6-4-25 - 8am - Entitlements and Energy

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, I'm a Broomfield, Colorado Natives third house ever built.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
My dad built most.

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Of all those houses in North Clinton and Thornton and
boul Doerrado.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Here the list goes on.

Speaker 3 (00:12):
I improved my life in Colorado by moving to Montana.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Uh. Montana is a great place to live. My son
and my grandson are both graduates at the University of Montana.
You will soon if you don't already. Missoula is like
a little boulder, and there are a lot of people

(00:40):
from California, Oregon, and Washington escaping to Montana.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
So they're everywhere.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
So if I go back to the debt, I had
mentioned about how you know, the Laugher curve really does
work and you reduce taxes and you get additional in
additional revenues. Well, Agent jed A sent an email that
he's pulled from the Treasury's monthly statement tax revenues for

(01:11):
calendar year twenty seventeen three point three trillion dollars for
calendar year twenty twenty four four point eight trillion dollars,
and he writes, instead of reducing tax revenues, the Trump
tax plan continues to generate new all time record high
tax revenues up forty six percent forty six percent since

(01:34):
twenty seventeen.

Speaker 2 (01:36):
And that's true, and that's great. So what's the problem.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
The problem is we still spend at pandemic levels. This
was the problem even with the Reagan tax cuts when
Arthur Laugher came up with the Laugher curve, and we
all shouldn't say we all, but many of us agreed that,
oh yeah, reducing taxes is going to increase tax revenues
because growth, growth is what increases tax revenue. Whether that's

(02:09):
you know, you create additional tax payers, you can reduce
the overall tax rate because the more tax payers you have,
the more revenue you have coming into the treasury. And
in addition to that, the more growth you have in
the economy, the more you have dollars circulating around, so

(02:30):
there are more profits and people are, you know, buying
more goods or services from companies corporations who so that
means you're paying those taxes and so those corporations are
returning more tax revenue into the treasury. The problem even
during the Reagan era is the same as the problem

(02:51):
we have now, and that is Congress continues to spend
more than they bring in. Oh wait a minute, that
seems like a pretty simple answer. Congress is spending more
money than they bring in, which is a great segue
into my point of that, so who can balance the books?
Neither of the Republicans or the Democrats have offered a

(03:13):
credible plan. On the left, you always hear for these
calls for tax increases, and of course, and the tax
increases they want to target corporations, which I always find
fascinating because that means let's just pick you know, Amazon
or Walmart or Costco or Target or SAMs or any
any of the big corporations. Well, who pays those taxes?

(03:40):
Well you will. And then people who really do rely
on you know, a SAMs or a Walmart or an
Amazon for cheap goods, They're going to pay more for
those goods. So it becomes this vicious or let's think

(04:02):
about the wealthy. Now, is there room for additional or
higher tax rates on the wealthy? You know what, I'm
ambivalent about that. But the side I fall on is
why do we always think that increasing taxes on the

(04:22):
wealthy is somehow going to solve the debt problem. Now
I am putting together this information I did not. I
didn't think about doing this, But there is a data
point that I've used before. Let's see if I can.
I'm not going to look for it right now, but

(04:43):
there's a data point that talks about if we took
literally confiscated the income and the wealth of all the
billionaires in this country, it wouldn't solve our problem. So
increasing taxes on the wealthy is not the solution. In fact,

(05:05):
I would argue that any marginal increase in tax rates
on the wealthy is less money that the wealthy have
to then invest, whether that be you know, just a
just an individual some you know, take a friend of mine,
it's a billionaire, So you increase his taxes, whether there's

(05:28):
capital gains taxes, income taxes, just you just somehow figure
out a way to increase the taxes. So he has
to pay more in taxes of whatever kind. Well, that's
less money that he has to put into a startup company,
or that's less money that he has to put into
let's say a company that he's already invested in that

(05:49):
comes to him as an angel investor, you know, some
some sort of other investor says, you know, we want
to we want to expand our production line, and we
need ten million dollars to do that, and we don't
want to go to the bank to do it, but
we like for you to invest in it. We'll and
we'll do a profit sharing with you, or we'll pay
you an interest rate if you want to do it
as a loan, whatever, but we need that.

Speaker 2 (06:09):
Now.

Speaker 1 (06:10):
He doesn't have that money anymore because they're careful with
their money. And so if he's if he's lost ten
million dollars in additional taxes, that's ten million dollars that
he's not going to spend or invest. That's why when
it comes to taxing the wealthy, it's just this trope about.

Speaker 2 (06:33):
Well, they're rich and we need more of their money.

Speaker 1 (06:39):
I don't know of any rich person, whether it's Elon
Musk or Mark Zuckerberg, or Warren Buffett or Bill Gates
or any any Billy George Soros. I don't care name
them all. None of them impact my income. In other words,
I don't make less because as they make more at all.

(07:03):
But that's what many useful idiots out there do believe.
So both sides, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, they
keep dodging the hard truth and that is that we
can't keep promising everything to everybody. We can't fund every program,
we can't cut every tax and expect the math to work.

(07:26):
Balancing the books is going to require political courage. And
it took a lot of courage for me to even
say that, because political courage seems.

Speaker 2 (07:37):
Like an oxymoron.

Speaker 1 (07:39):
It's going to take compromise, and it's going to take
a willingness to confront those sacred cows, those entitlements. So
let me kind of swerve into that for a moment
and just say this, we've got to reform entitlements. I

(08:06):
didn't say cut. All I said was we need to
reform entitlements. Social Security, medicare their lifelines for millions of people,
but they were designed for a different era. Life expectancies
were shorter, fewer workers supported every entirety. Today, the racial

(08:30):
workers to retirees is just two point eight to one.
By twenty thirty five will drop to two point three
to one. Now, I think we can preserve the programs
by making some targeted changes its benefits for high income
earners gradually, maybe raise the payroll tax cap, explore options

(08:50):
like means testing, modesty increases in retirement age for future beneficiaries,
or do up my old bus wanted to do but
didn't have the stamina, the political stamina, didn't have, the
political courage, didn't have. He couldn't get enough people on

(09:12):
the hill to go along. But how about reforming social
Security and saying to people coming into the system, you're
not going to be on the existing program, You're going
to be on a new program, and we're going to
allow you to I don't mean there are all sorts

(09:32):
of details had to be worked out. But what I
wouldn't give when I go look at my Social Security account?
What I wouldn't give if they wouldn't just give me
that money, or if I had just been able to
keep that money and just put it into just just

(09:53):
put it into the Dow Jones industrial averages, just you know,
put it in the market. Don't know, just Hell's bells
by a CD probably better than the return they're getting now.

Speaker 2 (10:08):
But nobody even wants to talk about that.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
And they don't talk about it because the cabal then
steps in and says, oh, they want to cut social Security,
they want to cut Medicare, they want to cut mediciate,
So you can't even talk about reform or coming up
with a new kind of program without that kind of pressure.
And so then every politician who only cares don't forget,

(10:31):
they only care about getting re elected. They then collapse.
They just fold up like a really cheap suit. So
we all to have that conversation. I don't even think
Trump at this point is willing to have that conversation.
I think he should. I think he ought to take
the political capital he has now and on the QT

(10:57):
have some group, get Scott Bessent and some of the
others together, and have them come up with an entirely
new program for new beneficiaries, get it all worked out,
work out all the kings that you possibly can, and
then present it. I think he might be surprised at

(11:19):
the reaction because he has a knack for presenting things
in a way that make people go, oh, I'm not
quite sure what he's doing. Let me think about it.
Right now. The reaction to anything anybody does is they
don't even want to think about it. If we could
just get people to think about it, we might be
able to accomplish it. So that's what I have to

(11:40):
say about entitlements. But the other thing we've got to
do is We've got a streamline government spending. Now, I
don't think that waste and inefficiency or buzzwords. I think
they're actually real. The Government Accountability Office estimates that improper payments,
money that's misspent, money that's paid out fraudulently.

Speaker 2 (12:02):
Do you know what that costs US.

Speaker 1 (12:03):
In twenty twenty three, two hundred and forty seven billion dollars.
That is a quarter of what Musk was trying to
accomplish with du with DOGE two hundred lists just rounded
up two hundred and fifty billion dollars a quarter of
a trillion dollars.

Speaker 2 (12:19):
Just in misspent or fraud alone.

Speaker 1 (12:24):
Now I know people will say we need a stalpel,
not a sledgehammer, or a musk case, not a chainsaw.
But to cut waste. There are so many duplicative programs.
We need to modernize procurement. We need to prioritize investments

(12:44):
that actually are spending that actually delivers measurable returns. For example,
infrastructure spending, it should focus on projects that actually boost
productivity rather than put projects the pad political resumes. You
know what, improve improve productivity and just say in Colorado,

(13:10):
fix the damn roads, Just fix the damn roads. Don't
even want to think about what you could do to
improve improve productivity if you actually operate. And I don't
think it's even feasible in the state like Colorado. But
if you were to take something that's pre existing RTD
and actually completely reform RTD might take a lot of

(13:36):
money up front, but you might be able to reform it.
But infrastructure spending, think about what we're doing. You know
everybody's applauding Newark and how Sean Duffy, the Secretary Transportation,
has gotten that one runway at Newark opened two weeks early.

(13:56):
And don't get me wrong, I'm glad that he did.
I also want to say, whoop poop to do you
got an extra runway opened two weeks earlier. I thought
I heard maybe wrong about this, but I thought I
heard the addition of that runway may allow them to
increase the number of flights into him out of Newark

(14:20):
by twelve a dozen. You've opened up a dozen slots
at Newark. That's deminimous. So until you get rid of
and antiquated, and I truly mean antiquated in every sense
of the term. What atc air Traffic Control uses for

(14:42):
you know, tracking flights and putting them in the right
slots and keeping them spaced apart. It's all so outdated
that it'll take billions of dollars to fix it. But
that's money that you actually could call an investment. That's
spending that actually has investment properties, that has a good
return on investment, that would improve the economy by making travel,

(15:08):
which is an inherent part of our economy, whether it's
for work, business or pleasure, all affects the economy, would
improve its efficiency. But there's another thing I think we
will to do, and that's really truly embrace transparency and accountability.

(15:30):
There's so many budget gimmicks inside the Beltway, emergency spending,
it's not emergency spending off the book liabilities that hide
the true cost of what our commitments are. Congress ought
to do. Multi year budgeting actually forced lawmakers to plan
beyond the next election cycle, make them think beyond their

(15:52):
own self interest. And maybe even and I even hate
to propose this or think about this, but how about
some sort of independent fiscal commit not to kick the
can down the road, but to propose really bowled out
of the box, unusual, shocking kind of ideas that would
cause the public to stop for at least fifteen seconds

(16:13):
and pay attention to what's going on with the dead
and with the spending, and then start building some consensus
for change. There's no plan in place that I see
anywhere other than Trump acting alone, God Blessing acting alone,
trying to develop some sort of proposal that would put

(16:33):
us on the right track. Here's the ugly truth. Trump
can keep working on the margins and actually makes some
really significant changes on the margin. But I'm talking about
fundamental transformation, to use a phrase from an old Marxist,

(16:54):
of fundamental trans transformation of how Washington budgets and spins.
That's obviously not gonna be easy. It's gonna take a
lot of work. Every single step, entitlement reform, the spending cuts,
the tax hikes, it's all gonna face resistance from all
different kinds of constituents. All the interest groups are gonna

(17:15):
scream about it, Partisans are gonna point fingers. But the
alternative is worse. If we don't do anything, we risk default.
We actually could default. Skyrocketing interest rates, an economic collapse.
It would make two thousand and eight look like there's nothing,

(17:36):
an actual depression and if we do that, that starts
a chain reaction and it goes worldwide. Hey, let's go
talk to Jaris over at the retirement planning some of
the rockies.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
How are you today, sir?

Speaker 3 (17:54):
I'm doing well, Michael. Good to talk to you.

Speaker 1 (17:56):
So I got a question for you. So, with all
these this market turbulence that's going on related to the
tariff changes and well, I've just kind of been describing
as global insurgainty, I know a lot of people are
kind of feeling nervous about their accounts. Well, so what
would you say to someone who's concerned about that market
volatility and how it might impact their retirement?

Speaker 3 (18:17):
Yeah, Michael, that's a great question, and we hear it often.
You know, what do I do or how do I
react when the markets are going crazy with all these
tariff talks and trade news and policy changes, And you know,
we happen to be at a calm spot right now.
Somewhat we had a little bit of a rocky start
to the year and it's recovered. Who knows what? Yeah,
who knows what's around the corner next week or the

(18:39):
next month, And so this kind of stuff shakes people's
confidence and Michael, I've met a lot of your listeners,
and I know that they've worked too hard to let
that kind of uncertainty thy create their future, right. And
so what we've done is we've developed a proprietary process.
We call it the Summer Retirement Guide. I know we've
talked with you quite a bit about this in the past,
but what it does is it gives people a comprehensive

(19:00):
plan that brings real peace of mind. And the one
thing to remember is that you know, as we go
through these news cycles and all these different events and
policy changes, those absolutely can cause market swings, but they're
usually short term and over time, the market has a
tendency to normalize itself. We saw it during COVID, we
saw it this year, and up and downs are part

(19:21):
of the deal. But what really matters most is that
if somebody doesn't have a clear plan, it's really easy
to get distracted by all that stuff and let it
derail your progress. And so that's why we always come
back to these five peaks that we keep talking about
of income, investments, taxes, healthcare, and legacy. All five of
those need to work together to create a diversified plan

(19:43):
that can weather all that stuff. You know, this kind
of stuff's going to pop up all the time. And
when we had this little event earlier this year, I
had one client call me up, just one that was
concerned about their accounts. And there's a little bit more
of a story behind it that I don't have time
to get into today. But the point is people that
we work with don't worry about that kind of thing

(20:05):
happening to them because we've prepared for all these different areas.
They know that they can weather those kinds of storms
when they pop up.

Speaker 2 (20:12):
So when you take them.

Speaker 1 (20:13):
Through the Summit Retirement Guide process, they come out the
other end of that and they can go home. And
when they get bumbarded as we all do on the news,
they have that feeling of, yeah, I knew this was coming,
I expected to come, and I don't have to worry
about this.

Speaker 3 (20:32):
That's exactly right. And you know, the Summer Retirement Guide,
it really brings clarity. And what I would say to
your listeners is, you know, sit down with somebody, somebody
call us if you'd like. I of course would love
to talk to the people that would be interested in
visiting with us, but talk to somebody. Go through your plan.
Make sure you've got a plan built if you don't
have one, And by the way, it plans much more

(20:54):
than just a list of accounts. Right, So if somebody
wants to talk to us, we could sit down with them,
no pressure, walks through what they've got going on, build
a plan if they need one. And oftentimes what we
find is it just takes a couple of tweaks to
reduce their risks, to optimize their income, and just really
get them organizing back in a mode of confidence.

Speaker 1 (21:15):
So I want to like to do something. It may
take us just a little bit more time, But you
said something that made me think about this. You know,
when I do the spontsor I talk about how you
guys want to help anybody, regardless of age and regardless
of income. I'd like to add to that, and regardless
of what you may or may not currently have, because
I think sometimes people are either nervous or embarrassed or

(21:39):
a little hesitant to come in because they know they
may have could have done better, or should have done better,
or whatever it is. But I don't want people to
worry about that, because you don't judge them based on that.

Speaker 2 (21:53):
You don't judge them at all.

Speaker 3 (21:55):
That's exactly right. You know. We take you where you're
at and we're going to work on with what we've got.
And obviously we can't create something out of nothing. But
if we've got somebody here who who who is just
barely getting started with savings, we can work with them
on a plan to get to the point where they
want to eventually get. If we work with somebody who's
got some assets built up, there's some different planning that

(22:15):
we do with them. But nobody's perfect, you know, and
we've all made stupid mistakes. And so we come into
this discussion understanding that and certainly are going to work
with people at least sit there out.

Speaker 1 (22:26):
I just want to make sure that my listeners don't
understand that knowing you guys, like I know you guys,
there's no hoidy toity.

Speaker 2 (22:35):
Uh you know, we can't believe that you were this
dumb or anything. You just don't.

Speaker 3 (22:39):
We're pretty we're pretty down to earth people and we're
definitely not high maintenance.

Speaker 2 (22:43):
And you know, knowing.

Speaker 1 (22:44):
You guys, that's an understatement being pretty down there.

Speaker 3 (22:49):
That's that's very kind.

Speaker 2 (22:52):
I mean that.

Speaker 1 (22:53):
So if you have any questions about retirement, whatsoever. I
want you to pick up the phone and I want
you to call Jarison as partners, and I want you
you see them. It's nine seven zero six six three
thirty two eleven. Nine seven zero six six three thirty
two eleven. Or go check out their website. Go check
it out right now, rpcenter dot com. So one of

(23:14):
the ways that I think Trump is making a difference
that's not directly related to the debt and the budget,
but is more directly related to what I would consider
to be the growth agenda that he has, and that
is that this this entire energy landscape that you know,
it's really going back to like Jarson and I were

(23:38):
talking about, you know, people are at different stages, and
in this country were at we're at different stages when
it comes to energy because we've gone through this period
kind of going back with Obama. But i'd see truth
be going back even further than that that because of
climate change and all the fear mongering climate change, we

(24:01):
were led to believe that if we, oh my gosh,
we don't find some alternative, you know, we're going to
run out of you know, we're gonna have peak oil.
And we're not gonna have anything, So we got to
start looking at renewables, and we gotta look at renewables anyway,
because renewables will allow us to clean up the environment
and clean up the air and water and stop climate
change and blah blah blah, and that was all bull crap.
Do you remember the conversation we had with the current

(24:23):
Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, when we brought up the idea about, oh,
there's peak oil, and he just laughed at us, like,
you know, listen, the study, the legitimate studies show that
there isn't there are enough.

Speaker 2 (24:35):
Fossil fuels to last you.

Speaker 1 (24:36):
Know, for what was it six hundred years or something
dragging It was like an enormous amount of time. And
now we have they're starting to they're starting to evolve
these studies that show that, oh, you know what, fossil
fuels may not actually be something that's created by the
all the pressure on you know, as as the dinosaurs

(24:57):
die off and the pressure created you know, oil and
natural gas. There may actually be that because of the
core of the Earth and the pressure that is continuous,
continuously being exerted inward and outward, that that may be
what's creating fossil what we call as fossil fuel.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
Are you Are you implying that fossil fuels could be
a renewable energy.

Speaker 1 (25:27):
As I was saying, it seems to be that there's
some studies coming out. They show that there's this natural, ongoing,
consistent pressure both from the core outward and then obviously
from gravity and the outward pressure down that that's creating
some sort of reaction down below that. Yeah, there's a
continuation of this creation of I won't say fossil fuel,

(25:51):
but of oil and natural gas. Huhuh, Well, imagine that weird.
It is weird, is that? And what's really weird is
that for someone who's getting ready to check out in
a few hours, that.

Speaker 2 (26:05):
You even paid the attention to what I was saying.
I said something about something better pay attention now?

Speaker 1 (26:11):
All right, Well, anyway, I think that this this dramatic.
It's probably not dramatic to you because the cabal doesn't
really talk about it a lot. But there's a shift
under Trump's second term, and developments of even just the
past few days underscore what a pragmatic pivot that there's

(26:34):
been in US energy policy, from Alaska's oil fields to
nuclear reactors in Illinois. The focus is now clear energy security,
economic growth, and cutting through and cutting out the climate
alarm driven fog of the past administrations, not just Biden,

(26:59):
but I mean really came to a climax with Biden.
But I think we're beginning to say, wait a minute.

Speaker 2 (27:07):
So there are a pair of.

Speaker 1 (27:08):
Major developments this week that I think paint a really
clear picture of the ways the Trump energy policies are
reinvigorating the domestic energy space and not doing it with
more federal spending.

Speaker 2 (27:26):
I'm going to give you some examples.

Speaker 1 (27:28):
First, they reopened thirteen million acres in the National Petroleum
Reserve Alaska, the NPRA for oil and gas leasing. That
is a gut punch to the Biden era eqal orthodoxy.
That is a gut punch. That is the equivalent of
a heretic walking into the church of the climate activists

(27:51):
and saying, all of your religious beliefs are all falsehoods.
The Secretary of the Interior of Doug Bergham called it
a return to balance because there was a twenty twenty
four rule that locked up half the twenty three million
acre reserve. Boom gone out of here. So, of course

(28:11):
there's a reaction the climate alarm. You know, conflict groups
that make their money on keeping the conflict going, like
Earth Justice are apoplectic. There's going to be climate doom,
they claim. In fact, Earth Justice attorney Eric Groff said
in this release, by proposing to repeal these science based regulations,

(28:35):
the Trump administration aims to grease the skids. Is he
going to use a fosil fuels to grease the skids?
I don't know, I'm just wondering, Uh, the Trump administration
aims to grease the skids for oil companies intent on
industrializing even the most sensitive areas in the Western Arctic
in pursuit of dirty oil. They can have no place

(28:57):
in our energy future. This administration should be working to
develop a post oil future for the region, not paving
the way for outdated, destructive oil development. But that's kind
of interesting because when you talk to Native Alaskans living
in the state's Arctic North Slope region, they.

Speaker 2 (29:16):
Have an entirely different point of view the group.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
Harsheruk, president of Voice of the Arctic Input, I'm sure
I'm bastardizing the name of this group anyway. The acronym
is Voice said this in a statement in response to
the Earth Justice yahoos. Today's decision by the Bureau of
Land Management is another important milestone in our effort to

(29:42):
advance our self determination on our North Slope homelands. It
underscores what voice is always known and argued in court
on behalf of our twenty one member organizations that the
Biden Administration's twenty twenty three year rule affecting our lands
is deeply flowed imposes significant risk to our communities, our economy,

(30:04):
and our culture. We applaud this development and look forward
to collaborative engagement with the federal government and Congress about
durable policies that support North Slope self determination.

Speaker 2 (30:18):
Hmm.

Speaker 1 (30:19):
Seems to be the entire opposite of what the Earth
Justice folks living down here in the lower forty eight
all concerned about I don't know, polar bears, don't give
a right ask about the natives up there at all.

(30:41):
Let me finish up that sentence for our friend out
on the highway who is trying to figure out how
life has gotten better in Colorado.

Speaker 2 (30:51):
We're listening. It simply has not. Oh we're going the
way of California. No, we're not. We need rank choice
voting sadly we do.

Speaker 3 (31:03):
No.

Speaker 1 (31:03):
I disagree with you about that, but I also disagree
with you that that we're going the way of California.
I sincerely believe we've surpassed California. I think we have. Yes, uh,
we maybe maybe we haven't surpassed. Maybe we're at now
we're tied, but we're we've caught up with California, you'll
put it that way, and we're we're on track to

(31:25):
go beyond California. So hang on to your bridges, britches
who uses that word? Hang onto your bridges. So let's
go back to these restrictions, so the normally required regulatory
process that you have to go through regardless. By the way,
there was a Supreme Court decision recently they said under

(31:46):
the NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Act, that these ei
s's environmentally impact statements, that they were never meant to
be an impediment to the ultimate project. And interesting, I
think it was Brett Kavanaugh that wrote the opinion on
this and said that no, an EIS cannot be used

(32:06):
or litigated to stop a project underneath. So they've the
Supreme Court as much as I detegrated them yesterday in
that case, which I totally forgot to.

Speaker 2 (32:18):
Mention, has actually.

Speaker 1 (32:22):
And it's based on the Chevron decision, has actually narrowed
that ability for environmental activist groups to use environmental impact
statements as a bludgeon to stop these projects. Now, you
may sell have to do one, but it's you can't
litigate it. You just have to do one. It was

(32:44):
just meant to be a basically filling out a form.
Now we looked at the environment, here's the impact on it,
and so they're it's like about buttercup.

Speaker 2 (32:52):
There you go.

Speaker 1 (32:53):
So back to Alaska, the required regulatory process. It doesn't
mean that drilling's going to be intimate.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
But what it.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
Does it signals Trump's intent to unleash domestic fossil fuels.
So in a world that we live in where China
and then India still burn coal like it's the nineteen
nineties of the nineteen hundreds, exploiting our massive oil and
gas resources is a strategic necessity. It's not a sin
in the Church of the climate activists. It's necessary. And

(33:24):
going back to my discussion about the debt and growth,
this is the kind of thing that unleashes growth, that
lets us start moving forward and growing the economy. There's
one more thing before I move on to the next
story when we get back. There's one more thing that
happened just in the past, say, forty eight hours, since
the beginning of the week, that also shows in signals

(33:48):
and accelerating recovery. But in this case it happens to
be in the nuclear power industry.

Speaker 2 (33:54):
That's meant