8-5-25 - 8am - Banana Split

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Thanks. Come.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
If you're listening to the Situation with Michael Brown on
six thirty khow here are the rules of engagement. Text
the word Mike to three three one o three. Download
the free to you iHeartRadio app. Be sure to favorite
two shows, The Situation with Michael Brown and The Weekend
with Michael Brown. Touch the little red microphone button and

(00:34):
leave a talkback message if you'd like. You can follow
Michael on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram, as well as stream
the program live, download the podcast, listen to a compilation
of different talkbacks. See the various photos and stories the
Dragon posts.

Speaker 3 (00:50):
You can visit.

Speaker 4 (00:51):
Cho says go here dot com.

Speaker 3 (00:53):
What's that?

Speaker 4 (00:54):
Sweetheart? Rico says, go here dot com.

Speaker 2 (00:57):
Fantastic, check it out. It's all yours Michael and Dragon.

Speaker 5 (01:02):
Dragon. I'm really liking these cool AI generated Michael D.
Brown intros. I'm wondering what would happen if we said
AI a couple hours of Michael D. Brown conversation with Dragon?
What we would here generated with If listeners like the
AI Michael D. Brown better, or would they like the

(01:26):
real Michael Brown.

Speaker 4 (01:30):
Hm, That's not what I thought the question was going
to be. I misunderstood the premise. I thought the premise
was that we do AI generated of conversations between you
and me that take place like sometimes, you know how
you whisper things in my ear while I'm talking, which

(01:52):
I find usually helpful at the same time distracting, right
because I'm thinking about what I'm saying, both of which
are right exactly exactly which I'm trying to think about
what I'm saying. So you know, the brain's trying to
keep up with the mouth and vice versa, and you're
whispering something that sometimes not often but it can you know,

(02:13):
once in a blue moon it'll actually be funny, worthwhile,
or actually add to and make me think about something
I need to say, or it'll be completely distracting, like
totally like off the wall. Hey, Burt just crapped on
the window sill, you know, kind of the poops.

Speaker 3 (02:31):
It looks like Idaho.

Speaker 4 (02:35):
So I thought it was, uh, let's do an AI
segment of our like our pre production meetings, our break meetings,
our conversations in the bathroom, our conversations you know, with
the newsroom, and and take that and make that into
a segment, because I think that would be pretty interesting.

Speaker 3 (02:54):
I have to clean up.

Speaker 4 (02:55):
We have to clean it up. Yes, of course we
have to clean it up, because you have such a
potty mouth. We don't have to clean it up, right right.
That's where I thought it was going. Interestingly though, because
of the next topic I'm going to do. I was
I was hesitant to do the next topic because of
the last topic that I did, the last topic that

(03:19):
I did. Trying to go through to explain as as
sucinctly as a lawyer can, which is not always very succinct,
about why the Durham Annex and the documents released by
Tulci Gabbert are so important because we get we get
lulled into this, well we know this, well, no, we

(03:44):
know what we think we know, and now we got
the evidence. So I worry. You know, talk show hosts,
no matter what they tell you, are some of the
most insecure people in the world. Now we present ourselves
as being very secure and very confident, very egotistic, you know,

(04:05):
egotistical because well we're talk shows and by golly, you know,
we get to talk to you know, all these people, and.

Speaker 3 (04:11):
We're the talent. We are the influence.

Speaker 4 (04:13):
We are the talent and the influencers. We are the
influential talent, you know, so you know, if it feeds
our ego, and then I do a segment like I
did trying to explain all of that, and I worry that,
oh maybe that was too uh it was too dense,
too dentse you know, as opposed to wambam, thank you man.

(04:34):
Story just boom boom boom, boom boom boom, and then
I go to the go to the text line uh
oh seventy five ninety two, rights Michael. The conspiracy against
Donald J. Trump has to rank among the most significant
attempts in history to overthrow a political figure, particularly for
a country allegedly functioning as a republic. Bingo. Steve gets it,

(04:59):
and I'm glad that you do twenty four to sixty eight,
writes Michael. So interesting. Glad you're explaining this so well.
I'm going to go back and listen to it again
in the podcast all caps thanks with an exclamation.

Speaker 3 (05:14):
You want to listen to him twice?

Speaker 4 (05:19):
Listen, buckle, You listen to me five days.

Speaker 3 (05:20):
A week, do I really though?

Speaker 4 (05:23):
No? You just you just sit back there. You just
listen for just like, ah, he's talking about banana split.
So I'll put that on the podcast. That's all you do?
You kind of half asked listening between and what worries
me is you know, you may be thinking Banana Split
while you're watching poor and and then somehow that gets
into the title of the podcast.

Speaker 3 (05:44):
What you don't like the titles of the podcast. I
don't they drop people in. You've seen the podcast numbers.
Those are those are because of my titles.

Speaker 4 (05:53):
It's because of the titles. You know. Actually you have
to say it, because titles do right. Yeah, matter, I'll
listen to this hour. I don't think i'll listen to
this hour. I might listen to that out, yes, and.

Speaker 3 (06:07):
Just that I'm titling this hour Banana Split.

Speaker 4 (06:10):
You're such an ass.

Speaker 3 (06:13):
Split, you know.

Speaker 4 (06:14):
I just don't understand what it is that missus Redbeard
Seeson you. I think you know. I've seen that. I've
sat next to her at the lunch table, and I
know she could see me. I don't know, does she
just we're blinders when it comes to you. I don't
get it.

Speaker 3 (06:28):
Who knows?

Speaker 4 (06:29):
I just don't understand. I'll take it, and mother, can
we talk for just a moment about what you and
I were talking about during the before the show started,
we're talking about something. Oh sure, yeah, I'm fascinated. Like I.
So the news is, you know, it's it's leaked out
or it's been announced for somehow. I saw it briefly yesterday.

(06:52):
We're gonna build a nuclear power plant on the moon.
Why that's That's exactly my question. Why what what are
we doing? And and you're like, well, we have we
have nuclear power, sub marines, we got nuclear power. This
I'm like, I know, I know a nuclear power plant

(07:12):
produces electricity. I need lights. What do we need Why
do we need the electricity for?

Speaker 3 (07:19):
Because they're going to the moon to do? What?

Speaker 4 (07:21):
What are we gonna What's what's the secret? Listen, if
you've been where I've been, you know there's more than
just oh, let's just go build a nuke on the
on the moon. We don't have anything better to do.
We you know, we slipped it into the you know,
ob Cube Bill to just put in you know, a
couple of billion dollars to build a nuke plant on

(07:42):
the moon. And oh yeah, so what you know? And
the sad part is most of America, most most US
citizens will go, oh, we're gonna build a Uh it's
kind of like the whole Durham report. We're going to
build a nuke on the Moon.

Speaker 3 (07:53):
Hey, the wind farms aren't going to work up there,
so you got to do something.

Speaker 4 (07:57):
And the question is why, I want to know why.
What's the ultimate goal of are we going to do?
Do we have a new secret base that since i've
you know, since I don't get briefed anymore, do we
have a secret base up there? Are we building a
secret base up there? Are we gonna put like you
know in uh, some sort of strategic air command base

(08:18):
up there? What are we doing? And of course where
are you going this weekend to see your father?

Speaker 3 (08:22):
Who just happens to what he has a patent for
nuclear reactors in space?

Speaker 4 (08:27):
Hmmm, nuclear reactors in space.

Speaker 3 (08:33):
So I don't know if it's very different because it'll
be on the Moon versus in space.

Speaker 4 (08:36):
Well, you know, the Moon's in space, you know that, right.

Speaker 3 (08:38):
Well, so it's the Earth. Earth happens to be in space.
But it is a difference between you know, gravity and
non gravity.

Speaker 4 (08:45):
There's a difference between atmosphere and no atmosphere. Okay, the
Moon's and moos you the Moon's just a giant rock
bring around space all right, So are you gonna ask him?

Speaker 3 (08:56):
If I will do my best to remember to say, hey,
I heard this.

Speaker 4 (09:00):
I can't believe.

Speaker 3 (09:00):
What do you mean?

Speaker 4 (09:01):
You do your best? This would be the kind of
thing does your dad do email? Of course, you know,
I can't ready tell you what the answer is going
to be the one of two things he can I
don't know none of your business, or I don't know,
or just blanket stares at you.

Speaker 3 (09:19):
Yeah, we get a lot of I can't talk about that.

Speaker 4 (09:22):
Yeah, yeah, Mike sixteen forty one does the line to
the FISA court by combing others who signed off on
them was exposed, along with the associated line to Congress
fall into the statue of limitations. Yes, that that is
something that will extend. That's in furtherance of the conspiracy.

(09:44):
So anything that's done, let's say the statue limitations, it
expires today. If I do something that furthers the conspiracy yesterday,
that starts new statue limitations for five years. So a
new statue limitation started yesterday or last week, so it

(10:07):
extends it out beyond today. Or if I do something
today when it expires, I do something today extends it
out for another five years now, some lawyers might argue,
what did you do it at? Did you do it
after midnight? And did the statute expire at midnight last
night or midnight tonight? Those are kind of questions that

(10:29):
people grapple with when you're lawyers. So anyway, the reason
I wanted to point out and say thank you for
the comments about the last segment is because I really
do want to do this segment, and it's dense because
we're going to go back to the Federal Reserve. So

(10:51):
you're already asleep the Federal Reserve. In February of nineteen
sixty one, Yeah, during the Kennedy administration. At that time,
we were facing a recession, which had begun in April
of nineteen sixty We also had a persistent balance of

(11:12):
payments deficit, and that was putting pressure on the dollar
under the Breton Woods gold standard because we were still
on the gold standard at that time. So President Kennedy
and his economic advisors, we're trying to figure out how
to stimulate domestic growth through doesn't it sound familiar? Through

(11:36):
lower long term interest rates because they wanted to encourage
investment in borrowing without however, reducing short term rates. Because
the lower short term rates could exacerbate capital outflows and
make the dollar even weaker. So to achieve this, the

(11:59):
Federal Reserve did something unusual. By the way, I should
point out that this was called Operation Twist. Let's do
the twist. Operation twist. What the Federal Reserve did was
they simultaneously sold short term treasury securities, so that raised

(12:21):
short term yields on those securities, and then they also
at the same time bought long term treasury bonds, which
lowered the long term yields. They were effectively attempting to
twist or flatten the yield curve. Now, that policy marked
a shift from the Fed's prior bills only approach, which

(12:44):
limited open market operations to short term securities. Implementation involved
the Federal Open Market Committee the FOMC. You've heard of
them before. That's the group that meets and decide what
these rates are going to be. So it involved the
FMC authorizing the purchase of both intermediate and long term securities,

(13:08):
initially up to ten years of maturity. They later got expanded,
but that's i material offset by sales of short term
securities to avoid expanding the money supply because that would
do what they would debreing nite, you know, expand the
money supply. That's going to do inflate, that's going to
weaken the dollar, that's going to increase inflation well by

(13:29):
the end of nineteen By by December nineteen sixty one,
the Fed had increased its holdings of long term bonds
by more than fifty percent and notes by more than
sixty percent compared to the year earlier. That program continued
in a diminishing form until it was completely abandoned in
nineteen sixty five. So how did it work out well?

(13:54):
The assessments of the effective effectiveness of Operation Twist concluded
that it had well modest or limited success because while
the yield spread between three month Treasury bills and ten
year bonds did narrow somewhat pretty narrow as a narrow
it was a It narrowed significantly from one point five

(14:20):
to three percentage points in nineteen sixty one to zero
point zero six in nineteen sixty six, but a bunch
of studies attributed much of that to external factors, such
as raising deposit rate ceilings. The introduction of negotiable certificate
is a deposit rather than the actual action by the FED.

(14:40):
Other key research by economists estimated the policy's impact on
narrowing the yield spread at just one tenths of a
percent to two percentage points I mean two tenths of
a percentage points ten to twenty basis points. A high
frequency event study analysis of major announcements that did find

(15:01):
a cumulative reduction in long term treasury yields of about
fifteen zero point one to five percentage points or fifteen
basis points. There were some spilled over effects to agency
and corporate bonds, but that was even much smaller. So overall,
the program is described as not terribly sign successful or

(15:23):
only modestly effective in achieving the goals, leading to a
retrospective or historical view of Operation Twists as a failure. Well,
let's think about what happened on July thirty one, twenty

(15:44):
twenty five, because that didn't dominate the evening news, but
I think the markets will remember it. The US Treasury
and Scott Bessent, the Treasury sacred terry. They actually executed
a bond buy back that is seemingly so strategically elegant,

(16:08):
so quietly effective, and so steeped in economic history that
I want you to understand it. They repurchased two billion
dollars worth of long data debt, but they bought it
at a really steep discount. What they did is the
Trump administration engaged in an act of economic state craft

(16:33):
that rivals Operation Twist, but actually improves on it and
I think will become successful. So what did they actually do.
They ran what's called a reverse auction to buy back
long term bonds that would mature it way out in
twenty forty two. Now those were not your average i OUs.

(16:56):
Those were issued during the zero interest rate era. The
copons on those bonds carried a meager two point three
seven five percent and two point seven five percent. Now,
with interest rates now significantly higher, those bonds trade way
beyond face value. So Wall Street offered nearly twenty billion

(17:18):
dollars in those bonds. Treasury, in turn, then cherry picked
the most deeply discounted options, buying two billion dollars in
face value for only one point six billion dollars in
a single stroke. Treasury saved three hundred and seventy million

(17:38):
dollars in future obligations, They reduced market duration risk, and
they called they just literally calmed down this segment of
the yield curve that had been under a lot of
duress and a lot of stress. Now critics would ask, well,

(18:01):
if the government paid more in short term interest to
finance this buyback, why call it a victory? Because the
answer lize and understanding that this was not a cash
saving exercise, it was a exercise in market stabilization. Long bonds,
particularly in liquid ones, are prone to destabilizing price as

(18:24):
foreign holders like Chime and Japan are shedding US treasuries.
Guess what, Michael.

Speaker 6 (18:32):
I kind of wonder if our world is becoming unreal
in that reality and the unreal are merging, and this
is one more example so that we don't have to
live in our own reality.

Speaker 4 (18:46):
We can live in this alternate universe.

Speaker 3 (18:49):
It's rather creepy and very dystopian.

Speaker 4 (18:53):
It absolutely, it is creepy and dystopian. Again, there's you know,
I consume so much information that I can't tell you
the details about it. Sometimes I'm a headline guy, kind
of like Dragon is. But somewhere over the past several days,
I've seen stories about you know, we've already heard about

(19:15):
the robots and how you know, some people have you know,
AI boyfriends or girlfriends. Well, now they're taking that to
the next level where they're actually physical robots that are
designed such that you know, you know how they have
the amazing masks. Now, well, now you can you know,

(19:36):
take artificial skin and clone, not clone, but make makes
something look like a body that is a robot that
has artificial intelligence in it. And there are people I
hope I'm never this lonely that I've turned to a
robot to have a relationship with. I mean, if I

(19:59):
was Misus, I would desperately like if I was Missus
red Beard, I'd be having an affair with a robot
simply to avoid having to deal with him. But that's
an entirely different subject matter. And also speaking of Adhd, No,
I did not hear the top of the hour news
where it mentioned that we were going to build a

(20:20):
refueling station or some sort of station of some sort
on the Moon. I just heard a nuclear reactor on
the moon. That's that's what I have.

Speaker 3 (20:28):
You still want to know why.

Speaker 4 (20:29):
I still want to know why, though? Right is it?
You know? Are is it for defensing purposes? Is it
for research purposes? Well, I'll tell you what it really is.
It's for research purposes America, which happened to be defensive,
so of course it is or maybe even offensive. I
don't know. So let's go back to.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
This thrilling subject real quick. Can we jump back to
a text message here from ninety two forty nine talk
about distraction. Yesterday, Kappus pointed out to Ryan that there
was a young lady in a bikini on a balcony
with it in view of this studio. Maybe you should
go to the window and hold up a sign saying
I can do better than your bikini and drop your kimono.

Speaker 4 (21:09):
This is why I did not want to give up
afternoon drive for morning drive, because there were many times
during my afternoon drive stint on this station that over
here in these condos they would either be charcoaling, and
now the guys would come out there. I remember there
was a guy in a speedo a couple of times,
which kind of made me. I was kind of like,

(21:30):
I'd like to know what you're cooking, But now I
kind of went to vomit at the same time anymore. Yeah,
I kind of like this like screws with your brain,
with your brain. But then there would be women out
there that would be sunbathing.

Speaker 3 (21:43):
I was very curious because when I walked in this morning,
every single one of the babe they were pulled up
the way, pulled up and open.

Speaker 4 (21:50):
See huh, Amy, Amy, Dan is staring at bikini women?

Speaker 3 (22:02):
What I thought it was? Ryan? Dan just pointed it
out for Ryan, He's trying to help out. Oh, well,
of course that's what you would do.

Speaker 4 (22:09):
You think Dan's an idiot. Dan's sitting here trying to
figure out what to talk about while he's staring at
the bikini clad woman over there, knowing that he can't
admit that he's doing it, so he says, as a
good lawyer, would you shift it to somebody else? Oh, Ryan,
you might be interested. And now here's how an ordinary

(22:32):
person would word it. Ryan, you might be interested in
the bikini clad woman that I am staring at, But no,
a lawyer would say, Ryan, you're young and horny. There
might you might be interested in the bikini clad woman
that is sitting on the balcony over on the other side.
I'm busy doing a show here. That's that's a good lawyer. Yeah,

(22:56):
that's a good lawyer. And then Dan's like that where I.

Speaker 3 (23:00):
Don't miss the golf course, being over there at all.

Speaker 4 (23:03):
I you know, you think about here's what I do miss.

Speaker 3 (23:08):
I miss the sunrise, right, yea sunrise a little because
now it's.

Speaker 4 (23:12):
Like, no matter whether it's winter time and the sun's
way down south or it's right here over my left shoulder,
it's like noon before we get the sun. True, foreign
holders China and Japan in particular, are shedding our treasuries,
and the FED is just absent because they're doing all

(23:34):
this quantitative easing or quantitative tightening, and so the market's
long end gets exposed, and it's going to hurt us
in terms of the national debt, and of course it
hurts in terms of the yields and all these treasuries.
So be since maneuver acted like a relief fell, it

(23:56):
drained all the pressure before the pipe burst. It's like
bleeding a radiator. And I think I don't have any
evidence of this, but I think that this idea originated
with the most direct antecedent, which is that operation Twist
that I described to you that Kennedy did back in

(24:17):
nineteen sixty one. But this stabilizes without signaling panic. It
communicates confidence, not desperation, and at the same time tells
the markets. We kind of know what we're doing. And
I think this is where Scott Bissent deserves singular credit.

(24:42):
Here's a guy that Trump appointed not out of any loyalty,
but for his intellect. He is not an ordinary appointee,
a former hedge fund executive. Now, you can say whatever
you want to about hedge funds because I have a
love hate relationship with hedge funds, because hedge fund is prime. Well, yes,

(25:08):
I will say this. A hedge fund is primarily the
reason that iHeartMedia is in the financial situation that it
is now, we have other extenuating circumstances. Although we were
early adopters of podcasts, we were early adopters of streaming.
We're also part of the media landscape that is changing.

(25:29):
And I've long been an advocate of streaming and podcasting
and digitizing and integrating social media and the text messages
and everything else into the program because I want to
be everywhere. But hedge funds really did hurt iHeartMedia. And
Mitt Romney, I'm looking at you because you were the

(25:50):
head of Bain Capital when you bought out clear Channels.
So that's there's my economic commentary about hedge funds also
do some amazing things. But I think even more crucially,
Scott Descent was a professor of economic history at Yale,
so he understands what the technocrats either don't know or forget.

(26:15):
History does not repeat. At Rhymes, basset recalled not just
Operation Twists from the nineteen sixties, but he remembers the
US buyback era. Between two thousand and two thousand and two.
We had budget surpluses and that allowed the Treasury to

(26:35):
retire twenty five billion dollars in long term debt and
more obscure but no less instructive our episodes like the
World War two era PEG. That's when the FED capped
long term yields at two and a half percent because
they needed to facilitate financing World War II. That intervention

(26:58):
laid bare the power in the limit of any sort
of coordinated yield control. And unlike the central bank heavy
handedness that you see in Japan or the panic guilt
purchase of the United Kingdom a couple of years ago,
be since approach was conservative, surgical calm. You look at
Japan's yield curve, their control program, it commits to infinite

(27:21):
bond buying at fixed yield strategies, and that has burdened
the Bank of Japan with this massive balance balance sheet distortion.
That's why the Japanese economy just continues to just be bluh.
The United Kingdom, if you want to do a contract,
you know, compare and contrast. They acted only when the
pension funds were on the vergic collapse, so they panicked.

(27:45):
But both Japan and UK those were a response to crisis.
Be since buyback was pre empty, he saw the crisis
in the future. So he's starting to do what he can.
It's it's risk management, it's absolute risk management, act before

(28:06):
the crisis occurs. Now, if you're skeptical that a two
billion dollar buyback can move markets, you look at the
historical records, you'd realize that, well, oh, actually it can.
Even modest interventions if you time them and execute them
with precision, that can shape the market's expectations. And this

(28:26):
is especially true when government has credibility and Scott Bessent
brings credibility to the economy. Now under Trump, that credibility
is being rebuilt somewhat sporadically, but brick by brick, and

(28:47):
while those and look, I'm I'm not an economist by
any measure, but I understand basic economics. I understand yield curves,
I understand you know, I understand treasuries. I understand all
of that stuff, but not to decentd this got Bescent does.
I'm not anywhere near what brilliant like he is. But

(29:09):
here's what I do understand, and Becent understands. We've got
a problem with the dollar. We've got a problem with
interest rates, we've got a problem with deficits, and we
have a problem with the debt. We finance that debt
through these treasuries. So if we've got some really low

(29:31):
yield treasuries out there, and we can buy those back
at a discount, that actually returns some money back to
the treasury, may be on paper, but nonetheless return some
paper back to the Treasury, which reduces that future debt.
Even if it's minuscule, it still sends a signal to
the market, Hey, they know what they're doing. So this

(29:53):
was not a bailout, it was not a rescue. It
was simply, hey, we know what we're doing. Just now.
This is not just bessent. This is actually some cheerleading
for the entire cabinet, and let me explain why.

Speaker 5 (30:15):
Another item I hope they proved during their investigation of
the entire Russian collision hoax and other lies, was that
CrowdStrike truly did not investigate the DNC server leak and
come up with Russia was behind a lot of this.
I hope they proved these people were willing to lie.

(30:37):
I'm sure for money.

Speaker 4 (30:39):
Do you remember how Comy went back and forth on
the whole email server. Remember that speech he gave it.
It was the equivalent of Biden in the Rose Garden
when he announced he wasn't running for president, about all
the reasons why he should run for president, and then
knew that, Oh, Obama's still standing next to me, and

(31:00):
he told me, I can't, so I'm going to say no.
But he is basically an announcement speech that ended with
a non announcement. And the same is true with Comy
about the email server. Here are all the reasons why
it violated all these laws and why it was, you know,
a horrible national security infraction, and blah blah blah blah.
But we don't where like a prosecutor. Hey, just it's insanity.

(31:24):
And then that goes back to Kathleen's point about do
we live in a real world anymore? I don't know
what's real anymore. I've really reached the point where everything
that I read I'm double checking. I'm triple checking. It
was just like this stupid story. I'm going back and like,
do you think I remember Operation Twist? Of course I didn't. No,

(31:47):
I had to go back. Wall Street Journal mentioned something
about Operation Twist, and I'm thinking nineteen sixties and the
twist that I'm thinking, what some sort of dance. So
I'm gotta go. I've got to go into Lexas next
is what the hell that was? To understand what it
was that Scent was doing with you know, these this
buy back that he did. But the point I wanted

(32:07):
to make as kind of the cherry on top of
this entire story is this is kind of the entire
team that Trump's putting around him right now. Do you
think about Marco Rubio at State now? Pete Hegsath remains
to be seen, I think, But nonetheless it's singularly focused
on returning a warrior mentality to the Pentagon. Christinome, regardless

(32:32):
of what you think about Barbie Doll, Christinome is actually
along with I'm really I bet there's a lot of
tension between her and Tom Holman because she's really the
Secretary of Homeland Security and really has control of customs
and border patrol and immigrations and customs enforcement. But who's

(32:54):
really leading the charge on that, Tom Homan. But all
of them are doers' they're absolute doers. Scott Bessent, holy cow, brilliant.
And then Susie Wiles, chief of staff. Don't you know
that when when Trump went to the Federal Reserve to

(33:17):
look at the renovations. Don't you know that Susie Wylder,
the chief of staff, said, here are the numbers on
the renovation postal runs and we put it on a
piece of paper for you, And she didn't have to
tell him what to do with it. Trump knew exactly
what to do with it. Yeah, when Jerome Powell starts,

(33:37):
you know, puttson around him and true, so true, Well
here are the numbers boom. I mean, this is just
are there still stupid things going on? Yes? This Trump
still say things occasionally I think are stupid. Yes, But
in terms of just doing the job we elected him
to do, You've got to give him. The White House

(33:59):
staff and the Cabinet credit think about the Department of
Government efficiency. It's not gone away. Elon may have gone away,
but he laid that groundwork for this kind of strategic thinking.
I wish those two boys would make up. They gotta
make up. The buy back the Treasury did is actually
the monetary expression of what those talked about efficiency, foresight,

(34:22):
and then taking action to actually do it. But let's
figure out what the problem is, Let's figure out how
to do something more efficient. Let's look down the future,
and then let's put in some metrics to measure by
which we can see whether we were successful or not. Wow,
it's just amazing. This whole thing was amazing. Calm the markets.

(34:47):
It also shows that Trump is aware of and the
sense aware of the necessity of keeping the dollar as
the world's reserve currency and keeping its value strong.

Speaker 1 (35:00):
Yeah.