has already 00:24:40.289 --> 00:24:43.130 imposed significant tariffs on a large percentage 00:24:43.130 --> 00:24:45.869 of Chinese goods and it doesn't seem like they're 00:24:45.869 --> 00:24:48.769 backing down anytime soon. So the trade war continues. 00:24:48.970 --> 00:24:51.910 It does. And China has retaliated with its own 00:24:51.910 --> 00:24:54.529 tariffs and they're also trying to reduce their 00:24:54.529 --> 00:24:57.390 reliance on exports to the U .S. by boosting 00:24:57.390 --> 00:24:59.839 their domestic consumer demand. So they're trying 00:24:59.839 --> 00:25:02.440 to become more self -sufficient. Exactly. So 00:25:02.440 --> 00:25:04.980 what's the overall global economic impact of 00:25:04.980 --> 00:25:08.700 all of this? It's hard to say for sure, but the 00:25:08.700 --> 00:25:11.279 analysis suggests that it could be mildly negative 00:25:11.279 --> 00:25:14.299 overall. Not catastrophic, but not good either. 00:25:14.480 --> 00:25:16.619 Right. And it's important to remember that the 00:25:16.619 --> 00:25:19.400 U .S. already has relatively high import tariffs 00:25:19.400 --> 00:25:22.259 compared to historical norms. So we're already 00:25:22.259 --> 00:25:24.359 in a bit of a protectionist environment. We are. 00:25:24.599 --> 00:25:27.579 So if we zoom out and look at the big picture, 00:25:28.000 --> 00:25:30.480 what are the key takeaways from all of this? 00:25:30.880 --> 00:25:32.819 I think the main thing is that we're living in 00:25:32.819 --> 00:25:35.680 a time of great uncertainty, both politically 00:25:35.680 --> 00:25:38.940 and economically. I agree. And that uncertainty 00:25:38.940 --> 00:25:41.519 is being driven by a number of factors, including 00:25:41.519 --> 00:25:44.359 unconventional policy decisions, geopolitical 00:25:44.359 --> 00:25:47.859 tensions, and a global economic slowdown. Exactly. 00:25:48.109 --> 00:25:50.789 And for our listeners, the key message is that 00:25:50.789 --> 00:25:52.769 these developments are going to have a real impact 00:25:52.769 --> 00:25:54.529 on their lives. Absolutely. They're going to 00:25:54.529 --> 00:25:57.069 affect everything from the prices they pay at 00:25:57.069 --> 00:25:59.329 the store to the stability of their investments. 00:25:59.549 --> 00:26:01.809 So it's important to stay informed and to be 00:26:01.809 --> 00:26:04.190 prepared for whatever comes next. I couldn't 00:26:04.190 --> 00:26:06.549 agree more. And that leads me to a final thought 00:26:06.549 --> 00:26:09.430 for our listeners to consider. Given all of this 00:26:09.430 --> 00:26:11.809 uncertainty and the potential for significant 00:26:11.809 --> 00:26:15.109 shifts in the global economic order, What assumptions 00:26:15.109 --> 00:26:17.750 about international trade and economic stability 00:26:17.750 --> 00:26:21.250 might we need to reevaluate? That's a great question. 00:26:22.109 --> 00:26:24.950 I think we're entering a new era and the old 00:26:24.950 --> 00:26:27.069 rules might not apply anymore. It's definitely 00:26:27.069 --> 00:26:29.309 a time for deep thinking and careful planning. 00:26:29.609 --> 00:26:31.910 It is. Thanks for joining us for the Deep Dive. 00:26:32.049 --> 00:26:33.869 My pleasure. We'll see you next time. See you 00:26:33.869 --> 00:26:34.009 then.