WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.640 Welcome back to the deep dive. So you've probably 00:00:03.640 --> 00:00:06.459 encountered this strange paradox in the economy, 00:00:06.599 --> 00:00:09.279 right? Oh, definitely. You see the official data. 00:00:09.720 --> 00:00:13.400 You see healthy GDP, low unemployment. But for 00:00:13.400 --> 00:00:18.260 so many people, stability just feels well. completely 00:00:18.260 --> 00:00:20.359 out of reach. It feels like the goalposts have 00:00:20.359 --> 00:00:22.160 moved. And that's exactly what we're digging 00:00:22.160 --> 00:00:24.260 into with the sources you've brought today. We're 00:00:24.260 --> 00:00:26.539 going to interrogate those foundational numbers, 00:00:26.760 --> 00:00:28.899 the policies that create that exact feeling. 00:00:29.239 --> 00:00:31.100 We'll start with the economics and then you'll 00:00:31.100 --> 00:00:33.479 see how that bleeds directly into, well, political 00:00:33.479 --> 00:00:35.920 physics and even the way we project power globally. 00:00:36.539 --> 00:00:39.539 The core question is always... Where are the 00:00:39.539 --> 00:00:42.359 broken parameters? Okay, let's unpack that distortion 00:00:42.359 --> 00:00:44.719 then because it starts with this one Just massive 00:00:44.719 --> 00:00:47.219 claim right the official poverty line for a family 00:00:47.219 --> 00:00:49.159 of four in the u .s. Is about thirty one thousand 00:00:49.159 --> 00:00:50.939 dollars thirty one thousand two hundred Yeah 00:00:50.939 --> 00:00:53.340 But the analysis we're looking at suggests that 00:00:53.340 --> 00:00:55.939 if you calculate the real cost of living the 00:00:55.939 --> 00:00:59.159 actual crisis point for a family is closer to 00:00:59.159 --> 00:01:01.189 a hundred and forty thousand It's a staggering 00:01:01.189 --> 00:01:03.409 difference, isn't it? Unbelievable. And it totally 00:01:03.409 --> 00:01:05.790 reframes how you see the American economy. I 00:01:05.790 --> 00:01:08.349 mean, if almost half the country is living in 00:01:08.349 --> 00:01:11.030 what you could call economic deprivation, then 00:01:11.030 --> 00:01:13.989 all the political fragility, all the anger, it 00:01:13.989 --> 00:01:15.849 starts to make a lot more sense. It all connects. 00:01:16.069 --> 00:01:19.370 We have to follow this invisible infrastructure 00:01:19.370 --> 00:01:21.870 that's defining our reality. So let's start with 00:01:21.870 --> 00:01:24.890 the origin story of that flawed number. We have 00:01:24.890 --> 00:01:28.140 to go back to 1963. Right. To an economist named 00:01:28.140 --> 00:01:31.560 Molly Orshansky. And her formula? for the time 00:01:31.560 --> 00:01:34.319 was actually pretty simple and elegant. She said 00:01:34.319 --> 00:01:36.739 the poverty line is just three times the cost 00:01:36.739 --> 00:01:39.180 of a minimum food diet. And we have to be really 00:01:39.180 --> 00:01:41.620 clear about her intent. She was a rigorous economist. 00:01:42.379 --> 00:01:45.099 She wasn't trying to define what's a good middle 00:01:45.099 --> 00:01:48.239 class life. She was measuring income inadequacy. 00:01:48.480 --> 00:01:51.439 She was drawing a line in the sand. A crisis 00:01:51.439 --> 00:01:53.400 floor. The bare minimum. The absolute minimum 00:01:53.400 --> 00:01:56.239 to avoid total destitution. And that three times 00:01:56.239 --> 00:01:59.680 multiplier only worked in 1963 because the rest 00:01:59.680 --> 00:02:02.200 of the family The family's budget wasn't so constrained. 00:02:02.459 --> 00:02:04.420 Housing was relatively cheap. It was a way to 00:02:04.420 --> 00:02:06.900 build wealth. Health care may be a blue cross 00:02:06.900 --> 00:02:10.449 plan. Ten dollars a month. Which is what? About 00:02:10.449 --> 00:02:12.530 a hundred bucks today adjusted for inflation. 00:02:13.009 --> 00:02:15.210 A tiny fraction of what it is now. And child 00:02:15.210 --> 00:02:17.849 care was mostly non -market. Family helped or 00:02:17.849 --> 00:02:20.330 mothers stayed home. You could even pay for college 00:02:20.330 --> 00:02:23.610 with a summer job. And today that entire structure 00:02:23.610 --> 00:02:25.689 has, I mean, it's completely inverted. Right. 00:02:25.750 --> 00:02:28.210 If you look at twenty twenty four, housing costs 00:02:28.210 --> 00:02:30.990 have just exploded. Health care is this massive 00:02:30.990 --> 00:02:35.069 mandatory expense and child care. The sources 00:02:35.069 --> 00:02:37.990 call it. ruinously expensive. And that inversion 00:02:37.990 --> 00:02:40.430 is the whole story. What families spend money 00:02:40.430 --> 00:02:43.490 on has totally transformed. Food you eat at home, 00:02:43.810 --> 00:02:45.330 it's not a third of your budget anymore. Not 00:02:45.330 --> 00:02:47.330 even close. It's more like five to seven percent. 00:02:47.469 --> 00:02:50.310 So if you stick to Orshansky's original principle 00:02:50.310 --> 00:02:52.870 that the multiplier should be the inverse of 00:02:52.870 --> 00:02:56.330 what you spend on food, then That number three 00:02:56.330 --> 00:02:58.509 is totally obsolete. It's not three anymore. 00:02:58.590 --> 00:03:01.590 It's 16. 16. And that's the whole mechanism. 00:03:01.629 --> 00:03:03.530 That's how the measurement breaks. You apply 00:03:03.530 --> 00:03:06.729 that new multiplier, and suddenly the income 00:03:06.729 --> 00:03:08.949 inadequacy line for a family of four is, well, 00:03:09.009 --> 00:03:11.689 it's somewhere between $130 ,000 and $150 ,000. 00:03:12.129 --> 00:03:15.430 So the official number, that $31 ,000? It's not 00:03:15.430 --> 00:03:17.370 measuring poverty anymore. It's measuring the 00:03:17.370 --> 00:03:20.349 threshold for actual starvation in a modern economy. 00:03:20.490 --> 00:03:24.150 That is just, it's astonishing. But let's ground 00:03:24.150 --> 00:03:29.560 it. Does that $140 ,000 figure assume a big house 00:03:29.560 --> 00:03:32.620 and luxury cars? Not at all. Not even a little 00:03:32.620 --> 00:03:35.120 bit. The analysis actually breaks down a basic 00:03:35.120 --> 00:03:38.180 needs budget. It's for a family of four, two 00:03:38.180 --> 00:03:41.830 earners, two kids. And there are zero luxuries. 00:03:42.050 --> 00:03:43.909 It's just what they call the participation ticket. 00:03:44.110 --> 00:03:45.990 But you need just to hold a job. Exactly. To 00:03:45.990 --> 00:03:48.990 hold a job, raise kids in 2024. And the gross 00:03:48.990 --> 00:03:53.189 income they need for just that is $136 ,500. 00:03:53.669 --> 00:03:56.610 And get this, the most shocking detail in that 00:03:56.610 --> 00:03:59.689 budget. It's not the housing. No. Housing is 00:03:59.689 --> 00:04:02.990 about $23 ,000 a year in their model. The biggest 00:04:02.990 --> 00:04:09.310 line item is child care. $32 ,773. It costs more 00:04:09.310 --> 00:04:11.650 than the roof over your head. And this creates 00:04:11.650 --> 00:04:14.129 what the analysis calls the child care trap. 00:04:14.349 --> 00:04:17.769 It's fundamental. How does that work? Well, to 00:04:17.769 --> 00:04:20.569 get to the median household income, about $80 00:04:20.569 --> 00:04:24.110 ,000, you almost always need two adults working. 00:04:24.269 --> 00:04:26.629 Sure. But the moment that second person goes 00:04:26.629 --> 00:04:30.170 to work, you trigger that $32 ,000 child care 00:04:30.170 --> 00:04:32.560 bill. So the second income isn't for saving. 00:04:32.740 --> 00:04:35.019 It's not for getting ahead. It's just to pay 00:04:35.019 --> 00:04:37.300 a stranger to watch your kids so you can go to 00:04:37.300 --> 00:04:39.240 work. It's a closed loop. A completely closed 00:04:39.240 --> 00:04:41.579 loop. Your net gain at the end of the month might 00:04:41.579 --> 00:04:44.399 only be $1 ,000 or $2 ,000. And we should remember 00:04:44.399 --> 00:04:49.060 that $136 ,000 number is conservative. Very conservative. 00:04:49.220 --> 00:04:52.399 It's using a national average for rent of like... 00:04:52.480 --> 00:04:55.600 $1 ,900 a month if you live anywhere near a major 00:04:55.600 --> 00:04:57.540 city. I mean, the example they give is Caldwell, 00:04:57.639 --> 00:04:59.920 New Jersey. Right, a decent town, but not Manhattan. 00:05:00.240 --> 00:05:02.779 And a two -bedroom there is over $2 ,700 a month. 00:05:03.699 --> 00:05:06.279 And your required income immediately jumps past 00:05:06.279 --> 00:05:09.939 $160 ,000. And that rent check buys you zero 00:05:09.939 --> 00:05:12.959 equity. That is a critical change from the 50s. 00:05:13.180 --> 00:05:15.790 For the working poor, Housing today is just an 00:05:15.790 --> 00:05:18.209 expense. It's a subscription for a roof. It's 00:05:18.209 --> 00:05:20.370 not building any wealth. Now, when you present 00:05:20.370 --> 00:05:23.329 this data, you always get pushback from economists 00:05:23.329 --> 00:05:27.129 about hedonic adjustments. Yes, the quality argument. 00:05:27.310 --> 00:05:29.209 They say, sure, prices are higher, but your phone 00:05:29.209 --> 00:05:32.990 is better. Your TV is better. Why is that defense 00:05:32.990 --> 00:05:35.930 so flawed here? Because it's a category error. 00:05:36.129 --> 00:05:38.009 I mean, it's a total distraction. We're not talking 00:05:38.009 --> 00:05:40.449 about the price of a luxury TV. Right. We are 00:05:40.449 --> 00:05:43.089 calculating the price of participation. Yeah. 00:05:43.410 --> 00:05:45.470 What does it cost just to show up in the modern 00:05:45.470 --> 00:05:47.930 economy? Okay, so let's run the participation 00:05:47.930 --> 00:05:52.490 audit. In 1955, your connectivity cost was a 00:05:52.490 --> 00:05:56.009 landline. Five bucks a month. About $58 in today's 00:05:56.009 --> 00:05:58.569 money. Today, you need a smartphone, you need 00:05:58.569 --> 00:06:02.029 broadband for work, for school, for your bank. 00:06:02.250 --> 00:06:05.629 And that's about $200 a month. The cost of just 00:06:05.629 --> 00:06:08.230 being connected has tripled, even after you adjust 00:06:08.230 --> 00:06:10.389 for inflation. And health care is the most violent 00:06:10.389 --> 00:06:13.870 comparison. That $10 a month premium in 1955, 00:06:14.290 --> 00:06:18.350 that's $115 today. The average family premium 00:06:18.350 --> 00:06:23.470 now, over $1 ,600 a month. That's 14 times inflation. 00:06:23.769 --> 00:06:26.910 14 times. And childcare, of course, went from 00:06:26.910 --> 00:06:29.850 basically zero in a single earner economy to 00:06:29.850 --> 00:06:33.810 $32 ,000. It's an infinite increase in a mandatory 00:06:33.810 --> 00:06:36.350 cost. And this whole cost structure is what creates 00:06:36.350 --> 00:06:38.629 the valley of death in the safety net. Right. 00:06:38.829 --> 00:06:41.279 It's a trap. The system punishes you for trying 00:06:41.279 --> 00:06:43.860 to climb. How so? The cliffs are just undeniable. 00:06:44.259 --> 00:06:45.980 A family might lose Medicaid when their income 00:06:45.980 --> 00:06:49.800 hits, say, $45 ,000. So a $10 ,000 raise. A $10 00:06:49.800 --> 00:06:52.759 ,000 raise, which should be amazing, suddenly 00:06:52.759 --> 00:06:54.839 means you have a massive new health care bill. 00:06:54.920 --> 00:06:58.019 You're actually poorer. And the same thing happens 00:06:58.019 --> 00:07:01.339 with child care subsidies around $65 ,000. A 00:07:01.339 --> 00:07:05.339 $20 ,000 pay bump can trigger a $28 ,000 loss 00:07:05.339 --> 00:07:07.699 in benefits. So the effective tax on trying to 00:07:07.699 --> 00:07:10.250 get ahead is insane. maybe a hundred percent. 00:07:10.529 --> 00:07:12.569 Which means a family making a hundred grand can 00:07:12.569 --> 00:07:15.810 easily be worse off financially than one making 00:07:15.810 --> 00:07:18.550 forty thousand. You are penalized for striving. 00:07:19.410 --> 00:07:22.129 And falling below that 140 line is what the analysis 00:07:22.129 --> 00:07:25.730 calls a phase change. You become economically 00:07:25.730 --> 00:07:28.389 inert. Exactly. You're barred from good credit. 00:07:28.430 --> 00:07:30.430 You can't get into a decent rental. You have 00:07:30.430 --> 00:07:34.709 no buffer. That $140 ,000 line is an affluence. 00:07:34.850 --> 00:07:37.750 It's the buffer against total ruin. So when we 00:07:37.750 --> 00:07:40.459 see those charts, You know the ones showing the 00:07:40.459 --> 00:07:42.420 middle class drinking, but the number of families 00:07:42.420 --> 00:07:45.220 making over 150 is growing. Yeah, the ones that 00:07:45.220 --> 00:07:47.579 used to show rising prosperity. We have to completely 00:07:47.579 --> 00:07:50.240 reinterpret that now. Absolutely. If you apply 00:07:50.240 --> 00:07:54.540 this $140 ,000 survival line, that chart doesn't 00:07:54.540 --> 00:07:57.319 show prosperity. It shows that only about a third 00:07:57.319 --> 00:08:00.259 of Americans have managed to escape deprivation. 00:08:00.379 --> 00:08:03.420 So the so -called middle class? That huge group, 00:08:03.720 --> 00:08:07.019 45 % of the country, making between 50 and 150. 00:08:07.900 --> 00:08:11.459 They're actually the working poor, trapped in 00:08:11.459 --> 00:08:13.920 that valley of death. They make too much for 00:08:13.920 --> 00:08:17.300 help, but not nearly enough to live. And it explains 00:08:17.300 --> 00:08:20.040 why the poverty rate is low. Food is cheap. Food 00:08:20.040 --> 00:08:23.199 is cheap. Life is expensive. Because housing, 00:08:23.459 --> 00:08:25.949 health care, and child care are broken. In this 00:08:25.949 --> 00:08:28.370 feeling, this economic stress where working harder 00:08:28.370 --> 00:08:30.930 makes you poorer, it translates directly into 00:08:30.930 --> 00:08:33.009 political instability. It has to. Which brings 00:08:33.009 --> 00:08:34.870 us to the raw numbers of power in Washington. 00:08:35.029 --> 00:08:37.649 The sources really highlight just how fragile 00:08:37.649 --> 00:08:39.710 the whole political environment is, especially 00:08:39.710 --> 00:08:41.870 in the House. Yeah. After the recent death of 00:08:41.870 --> 00:08:44.470 Representative Doug LaMalfa from California and 00:08:44.470 --> 00:08:46.789 Marjorie Taylor Greene's exit before that, the 00:08:46.789 --> 00:08:50.269 Republican majority is, well, it's on a knife's 00:08:50.269 --> 00:08:53.289 edge. The tally right now is 218 Republicans 00:08:53.289 --> 00:08:57.409 to 213 Democrats. A five -seat margin. And as 00:08:57.409 --> 00:08:59.289 Professor Kostas Panagopoulos points out in the 00:08:59.289 --> 00:09:01.610 analysis, that is an incredibly difficult margin 00:09:01.610 --> 00:09:04.710 to govern with. Even a handful of people defecting 00:09:04.710 --> 00:09:07.309 can kill any piece of legislation. And it's probably 00:09:07.309 --> 00:09:08.889 going to get even tighter. Almost certainly. 00:09:09.309 --> 00:09:11.830 There are two upcoming special elections that 00:09:11.830 --> 00:09:14.429 Democrats are heavily favored to win. Texas is 00:09:14.429 --> 00:09:17.350 18th and New Jersey is 11th. Right. The New Jersey 00:09:17.350 --> 00:09:19.710 one is considered safe Democrat. So if they win 00:09:19.710 --> 00:09:21.830 both, and they're expected to... Let's do the 00:09:21.830 --> 00:09:25.490 math. The majority shrinks to 218 to 215. Which 00:09:25.490 --> 00:09:27.730 means Speaker Mike Johnson could only afford 00:09:27.730 --> 00:09:31.190 a single defection on any vote. One person defects 00:09:31.190 --> 00:09:33.549 or is just absent and he can't pass a thing. 00:09:33.690 --> 00:09:36.330 That is unbelievable fragility. It empowers the 00:09:36.330 --> 00:09:39.299 fringes. The analysis warns that basically anyone 00:09:39.299 --> 00:09:42.419 can now derail the entire agenda. When your margin 00:09:42.419 --> 00:09:45.519 is that thin, a few members who refuse to compromise, 00:09:45.960 --> 00:09:48.320 often fueled by that same economic resentment, 00:09:48.779 --> 00:09:50.840 they get a veto over the will of the majority. 00:09:51.360 --> 00:09:53.820 So the political system is just reflecting the 00:09:53.820 --> 00:09:56.639 economic instability. Every absence, every illness, 00:09:57.019 --> 00:09:59.279 like with Representative Jim Baird, it's suddenly 00:09:59.279 --> 00:10:02.649 a major political crisis. It is. The whole branch 00:10:02.649 --> 00:10:04.950 of government is hanging by a single thread. 00:10:05.529 --> 00:10:07.730 And when the legislature is that paralyzed, the 00:10:07.730 --> 00:10:10.230 executive branch often feels like it has to act 00:10:10.230 --> 00:10:13.490 more aggressively. And that brings us to our 00:10:13.490 --> 00:10:16.889 final piece. The shift toward aggressive executive 00:10:16.889 --> 00:10:19.509 power. We're talking about Greenland. Yes, a 00:10:19.509 --> 00:10:22.009 remarkably aggressive stance. Secretary of State 00:10:22.009 --> 00:10:24.809 Marco Rubio told lawmakers the goal is to buy 00:10:24.809 --> 00:10:27.029 the island from Denmark. But the administration 00:10:27.029 --> 00:10:30.860 hasn't ruled out just. taking it. Right. They've 00:10:30.860 --> 00:10:33.840 publicly refused to rule out seizing it by force. 00:10:34.460 --> 00:10:36.480 The White House press secretary said acquiring 00:10:36.480 --> 00:10:38.860 Greenland is a national security priority for 00:10:38.860 --> 00:10:41.700 the Arctic. The blowback must be immense. Denmark 00:10:41.700 --> 00:10:44.899 is a NATO ally. It's profound. Attacking a Danish 00:10:44.899 --> 00:10:47.419 territory is an attack on NATO. Other members 00:10:47.419 --> 00:10:49.159 have basically said that if the US did that, 00:10:49.320 --> 00:10:51.799 it would be the end of NATO. The end of the alliance. 00:10:52.059 --> 00:10:54.320 The Danish prime minister's words were Everything 00:10:54.320 --> 00:10:56.600 would come to an end. And this kind of aggressive 00:10:56.600 --> 00:10:59.179 foreign policy seems to trace back to one person. 00:10:59.580 --> 00:11:02.600 A central figure, yes. Stephen Miller, the deputy 00:11:02.600 --> 00:11:05.419 chief of staff for policy. He is described as 00:11:05.419 --> 00:11:08.039 the accelerant for the president's most incendiary 00:11:08.039 --> 00:11:11.320 ideas. The prime minister, really. And his style 00:11:11.320 --> 00:11:14.289 is... Pretty intense. He runs his meetings like 00:11:14.289 --> 00:11:17.669 a wartime general, accepts no dissent, he's pushed 00:11:17.669 --> 00:11:20.590 for things like 3 ,000 immigration arrests a 00:11:20.590 --> 00:11:23.370 day, which is a ten -fold increase, and he's 00:11:23.370 --> 00:11:25.549 leading the charge against elite universities. 00:11:25.990 --> 00:11:28.149 It's the philosophy behind it that's key. You 00:11:28.149 --> 00:11:31.090 have to understand his worldview. He doesn't 00:11:31.090 --> 00:11:34.370 see disagreement as politics. He sees it as an 00:11:34.370 --> 00:11:37.490 existential conflict. against forces of wickedness 00:11:37.490 --> 00:11:39.750 and evil. So he's fundamentally against the whole 00:11:39.750 --> 00:11:42.289 post -World War II order. Exactly. He wants to 00:11:42.289 --> 00:11:44.710 end the international niceties and live in a 00:11:44.710 --> 00:11:47.009 world governed by strength, that is governed 00:11:47.009 --> 00:11:49.590 by force, that is governed by power. And that 00:11:49.590 --> 00:11:51.629 explains Greenland. It's a pure power play. A 00:11:51.629 --> 00:11:54.129 pure power play. And it's consistent. He was 00:11:54.129 --> 00:11:56.509 a key force behind the operation to capture President 00:11:56.509 --> 00:11:59.029 Maduro in Venezuela, and he declared the U .S. 00:11:59.330 --> 00:12:01.029 military could take Greenland without a fight. 00:12:01.250 --> 00:12:04.169 And his goal seems to go beyond just policy wins. 00:12:04.490 --> 00:12:07.100 Oh, yeah. The analysis from former Senator Jeff 00:12:07.100 --> 00:12:09.879 Flake is that Miller's goal is to change the 00:12:09.879 --> 00:12:12.970 nature of who we are as a country. to reverse 00:12:12.970 --> 00:12:16.190 the immigration trends since the 1960s. And he's 00:12:16.190 --> 00:12:18.169 willing to use the power of the state to do it. 00:12:18.230 --> 00:12:21.009 That's the defining trait. It's not just against 00:12:21.009 --> 00:12:23.789 immigrants under some banner of national emergency. 00:12:24.129 --> 00:12:26.610 It's also against domestic opponents. Right. 00:12:26.710 --> 00:12:29.750 The sources detail his efforts to get federal 00:12:29.750 --> 00:12:32.370 law enforcement to investigate a local activist 00:12:32.370 --> 00:12:35.110 who he claimed was threatening his family. It 00:12:35.110 --> 00:12:38.389 shows a willingness to use what he calls legitimate 00:12:38.389 --> 00:12:41.950 state power against any perceived threat. foreign, 00:12:42.049 --> 00:12:44.409 or domestic. So we have these three systems, 00:12:44.950 --> 00:12:47.730 economic, political, and foreign policy, all 00:12:47.730 --> 00:12:49.590 stretched to their absolute limit. That's the 00:12:49.590 --> 00:12:51.909 perfect way to put it. We've looked at this foundational 00:12:51.909 --> 00:12:54.590 economic number that traps millions below this 00:12:54.590 --> 00:12:57.850 $140 ,000 survival line. Then we saw the political 00:12:57.850 --> 00:13:00.230 fragility that results from that, with a House 00:13:00.230 --> 00:13:02.830 majority hanging on by a single vote. And finally, 00:13:03.009 --> 00:13:05.450 this aggressive, power -first foreign policy 00:13:05.450 --> 00:13:07.870 that's threatening to just dismantle core alliances 00:13:07.870 --> 00:13:11.860 like NATO. In every single case, a basic parameter 00:13:11.860 --> 00:13:14.679 is being stretched to its breaking point. The 00:13:14.679 --> 00:13:17.220 poverty multiplier, the majority threshold, the 00:13:17.220 --> 00:13:20.139 definition of an ally's sovereignty. We are defining 00:13:20.139 --> 00:13:23.059 crisis incorrectly, managing power precariously 00:13:23.059 --> 00:13:25.740 and projecting force dangerously. Which leaves 00:13:25.740 --> 00:13:27.600 one last big question for you to think about. 00:13:27.740 --> 00:13:30.659 Right. If all the anger and volatility you see 00:13:30.659 --> 00:13:33.759 out there, the rage the person earning 65 grand 00:13:33.759 --> 00:13:36.600 feels at the system, at their neighbors, at their 00:13:36.600 --> 00:13:39.409 leaders, if that is all fundamentally a result 00:13:39.409 --> 00:13:42.629 of a broken economic contract, where working 00:13:42.629 --> 00:13:45.970 hard doesn't get you past that $140 ,000 line. 00:13:46.190 --> 00:13:48.409 Then what do you fix first? What has to be fixed 00:13:48.409 --> 00:13:51.110 first for stability to return? Do you have to 00:13:51.110 --> 00:13:53.429 fix the economic math before the political rage 00:13:53.429 --> 00:13:56.009 can ever calm down? A very challenging thought 00:13:56.009 --> 00:13:58.289 to end on. Thank you for sharing your sources 00:13:58.289 --> 00:14:00.889 with us for this deep dive. We hope you feel 00:14:00.889 --> 00:14:02.809 a little more informed about the hidden numbers 00:14:02.809 --> 00:14:03.889 that are shaping our world.