Episode #212 - Dexter White and Trade in the Age of Trump

Dexter White returns to the podcast to discuss the state of play after the week of turmoil in capital markets, post-"Liberation Day."  

Show Notes:
Tom on X
Dexter on X

Gold Goats 'n Guns Patreon

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:19):
Hello, and welcome to the Gold, Goats and Guns podcast
for April eleventh, twenty twenty five. My name is Tom
Luongo and we have a lot to talk about. It
is episode to twelve, and I have bipopular request my
partner in crime, Gold Ghats and Guns, Extra White back
to talk about, well, what the hell Donald Trump is
doing with trade flows and tariffs and this and that

(00:39):
and everything else. And I know what I think about this,
And I think Dexters ran a little bit where we
were like, yeah, we have to absolutely do a podcast
on this. A Dexter, good morning, how are you?

Speaker 2 (00:49):
Good morning. I didn't realize anything was going on. You know,
I've been planning sunflowers and finally my nails, Like, yeah,
I didn't realize anything was going on. Yeah, it's uh,
it's pretty funny. I I'm I'm. What I will say

(01:13):
is like the shock and Awe conveyor belt, you know,
is working pretty well to exhaust the media to the
point of total collapse. And you know that I appreciate.
I'm not sure I appreciate as much being on that
conveyor belt with them. Look, hey I voted for this.

Speaker 1 (01:31):
Yeah, that's that's true. And that's the thing that's that's
so funny. On Twitter, did you vote for this? I'm like, oh,
I voted for a whole lot more than this. Folks
like you have no idea. Yeah, the conveyor belt is
a really is a great metaphors. Well, the media has
like lost the plot completely and it's so obvious that

(01:52):
they're playing them like like fiddles. I see a kind
of a kind of round robin thing. Well, this week
we're going to talk about tariffs while we get other
stuff done in the background, and the next week we're
going to talk about a rot and then next week
we're going to talk about Russia, and then the week
we're going to talk about I don't know something else.
And by the time they've coordinated on Friday, because you know,
we're doing us on a Friday, So the Emily's List

(02:12):
talking points for Monday are gonna be hilarious because we
don't know what they're going to be, right, but we
also know by Wednesday Trump will have it like worked
out and then he'll destroy them and it'll be holious.

Speaker 2 (02:21):
I think that's kind of the first thing we should
talk about, and that's is the messaging bad or not?
I mean, I will say that, you know, instinctively, I
feel like, yeah, they could have done a better job.
I mean, actually, i'll put this limp put in another way,
Trump could have done a better job at at the
lead in. I think the scent has gone and done

(02:44):
the talk shows. He did Tucker, He's done some other
things that I've seen, I don't remember where, but he's
been on point, very clear, very understandable, you know, believe
it or not. I know some lefties in my life
and I and I sent them the Tucker video and
I said, oh, don't ry. Tucker doesn't talk much. You
can you can get through it. And even even lefties

(03:04):
were I mean, I find Tucker annoying.

Speaker 1 (03:07):
At this point, I.

Speaker 2 (03:08):
Was like, don't worry, it doesn't laugh. But but like
the Bascent sit down with Tucker, really I think it
didn't make them like what's happening, but it made them
understand it a little better and like kind of talk
them off the ledge, right, Because what was interesting is
they were all like worse than I've never ever seen them,
because the the media is just ginned up the hysteria

(03:30):
so so much that they've they've moved into total derangement
and and the thing is the media I think is
like is no longer even focused on their goal of
programming the populace. They've they've now gone total like joy
read soloism, Like they're just they can't even get their
own bearings, let alone know what they're supposed to be doing,

(03:52):
you know. And half of them have been fired, so
you know, that's of course great. So the ones, the
ones that remain, is the one the ones I'm talking about.
So yeah, So so for me, I feel that the
message is out there if you choose to find it,
and if in our fractured media environment you know where
to find it, and that you know, even a lot

(04:13):
of people on our side are just you know, I
think have been very frustrated with Trump, but I you know,
I'm kind of opening it up. Is like, maybe the
method behind the madness is really the point. And keeping
the media off balance, I think is one of the
fundamental beats of this Trump two point zero administration. Absolutely,

(04:35):
people think he's responding to them, but he's not. He's
leading them down. He's he's leading them down hallways that
they paint themselves into the corner end and then just
start screaming and pulling their hair out, and then he's
in the next halway.

Speaker 1 (04:48):
Goes hey over here, over here.

Speaker 2 (04:50):
You know, you're just like, is he doing this? I mean,
is he playing them this much? Because all I can
think is during this entire UH market chaos were regarding
the tariffs, he they've almost got a budget passed and
what else have they gotten done in the background. I
don't know, but like that's a pretty big misdirection and

(05:11):
success in my view, because it.

Speaker 1 (05:13):
Is well, now you're you're absolutely right, because they just
put out I just wanted to. I just read the
thread with you know, video clips of each of the
cabinet members they did their cabinet meeting with their you know,
their five talking points about what they did this week, right,
and there's some pretty significant shit in there, and not
the least of which is like, you know, Gabert at
D and I like making it abundantly clear that we

(05:35):
have the smoking gun that the smartmatic voting machines are hackable.
And you know, this is sincere. Now, this isn't just
you know, Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell screaming you know,
you know, into the into the void. This is this
is not the Director of National Intelligence. So and then
we you know, Wisconsin passes voter I d like, there's

(05:56):
a lot of little things that are happening. They're not sexy,
but they're the stuff. They're the kind of building blocks
of what needs to get done to get done because
the reality is, I think, you know, everything else is like, okay,
the one hundred and fifty billion dollars in savings is
those just found. The blah blah blah blah. All these
things are great, but if we don't fix the election system,
all this is for not and the best way to

(06:17):
get Wall Street on your side in terms of thinking
in terms of and the investor class on your side,
and thinking in terms of they can create a durable
thing here. This isn't just you know, turmoil for turmoil sake,
and it's all short term play. Is to fix the
election system is to fix you know, to get durable
gains in terms of changing the culture in DC and

(06:40):
changing the way we handle money and everything else. That's
been my argument going back years that if they were
you know, if they want to fix something, they have
to do it this way because you have to give
you have to put meat on those bones. Because then
those guys will then turn around and give this team
another term and we can get some consistency, and then
the markets will stop up like screaming in pain. And

(07:03):
that's that's very normal.

Speaker 2 (07:05):
I wish I mean, I just kind of when you're talking,
thought of this is like I wish they would message
the idea that you know, our voting system is being
manipulated by outside actors, and that you know, specifically the
Democratic Party has I think received more direct payoffs. I
think it's easily provable from China and other adversaries. But

(07:25):
like the idea that the country's voting system is being
manipulated by outside actors is a fundamental threat to the
nation and it needs to be taken that way. I mean,
Trump has brought enough democratic ideas into the forefront. I mean,
my god, he's a he's a labor democrat in terms
of a lot of his policy. We're gonna you know,
we're trashing free trade, you know, and I'll get to

(07:47):
forget the word free there. But like, you know, so
many of the things Trump is pioneering in the in
the right, you know, in the quote Republican Party, our
democratic ideas, so we can have a plurality of ideas
is but we can't have a plurality of voting systems.
We need a voting system that works. And you know,
the Democrats are going to have to rebuild themselves as

(08:09):
a party that's not full of, you know, people being
manipulated by foreign actors. And as frankly, as antagonistic as
that speech would be, I think it's the reality we're
in and I think we need to get over this,
you know, self destructive national fit about yelling at each
other and go, look, we have to have political debate

(08:31):
in this country again, but we have to not be
you know, so much of what the Democrats did to
Trump was projection. They know how dirty they are. I mean,
they know that they had a Chinese spy in Feinstein's car,
that they had a Chinese spy in Swallwell's bed, that
Cultual's assistant is a literal is being charged with espionage.

(08:56):
You know, they know how dirty they are. They know
this goes back to Charlie True and every aspect of
the Clinton administration and selling our nuclear secrets like this
is a serious problem. And why you know, the Republicans
were bound for so many years by that consent agreement
in South Carolina and North Carolina, right, I mean it's
a multi state but you know, and so they could

(09:19):
never really accuse the Democrats of anything. And yet the
Democrats have not only a national kind of riot on
demand infrastructure, they have a cheat in the elections infrastructure.
And I think it's you know, aligned with with something
much bigger and more nefarious, which is an offshore you know,
actor involvement. And you know, so many people in the

(09:42):
Democratic Party don't realize that. And looks this is not
to imagine a world with no Republican corruption. That's not
what I'm saying, right, I want to be very clear
about that. But but like this, our voting system has
to be something we can trust. We don't need to
use closed source voting machines. And we can easily create
a proctored double witness, triple witness, because I would always

(10:05):
like to have a non party affiliate observer in every
one of these counting rooms. Republican and Democrats not enough,
you know, And and but this can be done. We
can create paper records that we keep for ninety days
and then burn them after all the challenges or you know,
there's no reason why we we we can't do this. Well,
there's there's a lot of open source voting systems that

(10:27):
have been taped out, you know, their bulletproof to four
nines good enough, you.

Speaker 1 (10:32):
Know, right, No, I agreed, And anybody who's arguing against
that at this point is arguing simply because they want
to continue to cheat. It is a fundamental aspect of
pretty much every aspect of our culture. I don't care
we have a one nine.

Speaker 2 (10:47):
We have a we have a one nine voting system,
meaning it's its accuracy is in the nineties. It could
be ninety one percent. Two nine is ninety nine percent,
nin ninety nine point nine. So so we're nowhere near
three nines, which is the bare minimum for you know,
most things that you want to take seriously exactly.

Speaker 1 (11:06):
But I'm I'm I'm making you're you're you're intimating a
broader point, I think, which is that every is that
what we see in the media at every level, which
is why the media is so very important. And you
and I've talked about this in the past and whatnot,
that that the goal of this administration is to break
the media. And so in your opening monologue, I think
you kind of laid it out very well that Trump

(11:27):
is in the process of doing so with his you know,
moving from room to room to room and screaming at
them and they're saying, oh, by the way, I'm over
here now. But the what's important here is that this
is not just you know, voting, this is our financial markets.
We have people cheating in the financial markets at every level.
We have people cheating at you know, the legislative level,
we have people cheating at the judicial level. We have

(11:48):
people cheating everywhere, and everybody is arguing that they should
they should be allowed to cheat, and that cheating is okay,
Like no, cheating is not okay. And that's where we
have to to to to hold our ground in every
way when it comes to our messaging, and certainly from
the standpoint of the administration, that's what they have to do.
And if they and if they move from from point

(12:10):
to point making this point, or from from like idiom
to idiom or vertical to vertical to make this point,
that's fine. And but you can I think you can
see that at you see it with those you see
it now with the NI you see it with a
variety of other things. And it's not gonna be perfect,
like folks. You know, there's there's there's there's plenty of
people who are traders, you know, still up on up

(12:32):
on Capitol Hill. So you know, every I think the
biggest fear we have right now, the biggest worry we
have right now, honestly is people getting impatient because they've
been waiting so long for something good to happen that
they want it all to happen tomorrow to validate the
fact that they don't need to be anxious about the
future anymore.

Speaker 2 (12:52):
Well, there's a lot of systemic corruption that needs to
be arrested and then rooted out. And those are two
different things. Arrested meaning like stop the forward progress of
the corruption, right be, root out the corruption, and then
the hard part, see, replace it with something that is
vastly less corrupt, you know, without the goal being perfection,

(13:13):
because that's unrealistic.

Speaker 1 (13:15):
I mean.

Speaker 2 (13:16):
The other thing is back to the kind of tariffing
tariff messaging. I don't I'm not sitting around thinking that Trump,
you know, is weighing the fine points of semiotics, Like
I don't. I don't think he gives a fuck. But
you know, these aren't duties. But they're not tariffs, right,
like like duties are very specific to products and tariffs

(13:38):
are more industry and national level. But the way they
came up with the equation, they had a goal and
it's a very easy to communicate goal. The problem is
is that all the lefties.

Speaker 1 (13:54):
Were like, oh, they don't even know what tariffs.

Speaker 2 (13:56):
Are, you know, because of the the goal being that
they want to basically reduce bilateral trade deficits to zero.
And so this has wasted a week of our time
where everybody in the media is a Trump administration, you know,
doesn't know what a tariff is. And then you have
all the people repeating this. It's like, well, they know
what a tariff is, they just don't care. They're calling

(14:18):
this a tariff, but it's really not just a tariff.
Because this leads to the questions like, well, hey, Australia
didn't even have tariffs and now there's you know, everybody's
getting a ten percent tariff it seems, and then some
people might be able to negotiate their way out of that.
But the key thing is there's a lot of goals
here with one word, and I think, you know, they

(14:41):
could have done a better job there and they also,
I think really can sell this, you know, I think
you lay it out, you say, look, some countries are
very restrictive on certain industries. Cars are a great example.
They put a big tariff that on our cars it's
forty percent. We only have ten percent on theirs. So
we're matching everybody in the world sector for sector. And

(15:03):
I think everyone could be like, oh, okay, you know
that's you know, that's easy to understand, and then you know, hey,
we want to drop the tariff to zero. Okay, And
I want to talk later about whether this all leads
to global free trade or or something else. And obviously
we're going to have to talk about whether free trade
is attainable, if we've ever had it, or if you know,
what's been the real meaning of that phrase all these years, right,

(15:26):
but but for now, like the other aspect of the
of the Trump tariff message is that you know, bilateral
nation trade balances aside the the or sorry, the the
calculation aside is based on the the actual current you know,

(15:46):
death trade deficit between the countries, and that could be
from a country with zero tariff's on us. So imagine
a small you know, underdeveloped commodity export condonation who's poor,
and yet they have cobalt, so their x exporting cobalt
so that we can make phones. And you know, maybe
they're really exporting it to China because that's where the
phones are made, but or Malaysia or Singapore or the

(16:09):
sub assemblies blah blah blah. But however the trade gets,
you know, recorded it's a net deficit with the US,
and they don't really have a lot of money to
buy a lot from US. Do we really want that
trade deficit to go to zero? I mean I don't
think so. I mean I think that, and that's a
very complicated thing where you start going, Look, we want

(16:29):
a net balance, maybe not even of zero, Like do
we want our net trade deficit across all nations to
be zero? I think, as the country with the obnoxious,
exorbitant special privilege of having the world reserve currency, I
don't think we have to even make that our goal.
But nor do I think that we live in a

(16:50):
world that isn't going to keep growing even as population
is approaching sometime maybe in the next twenty years, like
a global peak. But we got I mean, we're still
globally centered around a growth economy, and in that case,
I think the reserve currency nation can run a little
bit of a deficit. I do think our deaths should

(17:12):
be way less. I think it should be not feeding
a doom loop in our debt. Like those are the goals,
not not these abstract zero and then especially not an
abstract trade deficit of zero with every nation. You know,
I think we have to say, we don't want to
empower the checkbook of our enemies. We don't want to

(17:34):
give China a net five hundred billion a year. That's
the goal. It's not really the trade deficit against you know,
the Congo.

Speaker 1 (17:42):
No, it really is. And I agree with you right
that that it's a hard message. Though you start with
it is a hard message, and so you start with
look we we start with that, and then you go
and you put tariffs on everybody. And the way they
did it, and I think the formula was that, you know, basically,

(18:04):
we're going to call back half the trade deficit, and
that's what the teriff rate is in order to to
take the trade deficit that exists to fifty percent of
work is currently that's that was the rate. Now saying
that plus ten percent, now saying that the real goal
was I think to snuf out who is and who
is the enemy. And it's not Vietnam per se, it's

(18:29):
not the Congo. Who's you know, ship in this cobalt.
I don't think Trump cares about that. It's the start
the process of going okay, let's well, that's an easy
problem to solve. Yeah, we don't have to worry about
running a trade deficit with the Congo for cobalt and
molidenum and a couple other metals. We don't care about that.
What we care about is the European Union. What we
care about is Canada. What we care about is China.

(18:51):
We care about the countries that complained that we had
the right to say to them, we do not want
to run a massive trade deficit with you anymore. And
then they countered with the retaliatory rhetoric and or action,
and that I think was and so this was a
means by which the and so the messaging for the media, so, oh,

(19:13):
Trump doesn't know what he's doing. That's fine that, you know,
how they that doesn't matter.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
It's not like they were ever going to be honest,
you know. And that but the idea that any of
these countries can call what they're doing a retaliatory. It's
all absurd. It's like, you're you're tariffing us forty We
teariffed you twenty back, and now you're retaliating.

Speaker 1 (19:32):
It's right.

Speaker 2 (19:33):
I feel like this kind of absurdity should be a
lot easier to get people's heads around, and I think
more people get it than is being the media would
lead you to believe in the of course, you know.

Speaker 1 (19:45):
Of course no, Because I mean I look at Trump's
approval rating and all of this stuff. I think it's
very very clear that the people get it and be
honest with you. I also don't think that they care
if he fights fair. I think we're at a moment
in time where you know, there's none of where we
don't have to There's a lot of people that are like,
I don't care if he fight's fair with us.

Speaker 2 (20:06):
Right, And I think there's a class of people who
don't even like him and didn't vote for him and
still are like, yeah, he's a jackass, but he's very
easy to understand. He's taking the fight to these other countries,
and even if he does it wrong, I'm willing to
let him. And that's a slice of the electorate that

(20:26):
I don't think the media realizes exists, you know, And
I've met people who are like, I don't like Trump
at all. I didn't vote for him, but like I
and I don't even think he's doing this right, but
he's trying, and like they recognize that not only has
no one ever tried, but that they've been selling us
out the whole time. And they're kind of nervous, so
like he's gonna fuck it up, and that's what they're

(20:48):
worried about. But it's kind of like, you know, when
you know, they really give him the benefit of the
doubt to a level that surprises me, given that they
don't like him, didn't vote for him. But these are
the people a little to the right month, not on
the right left spectrum, but like just a little away
from the Trump hysteria people obviously who think he's hitler

(21:09):
and all that.

Speaker 1 (21:09):
Well, and that's and that's the that's it's like people are.

Speaker 2 (21:12):
Just embarrassed by him. They're like, you know, this would
include never trumpers, but also the very large part of
the middle who's just like I just you know, he's
just kind of too much for me.

Speaker 1 (21:21):
And what's really funny yeah, no, I get I get it.
And so remember everybody that whenever you hear somebody saying
but everything before the butt does not matter, they actually
this is what they actually care about. They want someone
to do something, and he's got the opportunity here because
of what you just laid out to then convince them

(21:43):
that he actually got results and that will bring them
across and bring them and talk them down another step
off that ledge and they're like, yeah, he's a jackass,
Yes he's too much. Yeah I don't like him, but
yeah he did this is this, and that's all that matters,
because at the end of the day, what do the
Democrats have Where I'm thinking purely now in terms of

(22:06):
midterm midterm politics is where I'm where I'm going with this,
Like Trump has to bring that layer of the elector
at across to ensure that they can get the kind
of durable and large majorities in the House and the
Senate to really get things done, to codify everything that's

(22:29):
been done so far. Like that is what needs to happen,
and otherwise we're going to be you know, that's what
we're worried about. So I so from my perspective, like
thinking about this from a you know, from a electoral
politics perspective, how does he build this into a durable
thing again? And that allays the fears of the markets,

(22:50):
that gets them to understand, Oh, okay, he's got a plan. Okay,
people can start putting their money on the table, like
it's important. You have to change, you have to The
transition state is messy, right, we've you know, and we've
used this metaphor many times. The transition state is messy.
And we're sitting like literally right in the middle of
the transition state right now. The question is are we

(23:12):
going to get to a stable or outcome on the
other on the other side of the transition state. And
I think we will, But that messaging is going to
be very difficult as to whether or not Trump can
bring enough people across in the right amount of time
to get that done.

Speaker 2 (23:28):
Well. Yeah, like like, let's so one last thing for
me about messaging before we so, so the three aspects
of the messaging are kind of duties tariffs. We know
there's no mention of duties, although a lot of the
times what Trump's talking about technically our duties. But but
I think the real thing about the normalization of deficits

(23:52):
is really about regulatory reform being induced on the other country.
And and because when you have this, oh my god,
but they don't even have a terrafon, it's are you crazy?
What's really happening there is they have a ton of
regulations which which effectively act as tariffs. And you know,
that's that invites a lot of discussion about a lot
of topics, pollution, this, that, the other thing, and you know,

(24:15):
and and and then it comes down to like commodities
versus finished goods. And then in agriculture, I would say
it comes down to whether you know, you're talking about
refrigerated goods meaning protein, where are you talking about grains?
You're talking about things that can just sit. You know,
like there's a big difference between the two. And I
think most of the regulatory you know, I'll put it
this way, the bands the protective aspect around grains is

(24:38):
one hundred percent national protection. Like the Japanese don't want
to buy our rice because they have a lot of
rice farmers. Okay, very simple to understand protectionism, We get it.
The Europeans don't want to buy our chicken because it's sonchlorine.
But is that really why or is that just the
excuse you know Europe. Europe has very high standards allegedly
for all these things, but you'll find that the exceptions,

(25:01):
you know, a crew always to the Europeans. So had
they done a great job talking about that piece of it? No?
And is that piece of really big elements in getting
some of these deficits to trend more towards positive or
just trend less negative? I mean, whatever the real goal is.
And I think that that's inevitably part of it, because

(25:24):
the messaging has to anticipate that the media will say, well, look,
the tariffs have been equalized. What's your problem like? And
we have to cut that off before it happens. You know,
we have to have to shift the conversation towards the
idea that you know, and I think this is where
we should segue into his free trade ever been real?

Speaker 1 (25:43):
What is free trade? What?

Speaker 2 (25:45):
What is? You know? Are we going to take an
honest apprisal of our national competitive advantage outside of financialization
and also admit where we don't have it and say yeah,
we're going to be a net import or that and
and and like proceed as such. You know, I think
countries should be self sufficient in food, but you can,

(26:08):
you can certainly import some food that you're not that
good at making. And if you wind up in a
conflict with that country, you're like, hey, no more saffron.
Oh well we're going to war with Spain like you will,
no more yellow rice? Sorry, you know is because America
is really bad at growing saffron. And you know, as

(26:28):
as an absurd example, but but actually, you know, I
mean it. You know, trade is a luxury in many ways.
A nation should be eighty percent self sufficient in everything,
you know, to be a stable and you know, we
have a lot of yes, small, kind of anachronistic nations

(26:48):
that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the breakdown of
former colonial empires. Get it, that's not this podcast like
the platonic ideal whatever of.

Speaker 1 (27:02):
Yeah, blah blah, No, No, your point is absolutely well taken,
which is that I agree with you like that. There's
a couple of things that came out of that where
where you were talking eighty percent self sufficion and things
like food and a lot of and a lot of
basic stuff. Because let's not kid or let's not let's
remind ourselves, why would you not want to be what
would be the what would be the down the downstream

(27:24):
effects of not being self sufficient and everything else. It's
a destruction of your culture.

Speaker 2 (27:32):
We've learned this lesson from de industrialization and outsourcing pharma
input production to China. We learned it during COVID, which
was not just a random event in my opinion. We'll
get to that later. But when you when you can't
manufacture the precursors for all the pharmaceuticals in your national formulary,
you're in an extremely vulnerable position when you don't, when

(27:55):
you've de industrialized yourself, you know, like Germany has and
wants to a switch and become what you were fifteen
twenty years ago, you find it's impossible. If you don't
grow your own food, you shouldn't start fights with the
people that grow your food, right and more to the point,
they will find it much easier to intimidate you because

(28:16):
they know they grow your food. You know, I'm not
saying that countries should be starting fights with other countries.
I'm saying the nature of power is the use of power,
and the United States for a long time has acted
as a moralistic nation, pretending it didn't use as power
as absurd as that may seem, but what Trump's really
doing now is recognizing where we've lost certain games, and

(28:39):
he's like, look, we're just going to play like a
power player with the power we do have while we
still have it. And a large part of the left's
response to that is to simply, you know, expose. I
think very clearly that they've been playing for the other
side the whole time, because their response is not like, oh,
a nation should have certain basic no, no, no, there

(29:01):
should be no voter ID there should be They have
literally irrational positions and they are all in on them,
and you're like, okay, well, you're just not part of
this thing. I guess like you're just you're you're a
fifth column, and you might as well just say it,
right And.

Speaker 1 (29:19):
What you texted me last night, hud cracks down on
government back mortgages for illegal immigrants. Hey come across the
border and will help you. Yeah, mortgage does an illegal
immigrants and the law and the law firms that were
that were literally helping these people all map two Democratic
Party and now Trump and Trump is taking away their

(29:42):
security clearners. He's doing what he can do. And yes, no,
your point about what Trump is doing is to say,
we have these strengths, we're going to use them, and
we're going to use them in a mafia fashion. Like
there's a lot of there's a lot of people on
Twitter like complaining about this, usually have the of stinky
French variety, so complaining about his gangs and mentality. I'm like, oh,
well that's nice. Welcome to international fucking politics. Like, fuck you,

(30:03):
this is this is the world.

Speaker 2 (30:06):
Go talk to Go talk to Americans who don't know
what a colonial nightmare France was and what complete assholes
you people can be, because like that's a different American
than these two.

Speaker 1 (30:16):
Sorry, it's entire podcast you and I pissing off about
the front.

Speaker 2 (30:22):
I mean, but not in this like freedom Fries way.
It's like you guys are you guys are an incredibly
dis I mean we you know, granted, both nations threw
off a certain level of common past oppression of royalty
around the same time, but you know, France was a
much more explicit I mean, America is barely a colonial

(30:43):
power in any way, you know, and you know, the Philippines, Nicaragua, whatever,
but like in the eighteen hundreds, you know, I mean, well,
we colonized with dollars.

Speaker 1 (30:55):
But what empire ever said this riches oversees to everybody else, right,
it's you know, every empire that's ever been has been
to arrogate all the the riches of the world to itself.
And we turned around, we became an empire and gave
it all the way to everybody. Maybe we're over the empire,
but we.

Speaker 2 (31:12):
We do arrogate it all to ourselves. But we don't
enforce quality. So we import the world's product. That's like,
you know, a lot of it's garbage. And we've given
up excellence. We've given up so much of you know,
our our complete dominant role in machining and manufacturing that
you know, and you know, I'm not saying Germany wasn't

(31:33):
very impressive in their in their heyday, but both nations
have been spun off. And it's it's sad because you know,
China's still struggling to keep up in areas. You know,
everybody thinks, oh, they've closed all these gaps. They've closed
a lot of gaps. They've done an amazing and what
should be an intimidating rise very quickly. Because there's there's

(31:55):
a lot of things that we're not going to like
going forward as we try to catch up to what
we've given away. And you know, this is where you know,
I think it's the intersection of competitive advantage and like
national ethos, like America still has a national ethos. We haven't,
you know, the goal of Davos at all is to

(32:16):
turn every country into like a millange population as an
economic zone like Canada is the goal. It's a country
already that's already been turned into a post national like
non ethnic consumption zone, you know, albeit with a carve
out for some annoying French people, but in general, like
Canada has no I mean, and I know it's funny

(32:37):
to even think of a Canadian ethnic identity, which is,
you know, basically I'm not American a but you know,
like we used to know what a Canadian was, you know,
even though we made fun of them, and you know,
people who Americans don't have culture, Okay, fine, but you know,
you knew what we were. You knew what Canadians were,
like you knew what Europeans were even fifteen years ago.
But now you go to London, there aren't any British

(32:59):
people there, right, you know this this idea that this
is somehow inevitable. No, this is policy, and trade policy
is part of this. Like they financed these changes in
these societies through what we, you know, maybe want to
talk about free trade, Like was free trade ever free?
Was its purpose anything ever? Anything else than de industrializing

(33:22):
the dominant powers? Was it always just a commie plot
like florat in the water.

Speaker 1 (33:31):
Our precious bodily fluids. No, you're not the older, the
older I get, They're all like, we've never had free trade, Like,
you know, this is one of those things where I
say this, you know, I remember, you know, what tour
it for me was listening to people, you know, explain
like various things that I didn't understand. My my go
to is Jeff Snyder ten years ago explaining to the

(33:51):
euro dollar system in his own arcane way. And then
when we started to pull away from and started to
come plaint about the Eero dollar system, Jeff then turns
around and goes, but it was a free market evolution
against the evil tyranny of the Federal Reserve. And I'm like, no,
it wasn't. Like that's like the biggest rotten nonsense I've

(34:13):
ever heard. We never had free trade. The Euro dollar
system was a was designed to come into existence. It
was always predictably going to happen. Yeah, there were free
market aspects of how it was grown, but it was
grown in a very controlled environment. This was a Petri

(34:33):
dish with you know, infinitely high walls around it. And
then free market stuff happened in you know, in the
reaction vessel. This is not trade.

Speaker 2 (34:44):
The ear a dollar was a way to like put
slack in the accelerator cable of of dollar liquidity that
was controlled by the United States, you know, primarily through
the FED. And what the euro dollar system was. You know,
I think in many ways it began as just like
a like an outgrowth of the whole seventies arbitrage world
where there was just so much currency speculation. We needed

(35:05):
some dollars to screw over these countries, and the CIA
went over and said, hey, we need this, we need that.
But then just the creation of non backed dollar debt
became a way to just change the slack of the
of the lever that should have been in the under
the control of the nation that printed the currency US.
And what it did is like it's a very I think,

(35:28):
you know, I'm not sure it was designed originally for that,
but it certainly became a very hard to understand, you know,
way of negating our ability to control our own currency liquidity.
And I think it took a long time for people
to really get what was the nature of, you know,
the of how it neutralized our power, Like why why

(35:50):
did all this monetary policy not work? So for so
many years It's like, well, you never really were in
control of interest rates or the supply.

Speaker 1 (36:01):
It can go, we go. This has been my This
has been the backbone of my of my kind of
my entire argument now going on what six seven years now,
and and understanding well and then you know, and as
that understanding has sharpened over the years. So I'm not
going to say that seven years ago I understood all
that's because they didn't. But I got the you know,
as you as you go through this and you begin
to realize that this this thing has always been this

(36:23):
deep and you go back through I did a I
did a talk yesterday with with Ian Burling game on
on Tommy kyat Carrigan's podcast, and we had a very
interesting talk about the you know, his view of how
this is this system has always been in place and
in various forms, and this is just the latest iteration
of it, but it's still continental Europe back in the

(36:43):
city of London, and it's really nothing about traditional British society,
which is a very interesting, a very interesting take on
the world. And you know, and the older I get,
the more I talk to different people who have different
perspectives on this, the more I realized that, yeah, this
is a very very complicated game, but it's a very
important one and it's at the heart of this entire

(37:04):
tariff trade reorganization that Donald Trump is I think trying
to affect here, and I think personally, I think the
Chinese are caught in the middle. This is you know,
when you stop to really think about, you know, the
size and scope of all this. And this is why
I've been screaming all week that I think that, you know,

(37:25):
watching the cross market action, that the people who are
bombing our yield curve right now, the people who are
attacking the ten the thirty year bond are the people
who have been accumulating them for the last four years
since we started tightening. And that's not China, folks. China's
actually got a very short duration on bond portfolio. They
don't have the they don't have the supply of tens

(37:47):
and thirties to move our market sixty basis points. They
just don't, right. But the Europeans, damn well do.

Speaker 2 (37:56):
They also don't have any desire to get in any
form of fight over symbolism. They just want the status
quo to continue. They just want to keep investing in
their hyper industrialization. I mean, the you know, this is
either the so the Soviet Union spent itself into bankruptcy

(38:18):
doing things it wasn't capable of doing, and China is,
you know, spending itself into complete excess on manufacturing capability
to de industrialize the world, possibly for military reasons. So
the idea that it comes inevitably to their collapse, you know,
I don't believe in that in a lot of you know,

(38:40):
people's China thesis. I think China is a very serious competitor.
I also do think, you know, we can recognize that
the entire US ship of State, even through Biden, has
understood this, and the entirety of US policy is shifting
towards explicit adversary conflict with China. And I don't think

(39:05):
that them not being a major player in the bond
market right now is indicative of them being neutral or
our friends in any way.

Speaker 1 (39:12):
I just know that that was not what I was
implying at all. Just to make that abundantly clear, I'm
saying that at this inflection point in time, that what
we've really uncovered is the depth to which the Europeans
still want to have control over our system and our

(39:33):
the cost of our money and everything else. We are
dealing with this eight now, twelve days after the end
the final end of what was known as Libor. The
six months synthetic lib Org contracts that expired on March
thirty first, after Libor itself ended on September thirtieth, are gone.
And now these banks, now these these European banks now

(39:55):
have to post real collateral and real dollars in real
bank reserves. In order to get access to dollars. They
have to the federal reserve. But they got to go
to our banks. And they can't just offer up they
can't circle jerk and offer up the same contract against
each other with no real collateral behind it. This is
in a very important moment in time, and I think
the timing on this on Trump's part, and I don't

(40:15):
know if it was Trump. I personally think it was
Scott Bessen, to be honest with you, who understands all
this so and I think you're you're correct, and when
we opened the podcast that he's like that you were,
you were correct, and that he has been very clear
about what his goals are and what his uh and
what our goals are and what his and what he's

(40:37):
attempting to do. And if you listen very carefully to
both him and your own Powell and Jamie Diamond when
he was on with Maria Barceromo earlier in the week,
which was a fascinating interview. By the way, the it's
very clear what's going on. They are targeting the regulations
and the soft hair and the soft tariffs and all that,

(40:57):
and they're moving the messaging away from the tariff number itself.
You first you shock, then on you get everybody to
explode and ab react and be history onic, and then
you start the real negotiation, and the people who want
to negotiate, you walk up to them very with open arms,
like Trump would normally do. And then but everybody else

(41:19):
gets the horns. And that's what his ability to do.

Speaker 2 (41:24):
That is all I mean forget the election, which is
way off. But the ability to negotiate all these things
is predicated on the emergency around fentanyl, you know, and
like the and more of the point, the national emergency
that covers a few other things, but fentanyls and North
American China problem, meaning that we have, you know, we

(41:46):
have a sort of a non protectionist narco state to
the south, and we have a protectionist narco state to
the north, who are both you know, allowing the Chinese
to transit precursor and actual finish fentanyl through their countries
across our borders. And as much as they might not,
I mean, Mexico's used to be being called a narco state.

(42:06):
Canada isn't. But you know, this is where the this
is the essence of the conflict. You know, this isn't
about whether Wisconsin farmers can sell milk into Canada because
they have a forty percent tariff on what goes into
their milk bags. Like, that's not what this is about.
This is about saying, look, we're losing one hundred thousand

(42:27):
people a year to fentanyl. We lost four hundred thousand
people in all of World War two. That was about
one hundred thousand a year, fifty eight thousand in all
of Vietnam. We are fighting World War two right now,
and we're literally in a perpetual level of death. That is,
you know, China's we're in a war with China. Like

(42:48):
there are you know, Chinese explicitly committing acts of war
against us, you know, with COVID nineteen, in my view,
as a deliberate release, is a response to like the
Hong Kong protests, which you know, we probably had something
to do, We were probably seating and but but in
my view, those protests were pretty endogenous and we you know,
we threw some extra fuel on the fire. And I

(43:10):
you know, to me, China reacted the way they reacted. Now,
I might be wrong about that. It might have been
a screw up. It's definitely has a lab origin that's
not debatable. Then you have them admitting that this vult
the typhoon thing is real. They literally acknowledged hacking our infrastructure.
That's an act of war. That's a case of belli

(43:31):
and they're just like sitting there daring us to do
anything about it. Wasn't the Wall Street Journal the other day,
you know, So COVID infrastructure hacking and fentanyl. These are
all acts of war. If we still had a national ethos,
we'd be explicitly trying to collapse the Chinese economy and
depose the CCP and whatever inconvenience would just be like
you know, that would be you know, a necessary thing

(43:53):
that a people with self respect would take on because
we would see what what's being done to us. But
you know, Davis has made too much progress in deracinating
and ruining you know, a national identity. And you know,
Trump is sort of the last vestiges of an instinct
to say no to that, to say no, we are
a people, we have a national interest. But it's but

(44:16):
we don't have in Trump, you know, honestly a charismatic
leader that creates like it's about him, Like we have
to be honest in the end that the Trump, the
movement around Trump is is you know, in many ways,
a cult of personality. And I don't think even in
a bad way, like every every leader who's revered, there's
a cult of personality that that isn't a pure pejorative,

(44:38):
although that phrase has been used that way. But like
Trump needs to really and I think he has the
elements like he has the elements to you know, say,
this is about giving jobs to the coal workers and
you know, having national like, all the elements are there,
but we need to do some work.

Speaker 1 (44:56):
You know.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
I think part of it is just saying, look, you know,
this is all about securing North America. You know, if
these neighbor countries want to be proxies for China, whether
through the fentanyl trade or or basically violating the spirit
of the USMCA, Like look, look at NAFTA. Trump was
talking the other day, but the ninety thousand US factories

(45:18):
that have closed since NAFTA. Well, one of the things
we did when NAFTA became the USMCA is we said
that I think this was just for cars, Like we
went from sixty to seventy five percent North American produced content,
meaning for a car to be not tariffed, right and so,

(45:38):
But all the Chinese did then was invest heavily in
Mexican autoparts factories to get around that, because you know,
we were trying to block the Chinese autoparts. Now that
Chinese are making their autoparts in Mexico with their own
equipment and listen, you know, and I don't know that
they've done, like the worker importation, like they did in Italy,
like a lot of the made in Italy fashion goods

(45:59):
that people think so nice or really made by Chinese.
This is where COVID spread so much in Italy, by
the way, allegedly just because Chinese workers, you know, brought
it in on the plane in their lungs. But you
know it's also you don't have thousands, tens of thousands
of Chinese workers in your country without having at least

(46:19):
a couple thousand CCP agents by the way, so you
know anyway, but my point is is that you know this,
this is part of the entire story, and that story
is entirely like Congress can take this authority away if
there's not this emergency. So the more we message the emergency,
and frankly the goal should be to stop fentanyl. There

(46:41):
should be a national moonshot type thing. We can't tolerate
this anymore, and people need to get their head around
that it's unacceptable that one hundred thousand Americans are being
killed every year by addiction, which is bad enough, but
addiction fed by a hostile foreign country that is not
our friend in any way, and why that's even controversial

(47:04):
to say is just I mean, it's an absurdity in me.
And it is also a sign of, you know, this
decay of our national character. Like what nation would would
have to be rallied to such a cause? What nation
wouldn't just know that was an evil affront to its
very existence and just react immediately to the knowledge, like

(47:25):
why does it take it? It boggles my mind. And
it's you know, honestly, that's what scares me about how
much progress you know, the globalists have made. You know,
they want, you know, a world of deracinated consumers who
take orders.

Speaker 1 (47:41):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (47:42):
And I don't think Americans should give that to them.

Speaker 1 (47:45):
I absolutely agree. As a matter of fact, I think
that interestingly enough, let's let's let's let's go back Scott
Bessen's some messaging has been very simple. China can't get
into a trade war with us, whether where they don't hope,
they're not in a position of power. We are. The
deficit actually puts us in a position of power. We

(48:06):
we can, we can collapse them. They need us more
than we need them, that is in many ways. So
that's the messaging that has been coming from him, the
on the and it's so what you're really touching on
and all of that, which was which was great, by
the way, cause I don't think i've ever heard you.
We've talked a lot, you and I, I've never actually

(48:27):
heard you like put it all together like that that succinctly.
So that was fantastic because what it's telling me is
that it's very clear that we have a that up
until a few I don't know, a very short period
of time ago, a clear convergence of Chinese Dvogian attack,

(48:49):
that this is one vector of attack against you know, everybody,
against the populace in Italy, the United States. It's also
happening against the the UK and so and it's already
they've already been successful in Canada as you've laid out. So, yes,
we are at a perilous moment in time, and it's

(49:11):
now time to you're going to fight back. You fight
back a little unfair, and you fight back with the
tools that you have at your disposal, and we still
have a lot of tools. And don't let anybody hid
you and I. And what has been bothering me this
week watching the financial part of this war play itself out,
is that it's very clear that the Europeans are using

(49:33):
their financial leverage and their financial power to create the
kind of to create chaos and undermine what we're So
it's another front. You have all this stuff that you
just laid out, then you take the fund, then you
add the financial power. Right, And this is the last
gas potent in my mind of them trying to get

(49:55):
control of the pricing, the offshore pricing of dollars around
the world by setting off effectively nuclear weapons within the
financial markets that have been sitting there. I'm gonna I'm
gonna lay something out for you, because I don't think
you and I have actually talked about this yet. I've
done this in a couple of other podcasts. I'm gonna
just give me a couple of minutes and bear with me.
So we have these hedge funds putting on these fucking

(50:20):
idiotic basis trades where they're picking up nickels in front
of a freight train in order to play the spread
between treasury futures and spot treasury. And the only way
they can make any money at this is the lever
of twenty times, right, So that means a five percent
move against you and you're wiped out. Now, I'm sorry,
but this is These are major players that have been

(50:43):
caught with their pants down in this type of trade
multiple times in the past. Two that I know of
in recent memory are September nine, twenty nineteen, the so
called sofur Rebo crisis, and March of twenty twenty when
the US treasury market another word known as COVID. Both

(51:04):
of those required the FED to come in and deal
with the market. I'll bet you there was another one
of those in January of that year, if I go
back and check when Droggy and Powell had to reverse themselves,
when right after Powell raised rates in December and then
Powell had to cut in January, there was a big
dislocation that early early in that year. Now, there are

(51:25):
other things going on in the markets at that point
in time, but understand that this is part of the background.
I'll and I have to ask a simple question, who
the fuck is giving money to these same goddamn hedge funds,
to these same stupid fucking trades on over and over
and over again. Where does that money come from? They've

(51:46):
already blown up that they've already blown themselves up half
a dozen times, for fuck's sake, and yet the money
keeps blowing in and the pit trades keep getting bigger.
So now you have to ask yourself the question. This
isn't incompetence, This is vandalism. This is no different. I've
been building a federal infrastructure in Mexico to important to
the United States, to kill hundreds of thousands of people.
It's no different. You're attacking the fucking structure of our

(52:09):
financial markets, and you're setting off God to attacked nukes
right in our system.

Speaker 2 (52:14):
And for all the regulatory powers and tools, not just
obviously in the United United States financial system all that
know your customer stuff, but like all the things, I mean,
ninety percent of what the Congress does is financial regulation.
When you really think about it, Like, why is there
no one at any desk who says why you guys
need so many dollars? You guys are a bunch of shysters,

(52:37):
Your trades are bullshit, your your overlevered fruitcakes. We're not
going to deal with you don't get first priority, like you,
I don't have this many dollars and I'm not going
to cause a crisis. Fuck you, Like and why does
sn't that mechanism exist? Because we were talking the other
day and I was like, I just don't understand why
these these hedge funds aren't allowed to just self immolate

(52:58):
and there Why is there any financial contagion? And the
answer is because somebody allows them to suck the dollars
out of the market. Whatever happened. I mean, it's kind
of like I'm actually making like an SNL argument. It's
like there used to be something called lending standards. Now
you're you're right to the money. No, I mean, I'm
serious the idea I know, like that that money flows

(53:19):
freely without thought, like, oh, I have a bearer instrument,
give me everything. It's like, well, no, you're a participant
in a global market of liquidity, and we know who
you are. You're a scumbag who's out there doing highly
leveraged scumbag stuff. Like why not, Like now you're gonna
you're gonna you're gonna actually default on all these positions.
People are gonna foreclose on you. Your little proudest shoes

(53:42):
are gonna go on to Poshmark and you're gonna have
no money, like your bankrupt motherfucker? Like why why does
that never happen?

Speaker 1 (53:48):
Why? Why?

Speaker 2 (53:48):
Why is? Why did they get to suck liquidity out
of the market without someone just going, yeah, no, we
don't like you.

Speaker 1 (53:55):
Well, because no, I know, I agree. And this is
where I say, is why I say, is this going
to be that moment where the FED is like, you
know what, No, you've got to come to us, and
you got to pay five percent for it. And again,
in the past, there's always been this kind of lib
or slush fund where they could where they could play
that game. They don't have that level. They don't have
that anymore. Now. They got to go and get real dollars,

(54:17):
and they got to get them from the people who
have real dollars. And those real dollars are at the
FED and at the US commercial banks.

Speaker 2 (54:26):
And I am not claiming to know enough about the
actual origin of all these instruments, but I suspect that
there could be a way at the national level to say, look,
we can't allow you know, and this is a perpetual problem,
like how many derivatives are out there. I don't know.
Everyone's got an opinion, nobody's got the answer, But there

(54:46):
comes a point where I think it's kind of like,
you know, like a relationship score or whatever, a reputation score,
excuse me. You know, there's just just just should be
like a fundamental way that like, well I need all
these It's like, well, yeah, you're not going to get him.
I guess you're going to have a lot of pissed
off creditors. Like I don't understand why the system's fade

(55:09):
a complete to these runaway panics of liquidity can't be
you know, And I'm not usually a guy who argues
for regulatory policy, no, no, but I'm imagining, like I have
a hard time understanding why there's no control valve on
stuff like this.

Speaker 3 (55:27):
And.

Speaker 1 (55:29):
That's probably a good place to It's a good place
to leave it. I think I have a couple of
people that I know I want to talk to now
about these very things. And now it gets into why
does Scott besn't want to take banking regulation away from
the Federal Reserve? Why did the Federal Reserve ever get
banking regulation in the first place? Right, Like, these are

(55:51):
good questions, and these are all questions that I'm looking at,
and I don't even think see Jerome Powell like being
upset about the idea of he's not like cut, you know,
striking back at best when beston says things like that,
I you know what I mean, I didn't see that.
What I saw was all the really bad actors within
the Federal Reserve are like leaving Mike Barr and others.

(56:12):
This is one of those things I this is, this
is why I want to talk to Kate Long next.
So this is one of those things where I'm gonna
have to like get her on the podcast because I
know she has intimate knowledge of this stuff because she
dealt with it directly. So that'll be it's going to
be interesting. Like we're in a different world today, and
like bit by bit by bit, piece by piece, that
old system where they had their hooks and their claws

(56:35):
into our financial system in a way that we couldn't control.
Those are all being you know, plucked off, one by
one by one, and like call them lampreys, call them,
you know, whatever you want to call them, and eventually
you can, you know, you can swim free. So this
is a big moment. And I again I went back

(56:57):
this whole thing today just this week just reminded me
of Barket Goes Capital. Remember our capital. How did Bill Wang,
a convicted fucking felon, get all this money? Who gave
it to him, And then why were Goldman and HSBC
and everybody else willing to do business with this guy?

(57:19):
And then why was and then how did he? How
he run the scan that he plays the same money
as collateral seven times that a Kathy Woods retarded portfolio trades?

Speaker 2 (57:29):
Yeah, or how did Silicon Valley Bank, you know, on
the more on the domestic side lake for all the
regulatory power where whoever has it, you know, the FED
or someone else, Like no one's checking the work here,
you know, like they everyone says, well that that level
of risk for those types of accounts was was not possible.

(57:51):
It was like yet it was right, you know, and
and and this is where there's you know, the moral
hazard of the fdi C and and all the other
programs of you know, we we we presume competence, and
we also presume uh you know, not morality, but like

(58:11):
like non criminality whatever. We presume competence and you know,
basic honor, and we don't. That's a dumb thing to presume,
especially the competence side, because so many of these banks
are run by I mean my understanding Silicon Valley Bank
was it was almost like a part time level of
control by like they just kind of had it all.

(58:32):
It was almost a virtual bank in every way, not
just that they didn't have branches, but that they didn't
really have the typical control structure that a real bank
would have. And that was the excuse that people had
for like my questions at the time. I'm not I'm
not going to go to the wall on that one,
but you know, we need we need, you know, we
need to understand that when you remove any sense of

(58:55):
skin in the game from banking, you get banks who
will operate up to the level of the government insurance
as their risk window. They don't think it's risk because hey,
we're covered up to two point fifty in account therefore
how many accounts we have? But but here's our buffer. No
matter what we do, the Feds are going to come
in with this number. So like you know, and that's
moral hazard. You know, it's like vanilla stuff here. But

(59:18):
you know, we were.

Speaker 1 (59:19):
In laws are always laws and roles are written as
limits to people cheating. They are the limits of which
people can cheat and get away with the legal that's
you know, this is age old argument I used to make.
You know, you and I've discussed in different ways in
different times.

Speaker 2 (59:36):
Yeah, we're looking at the end of globalism. I hope
that at some point during this period we talk about
what globalism was. And I suspect that the only reason
we ever got to sort of free trade in globalism
was this same corruption. And especially in the United States
in the banking system. You know, I don't think you get.

Speaker 1 (59:53):
To the idea.

Speaker 2 (59:54):
I'll put it this way. You have to destroy the
idea of risk, which we did very well in this country.
And then you have to destroy the idea of like
actually earning money on risk evaluated ventures. You know, like
like again a loan officer going, I'm not letting any money.
You're an idiot. And when you remove that, you you
remove the value of You change the time value of

(01:00:16):
money inherently, because money is just something that eventually will
trickle down from you know, the Fed, and and and
and and for another podcast from the fiscal side, from
g because a lot of what's happening in the whole
rest of the Trump story is changing the value of
g of government spending in our GDP, and and that

(01:00:37):
is literally probably three podcasts. So I look forward to
coming back and talking about the downstream effects of the
end of globalism, because I think that's what we just
talked about here, more or less, whether we we or
anybody else realizes.

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
It, they realize what we first outline the enemy.

Speaker 2 (01:00:54):
I know, I don't know what I'm talking about, and
you know, I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're
talking about. But at the end you can look back
and be like, what the hell were we talking about?

Speaker 1 (01:01:02):
Right?

Speaker 3 (01:01:02):
And then we got And that's how that's why I
always add hock title all the episodes and on the
back end, because I never know what they're what they're
actually ready, okay, and so yeah, we hit outside.

Speaker 1 (01:01:14):
It was good, you know, it was bar I don't know,
it does not matter. What matters is that, you know,
we try and weave a narrative of some of some
important to whoever is actually listening. All right, thank you, Dexter.
That was great. We'll do the thing again and we'll
talk soon. So everybody who's listening, you know what to do.
You follow follow me on Twitter at TfL seventeen twenty eight.

(01:01:36):
You can follow it dextra White at Dexter K. White
and the Patron's Last gold Gats and Guns were out.
Keep your stick on the ice

Speaker 3 (01:02:02):
He hap to mi