WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.080 Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today, we're going 00:00:02.080 --> 00:00:04.599 to get straight to the chase. Newly imposed tariffs, 00:00:04.719 --> 00:00:06.660 they've sent some serious shock waves through 00:00:06.660 --> 00:00:10.599 the economy and ignited a pretty fierce political 00:00:10.599 --> 00:00:13.800 debate. Our sources for this are financial market 00:00:13.800 --> 00:00:18.579 analysis from April 2nd, 2025, and an April 3rd 00:00:18.579 --> 00:00:21.519 political and economic news briefing. So our 00:00:21.519 --> 00:00:23.460 mission really is just to cut through the noise 00:00:23.460 --> 00:00:25.420 and figure out the core implications of all this. 00:00:25.640 --> 00:00:28.100 for you. What immediately jumps out, I think, 00:00:28.199 --> 00:00:30.480 is just the speed, right, and the force of the 00:00:30.480 --> 00:00:32.979 market's reaction. It wasn't like a slow trickle. 00:00:33.020 --> 00:00:35.979 It was abrupt. Absolutely abrupt. Yeah. Futures, 00:00:36.159 --> 00:00:38.140 you know, those contracts predicting future value 00:00:38.140 --> 00:00:40.460 for the big indices, they all just plummeted. 00:00:40.579 --> 00:00:43.939 S &P 500 futures down 3%. The Dow futures dropped 00:00:43.939 --> 00:00:46.539 2 .4%. And the Nasdaq 100 futures saw a really 00:00:46.539 --> 00:00:49.640 big 3 .3 % dip. Wow. And here's something interesting. 00:00:50.060 --> 00:00:52.140 Megacap tech companies, they really bore the 00:00:52.140 --> 00:00:55.259 brunt. Apple stock, for instance, sank by a frankly 00:00:55.259 --> 00:00:59.820 staggering 6 .5%. 6 .5%. Yeah. It just starkly 00:00:59.820 --> 00:01:02.679 highlights how vulnerable even these massive 00:01:02.679 --> 00:01:06.260 tech firms are to, well... global supply chain 00:01:06.260 --> 00:01:09.840 stuff, especially with that aggregate 54 % tariff 00:01:09.840 --> 00:01:13.000 now on goods from China. A huge manufacturing 00:01:13.000 --> 00:01:15.200 hub for Apple. A huge hub, yeah. And it wasn't 00:01:15.200 --> 00:01:17.819 just Apple, right? No. No, others like Microsoft, 00:01:18.019 --> 00:01:21.030 Nvidia, Amazon. They all felt the pressure, too. 00:01:21.150 --> 00:01:23.290 It just really hammers home how interconnected 00:01:23.290 --> 00:01:25.950 everything is. You tweak a policy here, and bam, 00:01:26.290 --> 00:01:28.549 immediate ripples across borders, across sectors. 00:01:28.829 --> 00:01:30.909 Exactly. And it wasn't only the Giants feeling 00:01:30.909 --> 00:01:33.670 it. The Russell 2000 that tracks smaller companies, 00:01:33.989 --> 00:01:38.140 it also tumbled by 4%. 4%. So that broader decline, 00:01:38.140 --> 00:01:40.659 it suggests these tariffs aren't just hitting 00:01:40.659 --> 00:01:43.359 specific sectors. It feels like they're fostering 00:01:43.359 --> 00:01:46.260 this wider unease about the whole economic outlook. 00:01:46.599 --> 00:01:48.359 That's kind of a crucial takeaway, I think, for 00:01:48.359 --> 00:01:50.650 assessing the systemic risk. Yeah, and what's 00:01:50.650 --> 00:01:53.930 interesting or maybe worrying is the anxiety 00:01:53.930 --> 00:01:56.150 underneath it all. The market analysis we looked 00:01:56.150 --> 00:01:58.349 at said concerns about these tariffs harming 00:01:58.349 --> 00:02:01.349 the U .S. economy, maybe fueling inflation, those 00:02:01.349 --> 00:02:03.370 worries were already bubbling under the surface. 00:02:03.790 --> 00:02:06.010 This sudden move just seems to have kicked those 00:02:06.010 --> 00:02:09.129 anxieties into, well, overdrive, hence the big 00:02:09.129 --> 00:02:10.969 sell -off. OK, so let's try and unpack the big 00:02:10.969 --> 00:02:14.069 question everyone's asking. Yeah. Are these eye 00:02:14.069 --> 00:02:16.389 -watering tariffs, that's a quote from Adam Hetz 00:02:16.389 --> 00:02:19.090 at Janus Henderson Investors, are they just a 00:02:19.090 --> 00:02:22.990 tough negotiating tactic or do they signal something 00:02:22.990 --> 00:02:25.110 more fundamental, a potentially painful shift 00:02:25.110 --> 00:02:28.229 in our economy? Hetz points out the administration 00:02:28.229 --> 00:02:31.530 seems willing to tolerate market pain. But the 00:02:31.530 --> 00:02:33.810 real question, he says, is how much tolerance 00:02:33.810 --> 00:02:37.090 there is for true economic pain as negotiations 00:02:37.090 --> 00:02:39.620 unfold. That quote really captures it, doesn't 00:02:39.620 --> 00:02:43.060 it? The high stakes, the sheer uncertainty. Are 00:02:43.060 --> 00:02:45.379 we just looking at a temporary jolt or is this 00:02:45.379 --> 00:02:47.719 the start of something longer, more disruptive? 00:02:48.599 --> 00:02:50.340 To get a sense of the potential scale, maybe 00:02:50.340 --> 00:02:52.560 we should look back. Our sources point to a pretty 00:02:52.560 --> 00:02:55.020 compelling parallel, actually. The tariff of 00:02:55.020 --> 00:02:58.259 abominations back in 1828. The tariff of abominations, 00:02:58.360 --> 00:03:00.400 that name alone tells you something wasn't right. 00:03:00.620 --> 00:03:03.840 It really does. This tariff imposed incredibly 00:03:03.840 --> 00:03:06.180 high average import duties. We're talking over 00:03:06.180 --> 00:03:10.500 25 % and peaking above 60 % on something. And 00:03:10.500 --> 00:03:13.099 it had a hugely negative impact on the southern 00:03:13.099 --> 00:03:16.620 economy, which relied heavily on imported goods. 00:03:17.600 --> 00:03:20.120 Meanwhile, it benefited the industrial north 00:03:20.120 --> 00:03:24.139 by protecting their newer industries from cheaper 00:03:24.139 --> 00:03:26.919 foreign competition. And it hits specific things 00:03:26.919 --> 00:03:29.460 hard, right? Like raw materials. Exactly. Hemp, 00:03:29.460 --> 00:03:31.639 for instance. The duty went from thirty five 00:03:31.639 --> 00:03:34.319 to forty five dollars a ton, and it was even 00:03:34.319 --> 00:03:36.819 scheduled to go up to sixty dollars. So these 00:03:36.819 --> 00:03:39.120 tariffs basically just jacked up the cost of 00:03:39.120 --> 00:03:40.900 manufactured goods for the South. OK, so how 00:03:40.900 --> 00:03:43.159 does that connect to now? Well, here's the critical 00:03:43.159 --> 00:03:45.319 link. The news briefing we have states these 00:03:45.319 --> 00:03:47.719 new tariffs could be the highest since the 1800s. 00:03:47.719 --> 00:03:49.699 Yeah. Potentially even higher than the Smoot 00:03:49.699 --> 00:03:52.379 -Hawley tariffs from the 1930s. And Smoot -Hawley. 00:03:52.560 --> 00:03:54.759 Most economists agree that made the Great Depression 00:03:54.759 --> 00:03:57.120 worse, didn't it? Ridely considered to have worsened 00:03:57.120 --> 00:03:59.259 it. Yes, and if we think bigger picture I mean 00:03:59.259 --> 00:04:01.360 the global economy is so much more tangled up 00:04:01.360 --> 00:04:04.199 now than it was back then our sources say our 00:04:04.199 --> 00:04:07.099 reliance on imports You know as a slice of our 00:04:07.099 --> 00:04:10.120 GDP our total economic output. It's roughly tripled 00:04:10.120 --> 00:04:13.699 since the 1930s tripled Wow Yeah, so that suggests 00:04:13.699 --> 00:04:16.000 tariffs at similar levels today could have a 00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:17.939 much much bigger impact because we're just so 00:04:17.939 --> 00:04:20.259 much more integrated globally That's a really 00:04:20.259 --> 00:04:24.019 crucial point. So OK, what immediate economic 00:04:24.019 --> 00:04:27.500 ripples are we seeing or can we expect? And how 00:04:27.500 --> 00:04:29.620 might this actually affect people's wallets? 00:04:30.279 --> 00:04:32.639 One immediate concern is inflation, right? Prices 00:04:32.639 --> 00:04:35.980 going up. If you make imported goods more expensive 00:04:35.980 --> 00:04:38.680 through tariffs, that can lead to higher prices 00:04:38.680 --> 00:04:41.660 for consumers. Plain and simple. Which then complicates 00:04:41.660 --> 00:04:43.939 things for the Federal Reserve. Exactly. It makes 00:04:43.939 --> 00:04:46.079 their plans for monetary easing. That's when 00:04:46.079 --> 00:04:47.819 they lower interest rates to try and boost the 00:04:47.819 --> 00:04:50.779 economy much trickier. If inflation stays high 00:04:50.779 --> 00:04:52.839 because of these tariffs, the Fed might think 00:04:52.839 --> 00:04:55.060 twice about cutting rates, which could, you know, 00:04:55.060 --> 00:04:56.959 slow the economy down. And we're already seeing 00:04:56.959 --> 00:04:59.399 hits on retailers, aren't we? Oh, yeah. Big time. 00:04:59.519 --> 00:05:02.720 The sources mention Nike down 8 .3 percent and 00:05:02.720 --> 00:05:05.879 Walmart off by 6 .2 percent. Huge drops right 00:05:05.879 --> 00:05:08.040 after the tariffs hit major production hubs like 00:05:08.040 --> 00:05:10.620 Vietnam, Indonesia and China. So places they 00:05:10.620 --> 00:05:13.509 make a lot of their stuff. Precisely. Retailers 00:05:13.509 --> 00:05:15.829 who rely on those imports face higher costs. 00:05:16.250 --> 00:05:17.850 And where does that pressure usually end up? 00:05:17.949 --> 00:05:21.230 Passed on to us, the consumers. Right. Economist 00:05:21.230 --> 00:05:23.430 Justin Wolfers had a pretty stark assessment 00:05:23.430 --> 00:05:25.569 mentioned in the briefing. He basically said 00:05:25.569 --> 00:05:27.990 the US will now have the highest tariffs in the 00:05:27.990 --> 00:05:30.050 industrialized world. That's a major policy shift. 00:05:30.129 --> 00:05:32.310 Highest in the industrialized world. And it sounds 00:05:32.310 --> 00:05:34.290 like this impact won't be spread evenly either. 00:05:34.569 --> 00:05:38.160 No, definitely not. The Axios analysis highlighted 00:05:38.160 --> 00:05:40.500 in the briefing, it paints a pretty concerning 00:05:40.500 --> 00:05:42.959 picture for different income groups. How so? 00:05:43.079 --> 00:05:45.939 They estimate that the poorest 20 % of Americans 00:05:45.939 --> 00:05:48.279 could see their disposable income shrink by a 00:05:48.279 --> 00:05:51.740 pretty substantial 5 .5%. That's based on an 00:05:51.740 --> 00:05:55.240 estimated average tariff around 20%. 5 .5%. That's 00:05:55.240 --> 00:05:57.139 a big chunk for people already struggling. It 00:05:57.139 --> 00:05:59.899 really is. And even the middle 20%, the estimate 00:05:59.899 --> 00:06:03.060 is a hit of roughly $3 ,800 per year. It raises 00:06:03.060 --> 00:06:05.810 a really important question about economic equity. 00:06:06.449 --> 00:06:09.529 Lower income households tend to spend a bigger 00:06:09.529 --> 00:06:11.870 slice of their income on basic goods, right? 00:06:12.110 --> 00:06:14.230 And a lot of those are imported, so tariffs on 00:06:14.230 --> 00:06:16.689 those goods, they're going to squeeze those budgets 00:06:16.689 --> 00:06:19.389 the most disproportionately. So it's not just, 00:06:19.449 --> 00:06:22.329 oh, things cost a bit more. It could be a real 00:06:22.329 --> 00:06:24.529 financial squeeze, especially for those who can 00:06:24.529 --> 00:06:28.050 least afford it. OK, let's pivot slightly. What 00:06:28.050 --> 00:06:30.329 about the global reaction? How are other countries 00:06:30.329 --> 00:06:34.329 responding? Predictably. Not well. The initial 00:06:34.329 --> 00:06:36.370 reactions are definitely negative. The European 00:06:36.370 --> 00:06:38.790 Union especially seems to be gearing up for a 00:06:38.790 --> 00:06:41.149 strong response. Gearing up how? The briefing 00:06:41.149 --> 00:06:44.069 says they're reportedly ready to fight back and 00:06:44.069 --> 00:06:46.069 they're considering countermeasures that could 00:06:46.069 --> 00:06:50.329 inflict, and I quote, real pain on influential 00:06:50.329 --> 00:06:53.089 U .S. entities. Real pain, okay. That sounds 00:06:53.089 --> 00:06:55.029 serious. Which entities are we talking about? 00:06:55.069 --> 00:06:57.810 The briefing mentions big financial players like 00:06:57.810 --> 00:07:01.529 JP Morgan, Bank of America, and also tech giants. 00:07:01.790 --> 00:07:04.170 Google, the platform that used to be Twitter. 00:07:04.310 --> 00:07:06.949 Why them specifically? Well, the EU actually 00:07:06.949 --> 00:07:09.649 has a trade surplus in physical goods with the 00:07:09.649 --> 00:07:13.990 US, but a deficit in services. So targeting these 00:07:13.990 --> 00:07:16.490 service -based sectors, like finance and tech, 00:07:16.810 --> 00:07:18.610 could be where they feel they have more leverage. 00:07:18.949 --> 00:07:21.250 Interesting. So what kind of actions could the 00:07:21.250 --> 00:07:23.649 EU actually take? What tools do they have? Well, 00:07:23.649 --> 00:07:26.069 what's fascinating is they might use regulations 00:07:26.069 --> 00:07:28.089 they already have, like the Digital Services 00:07:28.089 --> 00:07:30.769 Act that governs online content. They could enforce 00:07:30.769 --> 00:07:33.250 that more strictly, maybe leading to big fines 00:07:33.250 --> 00:07:35.910 for the tech platforms. And they also have something 00:07:35.910 --> 00:07:38.610 called the anti -coercion instrument that could 00:07:38.610 --> 00:07:40.750 potentially allow them to restrict intellectual 00:07:40.750 --> 00:07:43.449 property rights or maybe even ban certain social 00:07:43.449 --> 00:07:46.230 media companies in Europe. Ban them? Wow. Yeah, 00:07:46.250 --> 00:07:49.230 these actions could have really significant financial 00:07:49.230 --> 00:07:52.170 and operational impacts on those companies. And 00:07:52.170 --> 00:07:53.829 you can bet that would get the attention of U 00:07:53.829 --> 00:07:56.589 .S. policymakers pretty quickly. OK, so beyond 00:07:56.589 --> 00:07:59.310 the EU, are there wider international worries? 00:07:59.589 --> 00:08:02.389 Oh, absolutely. The market analysis specifically 00:08:02.389 --> 00:08:05.209 mentions the risk of boycotts. from key trading 00:08:05.209 --> 00:08:08.709 partners like Canada, Mexico, Europe, even China. 00:08:09.009 --> 00:08:11.990 Boycotts of US goods. Exactly. If they decide 00:08:11.990 --> 00:08:14.889 to buy less from the US because of these tariffs, 00:08:15.350 --> 00:08:17.589 that could really hurt American businesses and 00:08:17.589 --> 00:08:20.389 slow down our economic growth even more. So this 00:08:20.389 --> 00:08:23.930 really paints a picture of potentially escalating 00:08:23.930 --> 00:08:27.509 global trade tensions, maybe even a full blown 00:08:27.509 --> 00:08:31.060 trade war. Okay, let's bring it back home. What's 00:08:31.060 --> 00:08:33.059 the political reaction been like here in the 00:08:33.059 --> 00:08:35.059 U .S.? Well, we're already seeing pre -significant 00:08:35.059 --> 00:08:37.460 divisions. Just yesterday, the Senate actually 00:08:37.460 --> 00:08:40.759 voted on a resolution opposing the whole national 00:08:40.759 --> 00:08:43.519 economic emergency declaration that was used 00:08:43.519 --> 00:08:46.139 to justify these terrorists. Ah, right, the legal 00:08:46.139 --> 00:08:49.019 mechanism. And how did that vote go? What's really 00:08:49.019 --> 00:08:51.559 notable is the bipartisan nature of the opposition. 00:08:51.720 --> 00:08:54.259 It wasn't just Democrats voting against it. All 00:08:54.259 --> 00:08:56.200 the Democrats and independents voted against 00:08:56.200 --> 00:08:59.110 it, sure, but they were joined by four Republican 00:08:59.110 --> 00:09:01.809 senators. Four Republicans? Susan Collins from 00:09:01.809 --> 00:09:04.090 Maine, Mitch McConnell from Kentucky. McConnell? 00:09:04.509 --> 00:09:07.870 Yeah. Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, and Rand Paul, 00:09:07.970 --> 00:09:10.289 also from Kentucky. Well, that's a significant 00:09:10.289 --> 00:09:12.830 crack in party unity on this. Definitely. Four 00:09:12.830 --> 00:09:14.929 senators from the president's own party voicing 00:09:14.929 --> 00:09:17.370 concern like that. And it might not just be those 00:09:17.370 --> 00:09:20.169 four. The briefing also mentions Tom Tillis from 00:09:20.169 --> 00:09:22.529 North Carolina and Ron Johnson from Wisconsin 00:09:22.529 --> 00:09:26.120 have publicly expressed unease too. So. This 00:09:26.120 --> 00:09:28.840 level of Republican dissent, it suggests these 00:09:28.840 --> 00:09:31.240 tariff policies might face a pretty challenging 00:09:31.240 --> 00:09:33.360 road ahead. It makes you wonder about the political 00:09:33.360 --> 00:09:35.860 strategy, doesn't it? The briefing kind of touches 00:09:35.860 --> 00:09:39.360 on this historical difficulty, trying to sell 00:09:39.360 --> 00:09:42.539 short -term economic pain for some promised long 00:09:42.539 --> 00:09:45.860 -term gain. It even mentions Jimmy Carter's experience. 00:09:46.220 --> 00:09:48.539 Right, his push for energy conservation back 00:09:48.539 --> 00:09:51.360 in the day. Despite the potential long -term 00:09:51.360 --> 00:09:53.940 benefits, it faced a lot of public pushback because, 00:09:54.220 --> 00:09:57.080 well, it required immediate sacrifices. It's 00:09:57.080 --> 00:09:59.679 a tough sell. It really is. Voters often focus 00:09:59.679 --> 00:10:01.960 on their immediate economic situation, you know, 00:10:02.100 --> 00:10:04.399 not some potential gain years down the line. 00:10:04.539 --> 00:10:06.440 And that YouGov poll mentioned in the briefing, 00:10:06.500 --> 00:10:08.779 it really highlights this tension. We're defined. 00:10:09.019 --> 00:10:12.600 Well, 56 % of adults oppose the tariffs. But, 00:10:12.720 --> 00:10:14.879 and this is the interesting part, 72 % expect 00:10:14.879 --> 00:10:16.980 prices to go up soon because of them. So most 00:10:16.980 --> 00:10:18.759 people don't like them, and most people think 00:10:18.759 --> 00:10:20.820 they'll make things more expensive. Exactly. 00:10:21.000 --> 00:10:23.679 That disconnect could create some serious political 00:10:23.679 --> 00:10:25.519 pressure down the line. And we should probably 00:10:25.519 --> 00:10:27.419 reiterate how these tariffs were put in place. 00:10:28.299 --> 00:10:30.840 President Trump declared a national economic 00:10:30.840 --> 00:10:33.200 emergency to get the authority right. Correct. 00:10:33.419 --> 00:10:36.000 And that move itself has been controversial, 00:10:36.480 --> 00:10:38.440 raising questions about the limits of presidential 00:10:38.440 --> 00:10:42.360 power. It's likely part of why we saw that bipartisan 00:10:42.360 --> 00:10:46.100 opposition in the Senate vote. OK. Now, the briefing 00:10:46.100 --> 00:10:48.299 also covered several other political moves happening 00:10:48.299 --> 00:10:51.429 around the same time. directly tariff related, 00:10:51.750 --> 00:10:53.669 but maybe indicative of the current climate. 00:10:53.830 --> 00:10:55.850 Yeah, they offer a sort of broader context for 00:10:55.850 --> 00:10:57.649 the political landscape right now. Like what? 00:10:58.250 --> 00:11:00.549 Well, there's the suspension of research grants 00:11:00.549 --> 00:11:03.029 to Princeton University. The official reason 00:11:03.029 --> 00:11:06.590 given was concern about anti -Semitism. But the 00:11:06.590 --> 00:11:09.309 timing and the context, it strongly suggests 00:11:09.309 --> 00:11:12.669 it might be retaliation, possibly linked to Princeton's 00:11:12.669 --> 00:11:14.970 president defending academic freedom after similar 00:11:14.970 --> 00:11:17.129 actions were taken against Columbia University. 00:11:17.409 --> 00:11:20.940 And there was a quote mentioned. Yeah, from Rabbi 00:11:20.940 --> 00:11:23.580 Gil Steinlauf, who seemed to downplay the anti 00:11:23.580 --> 00:11:26.179 -Semitism concerns specifically at Princeton, 00:11:26.720 --> 00:11:28.700 it just adds another layer, raising questions 00:11:28.700 --> 00:11:30.860 about the government's relationship with universities 00:11:30.860 --> 00:11:33.419 right now. Interesting. What else? Then there 00:11:33.419 --> 00:11:35.919 was the situation with the law firm Wilkie Farr 00:11:35.919 --> 00:11:39.100 and Gallagher. They hired Doug Emhoff, the second 00:11:39.100 --> 00:11:41.500 gentleman, and shortly after faced pressure, 00:11:41.759 --> 00:11:44.279 which resulted in this reported settlement. The 00:11:44.279 --> 00:11:46.679 settlement involving? Involving the firm agreeing 00:11:46.679 --> 00:11:48.860 to do a hundred million dollars worth of pro 00:11:48.860 --> 00:11:52.220 bono or free legal work, specifically for conservative 00:11:52.220 --> 00:11:55.679 causes, veterans, military families, law enforcement, 00:11:55.940 --> 00:11:58.000 combating anti -Semitism. A hundred million, 00:11:58.139 --> 00:12:00.600 that's a lot of pro bono work. It is, and the 00:12:00.600 --> 00:12:02.659 circumstances certainly suggest an attempt to 00:12:02.659 --> 00:12:04.759 wield political influence over the firm. It really 00:12:04.759 --> 00:12:06.820 highlights the kind of heightened political tensions 00:12:06.820 --> 00:12:08.539 we're seeing. Okay, what else was in that briefing? 00:12:09.059 --> 00:12:12.500 Another thing was the the DOGE contract cuts. 00:12:12.899 --> 00:12:15.440 These seem to be disproportionately hitting districts 00:12:15.440 --> 00:12:18.120 represented by Democrats. Representative Don 00:12:18.120 --> 00:12:20.240 Byers' district in Virginia was mentioned as 00:12:20.240 --> 00:12:24.139 the hardest hit. His district, remind me. Uh, 00:12:24.559 --> 00:12:28.419 VA, 08. Demographically, it's about 49 % white, 00:12:28.639 --> 00:12:33.500 21 % Latino, 12 % black, 12 % Asian, median household 00:12:33.500 --> 00:12:37.519 income around $125 ,000, and a strong Democratic 00:12:37.519 --> 00:12:41.019 lien, PVID plus 26. So hitting a blue district 00:12:41.019 --> 00:12:43.240 hard. Yeah. Any legal questions raised? Yes. 00:12:43.379 --> 00:12:45.740 Representative Jamie Raskin from Maryland was 00:12:45.740 --> 00:12:48.019 quoted questioning the legality of impounding 00:12:48.019 --> 00:12:50.740 funds like this. So potential legal challenges 00:12:50.740 --> 00:12:53.379 there, too. OK. Anything else, Major? Well, there 00:12:53.379 --> 00:12:55.299 were significant layoffs reported at the Department 00:12:55.299 --> 00:12:57.779 of Health and Human Services, HHS, a reduction 00:12:57.779 --> 00:13:00.279 of about 20 ,000 workers, including voluntary 00:13:00.279 --> 00:13:02.039 retirements. Twenty thousand. What's the potential 00:13:02.039 --> 00:13:04.679 impact? Dr. Pina Tan, an infectious disease expert, 00:13:04.899 --> 00:13:06.799 warned it could really hurt our ability to protect 00:13:06.799 --> 00:13:09.259 against infectious diseases. It affects agencies 00:13:09.259 --> 00:13:11.399 serving vulnerable populations, so real -world 00:13:11.399 --> 00:13:13.059 consequences there. Right. And then shifting 00:13:13.059 --> 00:13:15.320 to elections. A few things popped up there, too. 00:13:15.450 --> 00:13:17.909 Yeah, quite a bit happening. In Texas, Attorney 00:13:17.909 --> 00:13:20.570 General Ken Paxton is challenging Senator John 00:13:20.570 --> 00:13:22.710 Cornyn in the Republican primary. They have pretty 00:13:22.710 --> 00:13:25.250 different political styles, and Trump's potential 00:13:25.250 --> 00:13:28.009 endorsement could be a big factor. Paxton actually 00:13:28.009 --> 00:13:30.389 has a higher approval rating among Texas Republicans 00:13:30.389 --> 00:13:33.090 right now, 60 percent, to Cornyn's 48 percent. 00:13:33.210 --> 00:13:36.730 Despite Paxton's past legal troubles, the indictment, 00:13:36.850 --> 00:13:39.610 the impeachment? Despite all that, yeah. Suggests 00:13:39.610 --> 00:13:42.389 a potentially very close race. Interesting. What 00:13:42.389 --> 00:13:45.330 about Michigan? Mallory McMorrow jumped into 00:13:45.330 --> 00:13:47.509 the Senate race for the open seat there. She's 00:13:47.509 --> 00:13:50.009 a pro -choice Catholic, married to a Jewish man, 00:13:50.190 --> 00:13:53.029 ties to the auto industry, running on a progressive 00:13:53.029 --> 00:13:55.450 platform, could be a compelling candidate in 00:13:55.450 --> 00:13:58.409 a key swing state. And Georgia. Something about 00:13:58.409 --> 00:14:01.159 Lucy McBath. Yeah, unfortunately, she suspended 00:14:01.159 --> 00:14:03.500 her campaign for governor due to her husband's 00:14:03.500 --> 00:14:06.200 health issues. That's sad news personally, and 00:14:06.200 --> 00:14:08.600 politically, it could impact Senator John Ossoff's 00:14:08.600 --> 00:14:11.240 reelection chances as her candidacy was expected 00:14:11.240 --> 00:14:14.200 to help drive democratic turnout. Oh, okay. California. 00:14:14.500 --> 00:14:17.519 Xavier Becerra, the current HHS secretary, is 00:14:17.519 --> 00:14:19.539 running for governor. That's expected to create 00:14:19.539 --> 00:14:22.379 a pretty crowded, competitive, democratic primary 00:14:22.379 --> 00:14:24.399 field out there. Always crowded in California. 00:14:24.940 --> 00:14:27.509 Arizona. Adelita Grijalva is running for her 00:14:27.509 --> 00:14:30.649 late father Raul Grijalva's house seat, AZ -07. 00:14:31.009 --> 00:14:33.470 It's a heavily Democratic district, D plus 15, 00:14:33.549 --> 00:14:36.210 so she's very likely to win. Her initial statement 00:14:36.210 --> 00:14:38.610 was pretty critical of Trump and Elon Musk, so 00:14:38.610 --> 00:14:40.509 she'll likely be a vocal member of Congress. 00:14:40.889 --> 00:14:43.870 OK. And one last thing. Eric Adams. Right. The 00:14:43.870 --> 00:14:45.850 case against the New York City mayor was dismissed. 00:14:46.480 --> 00:14:48.919 Notably, the judge expressed concern about potential 00:14:48.919 --> 00:14:51.500 presidential leverage over a mayor. Another kind 00:14:51.500 --> 00:14:53.559 of interesting side note in this whole political 00:14:53.559 --> 00:14:55.899 narrative. Wow. Okay, so we've covered a lot. 00:14:56.120 --> 00:14:58.940 The market plunge, the historical echoes, the 00:14:58.940 --> 00:15:01.500 potential consumer pain, global pushback, the 00:15:01.500 --> 00:15:03.100 political divisions, these other governmental 00:15:03.100 --> 00:15:06.259 actions. As we wrap up this deep dive, what's 00:15:06.259 --> 00:15:08.740 the main takeaway, the crucial point for our 00:15:08.740 --> 00:15:10.580 listener? I think the key thing is that this 00:15:10.580 --> 00:15:13.980 isn't minor tinkering. The swift, sharp, negative 00:15:13.980 --> 00:15:16.860 market reaction combined with the very serious 00:15:16.860 --> 00:15:19.139 concerns coming from economists, plus those historical 00:15:19.139 --> 00:15:22.299 parallels we talked about. It all points to these 00:15:22.299 --> 00:15:24.740 terrorists being a really significant development 00:15:24.740 --> 00:15:26.700 with potentially far -reaching consequences. 00:15:27.100 --> 00:15:29.139 Indedicable ones. Definitely unpredictable. Add 00:15:29.139 --> 00:15:31.519 in the real possibility of international retaliation, 00:15:31.620 --> 00:15:34.620 the EU, Canada, Mexico, China, and the complicated 00:15:34.620 --> 00:15:37.419 political mess here at home. It just injects 00:15:37.419 --> 00:15:39.419 a huge amount of uncertainty and risk into the 00:15:39.419 --> 00:15:41.740 whole system. Absolutely. It really does feel 00:15:41.740 --> 00:15:44.279 like we're at some kind of pivotal moment, which 00:15:44.279 --> 00:15:46.299 brings us, I guess, to our final thought for 00:15:46.299 --> 00:15:49.000 you, our listener, to maybe chew on. Given what 00:15:49.000 --> 00:15:51.289 we know about terrorists historically, and how 00:15:51.289 --> 00:15:53.870 deeply intertwined the global economy is now. 00:15:54.929 --> 00:15:57.470 How might these protectionist moves ultimately 00:15:57.470 --> 00:16:00.330 reshape things? Not just trade deals, but like 00:16:00.330 --> 00:16:02.690 the fabric of our daily lives, the stability 00:16:02.690 --> 00:16:05.669 of the whole global financial system. And maybe 00:16:05.669 --> 00:16:09.049 what overlooks sectors or even consumer behaviors 00:16:09.049 --> 00:16:11.789 might see the most unexpected, maybe profound 00:16:11.789 --> 00:16:14.830 consequences as this all unfolds. That's a really 00:16:14.830 --> 00:16:16.690 good question. What are those second and third 00:16:16.690 --> 00:16:18.690 order effects we aren't even thinking about yet? 00:16:19.129 --> 00:16:21.639 Exactly. Definitely something to mull over. Thanks 00:16:21.639 --> 00:16:22.759 for diving deep with us.