Episode #228 -- Peter St. Onge and the Numbers Behind America's Critical Shift

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Yes correct.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hello and welcome to the Gold, Ghosts and Guns Podcast
for in three two one. Hello and welcome to the Gold,
Ghost and Guns Podcast for August nineteen, twenty twenty five.
My name is Amolawongga. We have a lot to talk about.
It is episode two twenty eight and I have with
me today the great pleasure of getting Peter Saint Onn's back.

(00:41):
But before I bring Peter in, if you care about
your liberty and the right to control of your own future,
I need to inform you of something cool. From October
tenth to the twelve mikhal Thora post of the Expat
Money Show is bringing together top experts from around the
world to the Expat Money Online Summit, and it's completely
free to attend. Learn how to legally protect your wealth,

(01:01):
secure second residences and citizenships, reduce your tax burden, and
own property abroad, all to safeguard your freedom. This year's
focus is Latin America, where opportunity is booming. Argentina is
shifting to free markets, El Salvador is undergoing a dramatic transformation,
and Panamon Paraguay are offering simple residency programs. A Plan

(01:21):
B is no longer optional, it's essential, so reserve your
free ticket at expet moneysummit dot com. That's expetmoneysummit dot com. Peter,
how are you? I am great.

Speaker 1 (01:34):
It's good to see again. Tom.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
It's funny I pined you about three weeks ago, right
after the EU signed a big trade deal or the
biggest trade deal ever with the with the United States,
and I really appreciated your commentary around that tariffs and
variety of other things because I think that, you know,
especially amongst Austrian or Austrian adjacent commentators, you have some

(01:58):
of the most balanced commentary beyond this and that I've seen.
And I'm not sure what I call myself anymore. I
think Austrian in Jason is probably the best way for
me to to describe myself at this point. I think
flexible is the better word for it. And so I
what I really like you to do is the is
to go through what you're seeing on this, like why

(02:20):
the you know, how why Trump has been so successful
with tariffs and the Leverty's had in the trade deals
everything else and how that, And I think eventually we'll
get into why we saw what we saw yesterday at
the White House. So take it from there. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
So I think the keel on tariffs is that, you know,
standard economic theory says that trade is good for both sides,
and that's true. However it is much better for the
seller in practice, right, And this is why countries used tariffs.
This is why China, for example, has used them for
a long time. Europe is interesting because what Europe actually does.

(02:54):
The rhetoric around the European Union is that it's this
great free trade zone. Ha, it's a fortress. And what
they do is charge countries to access. So you see
this nakedly with like Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, I think for
a long time where they were literally paying to access

(03:17):
the European Union and these were large fees. They were
like billions of dollars several percent of the GDP in
these countries and if they didn't pay those access fees
then they were going to get shut out. Now this
is interesting because Trump is aware of this, and so
what he's effectively doing with these trade deals is he's

(03:37):
saying to everybody in the world, look, you know, trade
is great and all, but I know you guys are
making out like bandits. You know, the US is roughly
one quarter of the global economy. For a lot of
these countries, places like Vietnam, we are the only game
in town. We are the basis of their economy. Something
like one third of Vietnam's economy is exporting the US.

(03:57):
That gives us a lot of leverage. And so what
Trump is doing is effectively monetizing that. He's saying to
these countries, you can have access to the US, but
you're gonna have to pay for it. You're gonna have me,
you have to give me a chunk of change. And
you know, for decades, we were lectured by the you know,
economic poohbahs that this sort of thing was was a
moral and that it would never ever work right. The

(04:19):
other countries would punish us back, and then it would
just be, you know, a war of all against war,
war of all against all. And guess what turns out
that's not true. So what these countries are doing is
just one after the next. They are bending the knee.
And the general pattern now looks like most countries are
getting fifteen percent tariffs.

Speaker 3 (04:39):
We're paying absolutely nothing in exchange.

Speaker 1 (04:42):
American exports are getting zero tariffed, So they pay fifteen
for most countries if they run a trade surplus with US,
then that's getting down towards ten. If on the other hand,
they're more or less third world labor platforms for China,
then they're getting twenty nineteen or twenty so that's places

(05:03):
like Indonesia or Vietnam. And on top of that, now
these countries are then pouring trillions of dollars into these
funds that are going to invest in the US. The
details on that are not clear right. So Japan, for example,
committed I think something like seven hundred and fifty billion
dollars that they're going to invest into the US economy.

(05:26):
That could go into energy, infrastructure, drilling, it could go
into manufacturing. Trump has been saying that we're going to
get all the profits and we're going to keep control
of the money. Japan said, no, that's not our understanding
of it. That stuff is going to get worked out.
I think there's something, you know, the optimistic view of
it is that, you know, we're looking at several trillion

(05:47):
dollars coming in because of these sort of side deals
on the tariff negotiations, and from perspective, the entire US
economy has something like four trillion of investment a year.
So two trillion is a big chunk change. I think
the only caveat that worries me a little bit is
that Trump is in love with the idea of a
sovereign wealth fund where the US government owns a whole

(06:10):
bunch of assets. He's you know, he talked about throwing
TikTok in there. He's talking about taking a share in
Intel and throwing that in there. And you know, this
is something that a lot of countries do. The Gulf
States do it, China does it, Singapore does it. Alaska,
the state of Alaska has a sovereign wealth fund that
it's not quite sovereign, but it's built off oil revenue.

(06:32):
And you know, I think the concern here, you know,
is Trump's not gonna be president forever. The next guy
who comes in sooner or later, we're gonna have a
Democrat in charge. And you can imagine what kind of
slush fund that thing is going to turn into. Historically,
those things are very corrupt. They get poured into industries
that have government connections, you know, industries that literally give

(06:54):
politician shares things like that. So that I'm a little
bit concerned how those trillions are gonna wor out. But
if we sort of moving from that onto the blue
collar workers who Trump is really targeting here, these things
are pretty fantastic, right. They give you an advantage for
producing in the US. They bring all this investment in.
Trump's been strong arming not just countries but individual companies,

(07:19):
forcing them to produce in America. And there he's got.
He says eight trillion. I think public numbers are something
like three trillion. Anyway, these are very large numbers of
investment coming into the country, and in general they're building
factories or they're building energy infrastructure, both of which are
very good for blue collar jobs.

Speaker 2 (07:39):
Yeah. No, I think that's all a really nice summary
of it. Interestingly enough, you talk about the company part
of it. I was I wasn't shocked, but I was
impressed with the deal that he forced down both the
video and am D scout. Yeah, and like that's an end.
He just put an export terrafone.

Speaker 1 (07:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (07:57):
Like it's just crazy and they and they ate it.
Yeah and yeah, and it you know, the talking point
that I've been running with am I learning to like
wrap my brain around tariffs because you know, like being
in the fully free market mindset for twenty years, it's
very difficult to then shift that mode into something else

(08:18):
and ask yourself, okay, so why would the tariffs be working?
And it became pretty obvious that, you know, the way
I started to think about it was in terms of
gross margins, right, and then all Trump is doing is
just you know, clawing back excessive gross margins for what
amounts to you know, commodity producers. The way I would
put it on pot some of the podcasts I've been

(08:39):
on where I said, look, you know, if you're Nike
and you're doing all the R and D and the
development work and the design work on Air Jordan's, you
have a right to, you know, charge two hundred dollars
fifty dollars for your sneakers because they're exclusive and you
can access to them and blah blah blah blah and
the design work, and you're going to charge you know,
thirty five forty percent gross margins on those things. If

(08:59):
you're the Indian knockoff company or the Chinese knockoff company
making air Hordens, well then you know you don't get
forty percent gross margins. But these non tariff barriers that
you just described were enforcing that. And so what did
Trump do. He said, yeah, I'm gonna find out where
your pain point is and then I'm going to drop

(09:21):
your gross margins back to six seven eight percent, which
is where they belong. And the proof in that pudding
was for me. You know, I live rural, so I
buy almost everything I can on Amazon because it's cheaper
for me to pay the basically the embedded delivery fee
and Amazon Prime. That it is for me to drive
twenty miles to go to freaking Walmart, like you know,
sixty seven and seventy cents a mile. That's that's an

(09:42):
expensive trip, right, So better to just have you know,
Ups and Amazon deliver their stuff to me. And since
we have a distribution center about seven miles outside of town,
it's actually much cheaper for Amazon in the end for
them to send everything to me. And my point here
is that what I've noticed is that all the cheap
Chinese crap that I need us be ce cables and
this and that little things that you buy on Amazon

(10:03):
all the time for twenty five or thirty bucks or
seven bucks or whatever, or exactly at the same price
that they were last year.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
Yeah, after the tariff's working place.

Speaker 1 (10:13):
Yeah, and that's What happens typically with tariffs is that
initially the companies are going to eat it because if
you know, like USB cables is a very very competitive industry, right,
it's got tiny margins. You know, you if you're producing
a bunch of stuff in China and you get a
fifteen percent tariff, you can't raise your price fifteen percent.

(10:35):
You're gonna price yourself out of the market. And so
what they're going to do instead is they're gonna they
may not bump the price at all in the short run,
and they won't, okay, because they want to try to
hard hold on a market share. And what they'll do
instead is they'll try to cut costs back home, or
they'll raise prices somewhere else try to make up the difference.
Maybe they'll raise prices in China. So they play with

(10:57):
the numbers because fundamentally they're trying to maintain market share.
The only way that a tariff is going to get
one hundred percent passed on is if the tariff is
on every single producer, including the American producers, that will
get one hundred percent passed on, right. And so that
then brings the other point, right, which is that in
the short run, company is going to eat the tariffs,

(11:19):
and we saw that, for example with Japanese car prices
that they declined in lockstep with the percent that Trump
was putting on the tariffs because they're trying to maintain
their market share. Now they do that in the short
run while they sort of stand back and see are
the tariffs going to last? Is there something else we
can do? Can we can we cut cost somewhere? Can

(11:39):
we change the mix of cars that we're exporting so
that we can still keep the same amount of profits
coming in. So they're going to, you know, sort of
go through that back and forth negotiation, and then that
brings us to the long term. In the long term,
the question is going to be how did they adjust
to all those And the most important were was it
possible to bring any of the production into the US? Right, So,

(12:02):
if you're a Chinese company, you don't care where you produce.
You're happy to produce in the US. You really don't care.
And we know this because they've all been moving to
Vietnam to try to dodge Trump's tariffs back in twenty eighteen.
So they are not nationalists. They love money just like
American companies. Do right, American companies will sell our country

(12:23):
down the river for a buck and guess what Chinese
will too, right. So a lot of those guys, they
are right now sitting in their boardrooms and they're asking, well,
can we make this crap in Arizona. If they can,
they're going to move and then the tariffs disappear. They
don't have to pay them anymore, and in fact, at
that point they can undercut all of their competitors who
they're trying to eat for lunch. So either way, the

(12:46):
entire amount of the tariffs are not going to pass through.
Some of it is going to be replaced with domestic production.
Some of that domestic production is going to be Chinese companies.
But for now, in the near term, you know, one
of like the FED, is using Paraffs. Says this main
an excuse to keep rates high. If we look back
at what happened in twenty eighteen, almost none of the

(13:07):
tariffs passed through, either companies ate them or specifically, in
the case of China, the Chinese government wrote a check
to companies that were impacted by tariffs in order to
help them get through it. So, in other words, China
was paying for the tariffs like the Chinese government, which
is pretty cool.

Speaker 2 (13:23):
Well, it was funny as maybe you bring up the
FED rate now using the excuse I think what the
FED was actually is. This gets into my argument about
the FED that Powell's keeping interest rates high because Trump
hadn't finished a trade deal with the European Union yet.
He hadn't you know the lat that you know that
was on July twenty eighth and on June sixteenth, which

(13:45):
is the FO was seeing before that we were right
in the middle of the twelve day war between Iserel
and I run like, if I'm Jerome Powell, I'm not
rates in the environment either, Like, you know, the way
I looked at it was really simple. Powell's like Trump,
all this sounds great. Show me. Like Powell may not
be from Missouri. Uh he maybe eighth generation of Virginian,
but you know, for the last few months, you know,

(14:05):
show me, and then of course we had you know this.
I just found it all really funny, like with all
the BLS stuff, like you know, during the Biden administration,
they were they were cooking the books high in order
to try and get Kamala Harris elected. So Powell was like, well,
you know, the labor market's great, can't cut rates, And
then in Trump's administration, they're like revising everything down now

(14:27):
the labor market's terrible to try and make Trump look bad.
And Palell's like, well, I guess I'm going to have
to cut rates soon. Yeah, And you know, we can see,
you can see how this has all kind of played
itself out. You eventually, one of Donald Trump's superpowers, if
not his ultimate superpower, is that He's able to expose
everybody's weakness and pain points. Yes, and he's so good
at including you know, to a lesser extent Jerome Powell's.

(14:49):
But frankly, even Jerome Powell has you know, he's just
been doing the exact same thing, but on the monetary
policy part of the stage. And then he's going to
exit the scene soon. And as long as you know,
we're not showing huge inflation, and I'll be honest with you,
like the whole two percent inflation target, we're still above target.
Like that's nonsense. Powell was never down with the two

(15:11):
percent inflation target with BERNANKI you know, you know I
really imposed it on the FED back in two thousand
and seven in the first place. Yeah, I mean that's
documented by Daniel De Martino Booth and her book on
this stuff. Like, so it's like none of this, all
of this is just feels like it's still just kind
of theater. But the reality is is that as always
Donald Trump, who has negotiated deals that you know, all

(15:33):
of these Midwites have never been able to, have never
had to, he's just knocking him down one by one
by one because he knows exactly where their pain is.

Speaker 1 (15:40):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely as And you know, I think part
of what's driving Powell is that Powell is trying to
influence policy.

Speaker 3 (15:49):
Right, It's not just that he's that he's afraid of tariffs.

Speaker 1 (15:52):
He's essentially telling Trump, nice economy, you got here, if
you get rid of the tariffs, then I can help
you out. And you know, this is in contrast with
the FED usually does. Right, Usually, whenever the central government
does anything that's going to cause economic damage.

Speaker 3 (16:06):
The FED jumps in to help with the fallout.

Speaker 2 (16:09):
Right.

Speaker 1 (16:10):
It does this every time we have a war. It
does this with you know, two thousand and eight, does
this every single recession. The FED normally does not stand
there and say, well, you guys made your bed, you
have to lay in it. Right, only now does the
FED have spine. Now that could be because Jerome Pala's
only got what seven months or nine months left, and
he's got to think about his career after that, and

(16:30):
you know, the deep state the world he's going to
go into after he finishes his term is going to
be one that pays you two hundred fifty thousand dollars
for a speech from hedge funds. Right, this is a
very left wing world. It's a very deep state aligned
world because they're trying to satisfy their regulators. You know,
finance is really just an arm of the government at

(16:52):
this point. Jerome Powell is going to be entering that world,
and that world hates Trump and they specifically hate the teriffs.
And so if he can be the man on the
wall fighting back against tariffs, this is going to be
very good for his speaking fees and for his future
employment prospects. But that's not what the FED is supposed
to be, right, The FED is not supposed to be
And I don't like to Jedi counsel that is running
our country is a dictatorship, an opposition to the democratically

(17:15):
elected president. But here we are, and you know, you
can say the same for the BLS right where you know,
the revisions go one way when the president's Democrat and
another when it's Republican.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
You know, But I get that, I get that angle
on it. But I keep going back to, you know, Powell,
private equity. Powell, which is what his nickname used to be,
is the guy who you know, none of his private
equity friends can get get him on the phone while
he was raising rates in twenty twenty two, in twenty
twenty three. So I think there's a I think it's

(17:48):
a mixture of both here. I think there's may be
a little bit of that, But I don't I think
that Powell's using boilerplate speech to do what he wanted
to do in the first place. Yeah, I always wanted
to do, which was, look, let's just see if Trump
can pull all this off and then use whatever excuse
is handy at the time to do exactly what he
thinks is the right thing to do, which is, you know,

(18:08):
is to not cut rates, and into the summer of turmoil.
Now that being said, think about what he did last year.
Everybody said that he should have cut in July, right,
twenty five basis points in July, and everybody was outraged
that he didn't do so. Of course, that's because they
were hoping that they can get the Fed to cut rates.
And then it goes to stock market and try and
make it easier for Kamala Harris to win reelection. And

(18:28):
then he cuts fifty basis points in September. Now, Trump
is no dummy. He knows full well that the Fed
not starting to cut rates six weeks before the election
is not going to affect the outcome of the election
at all, because the economy is not going to respond
to a fifty basis point cut in that six week
time period. Or did we all forget our canes? Did

(18:51):
we all forget our canes again? Talking point that it
takes six to nine months for a change in monetary
policy to filter its way through the economy and actually
affect voters. Not Wall Street, but voters, And that's what happened.
So he cuts in fifty because by that point there
was enough pain in the credit markets that he needed
to do so, and then he cuts fifty to twenty five.

(19:12):
Twenty five waits for Trump to come to office, and
I think he's going to do the exact same thing
for the rest of the year fifteen September after Jackson
holl and then twenty five twenty five. I may be
wrong about that, but that's my base case for this
point in time because he's late by a time a
rate cut. Now the labor market is now, we now
have the data that the labor market's rolling over, the
credit markets are stressed, delinquencies are up, blah blah blah

(19:34):
blah blah. Now it's perfect time to cut interest rates.
We get all this extra money coming in. Because remember
the other thing that Powell did during the Biden administration
was he was sharply critical a fiscal policy, which a
bedchair has never not even vulgar, was critical of fiscal policy.
So I mean openly, repeatedly critical of fiscal policy, saying, look,

(19:56):
if you guys aren't going to stop spending, I'm not
going to I'm not cutting rate. I'm going to keep
raising rates. And that's what he did. He followed through
on He's been very he's been he's been very clear
on that. So Trump cut spending and I'll cut rates,
and then you know, and you've got tariff revenue coming in. Great,
You've got all this other revenue coming in great the

(20:17):
books are getting balanced, and Scott Bessen is out there
doing a little bit of treasury based yield curve control,
which is also necessary. But really what he's doing is
he's he's just retiring old height. He's he's just offering.
He's just offering to buy back the high interest rate
at eighty cents on the dollar and retiring obligations that way.

(20:39):
That's what he's doing.

Speaker 1 (20:40):
So so I would love for a pile to be
a closet vulcar in that narrative, you know, I think
there's two points there that I would disagree with. So
one was he very lightly criticized Joe Biden. It was
uncharacteristic for a FED share, It's true, but you know,
he did a standard round about I don't remember the

(21:01):
exact phrasing, but it was it was. It was very
like criticism. Moreover, if he's worried about spending, if Jerome
Powell is really, you know, kind of a closet hard
money guy, you know, if we look at spending, so
in Joe Biden's last budget, he tried to hike spending
by eight hundred billion, all right, if we look at
actual spending right now, we're about four hundred billion over

(21:23):
last year.

Speaker 3 (21:24):
Yeah, we're four hundred billion over last year. But once
you strip out, like most.

Speaker 1 (21:29):
Of that is on autopilot, right, You've got about one
hundred coming out of Social Security, you got one hundred
and fifty coming out of Medicaid Medicare, you got eighty
coming out of debt interest, which is you know, that's
that's because Yellen, not Yellen, actually Powell right was using
what was in short bills and not long bills. But anyway,

(21:49):
so you know, roughly, what are you left with about
sixty six billion in additional spending on you know, the
remaining two trillion out of the budget, but in play
over that period was two point seven percent. So he
stripped that out and you're down to seventeen billion. Seventeen
billion is what Trump has grown the federal government by

(22:09):
compared it to a year ago.

Speaker 3 (22:11):
Now compare that to.

Speaker 1 (22:12):
Joe Biden trying to bump in eight hundred, which if
you do the same stripouts, that's not seventeen, that's four
hundred and seventeen. Right, So Trump is light years ahead
of Biden in terms of fiscal restraint. I attack the Republicans,
of course, because they've been promising for years that they're
going to cut and they didn't cut. They increased a

(22:32):
little bit. But you know, in terms of like whether
you know, is power fighting the good fight against a
spendee Trump, you.

Speaker 3 (22:39):
Know, things are much much better than they were under Pale.

Speaker 1 (22:44):
I think, you know, between sort of Powe putting the
pressure on to keep spending low, that one, you know,
narrative versus the narrative Palace trying to put the pressure
on in order, you know, partly just to sort of
cancel his image as you know, the author of this
terrible inflation, but possibly for the tariffs to try to
put pressure on Trump. I think that's that's probably more likely.

Speaker 2 (23:09):
Yeah, that's all fair, but there's always as always, I'll
I'm not going to dish gallop here, though it will
feel like it. But you got to remember that there's
also the Euro dollar system that he's also working the
He's working that angle on as well. Yes, and I
think that that's the bigger that's the bigger role here.
What I this is one of the things that I

(23:29):
have been you know, trying to take the totality of
what I'm seeing, the stable coin bills, everything and I've
talked about this another podcast. We've talked about on other
episodes with other people, and I haven't talked about it
with you, But it's like, look, you have to drain
the leverage out of the euro dollar system if you're
going to then start to drain you know, the the
ng O money and everything else that's being used as

(23:51):
a basically a slush fund to you know, keep to
keep old Europe alive and to keep the euro dollar
system vibrant and capable of insantiating a color revolution here
in the United States, which they've worked very very assiduously
to try and pull off and have failed miserably. And
I have some interesting color on that that I've been

(24:12):
told about this.

Speaker 1 (24:13):
They have a color revolution running as we speak in
Serbia right now. So they're they're they're definitely alive in
kicking despite the despite Doge.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
Sure, yeah, but but but the point of that is
is that the first thing you've got to kind of
do is like set the market and set you know,
the period where we can raise interest rates. Sofur is running,
lib Ar is not setting the price of international dollars.
All of that stuff is happening, and we have to
start and we have to continue to put keep the
pressure on until we can get all the other things

(24:43):
taken care of, so a trade deal with the European Union.
That's point number one. What we've now seeing over the
last four or five days between Putin coming to Anchorage
and then everybody else being summoned to the White House
and trying to schmooze Trump and failing miserably in my estimation,
And like the stage is set for Powell to then

(25:04):
change the the narrative around monetary policy. But the same time, Peter,
and this is like should be music to every Austrian's ears.
It's very clear that they're going to reform the FED
and that I just think Powell's a scapegoat for it
because he happens to be the guy in office right now.
And that's fine. And you know, Trump is was never

(25:26):
kind up happy with Powell, but that's because Trump thinks
he can just grow his way out of the out
of the problem. But unfortunately, you have an institutional inertia
within the financial the global financial community, which won't necessarily
allow that to happen as long as Trump doesn't have
you know, this first term, Trump didn't have the political
control that he needed in order to affect what he

(25:46):
needed to do. So the first thing to do is
get control of the monetary policy. Then allow every then
allow the system to run its course. And then you know,
in the second term, Yeah, like Powell is going to
be a little low to the party, that's okay, the
United States. What he's really saying is that the United
States economy can handle four and a half percent far

(26:07):
better than everybody else can, which is why everybody else
is cutting and he's not. And you know, if you
want to talk out of both sides of your mouth,
Donald Trump and say the economy is the greatest eva
and yadayada, YadA, Well that doesn't. Good economies don't go
along with low interest rates. Good economies go along with
raising interest rates in the Keynesian model of the world. Now,
if we're going to change the model, great, But as

(26:28):
of right now, you've got to FED. You've got a
FED that is overwhelmingly democrat and that and the culture
within the FED is also something that Palell has to
fight ultimately at the end of the day. And this
is where I get it. I've had these arguments with
with with other people on this. The chairman is in
control of interest rates and pretty much nothing else. Ultimately, yes,

(26:54):
he can sets the agenda and everything else, but the
individual you know, the twelve regional banks have their you know,
feftoms and everything else. The Fed's not a monolith, right,
It's a mess, and it needs to and it needs
to be broken down. No argument here that it needs
to be broken down. It needs to be reformed. And
I think that what Trump is doing is using this

(27:15):
fight with Powell as a means by which to set
that narrative to the people unlike us, who have no
clue as to what the FED actually does or that
it even exists. Yeah, and you start that by going
by going after Powell because he's an easy target. Yeah,
that's the way I said, I swear.

Speaker 1 (27:31):
Yeah. Yeah. There was a poll recently something like ninety
percent of Americans say that they have no idea what
the FED does. And you know, which is a problem,
right because you know, not only is it undemocratic, but
you don't even have voter feedback, and people have no
idea what it does.

Speaker 3 (27:46):
And of course most people, you know, their main contact.

Speaker 1 (27:48):
With the FED is reading newspaper articles about the FED
fighting inflation, so they would conclude that, oh, what the
FED does is fights inflation. Of course, that's the precise
opposite of what a central bank is. You know, it
is literally right, the deal is, you guys can counterfeit
money in an exchange, you have to finance government debt.
This is the classic you know, going back five hundred years.
It is literally an inflation machine. I think you're absolutely

(28:12):
right that Trump wants to fundamentally change the FED. The
question is is that going to be a structural change
or is that just going to be turning the FED
into his bitch where you know, every president from now
on is going to say this is what interest rates
are going to be, and then the FED is going
to say yes, sir.

Speaker 3 (28:25):
And I mean ideally, you know, I'm kind of okay
with that.

Speaker 1 (28:29):
The academic research says that independent central banks control inflation better. However,
there's a big caveat which is at the best majority
of something like seventy percent of that research is funded
by central banks. So what do you think they're gonna say.

Speaker 2 (28:44):
Well, it's the the other thing is that they're wrong.
I mean, this is where this is where my you know,
where my you know, my deep dive into Austrian economics,
you know years ago led me, which is that look
at the end of the day, and this is where
you get into stuff with now, the stuff the work
that like people like Walter Block and Gary North and
a couple of others did for years when they said, look,

(29:05):
we don't even live in a Caynesian world anymore. Canes
would be rolling over in his grave if he saw
what these people were doing. We live in a post
and effect Samuelsonian world. Where Paul Samuelson's textbook was the
was the college textbook on how to write on how
to run economic macroeconomics for over what two generations. And
so everybody's trained in this mindset, including all of the
staff economists at the FED. And so yes, there's there's

(29:30):
there's there's normalcy bias, there's confirmation bias within all that research.
And uh, you know these aren't research papers, He's a
position papers. You know, you kind of to look at
it as kind of like oppo research more than there's
anything else. So at the end of the day, if
you've got you know, Powell was installed by Wall Street.
He was recommended to Trump by by Wall Street. In

(29:51):
twenty seventeen, Trump had no idea who he was, and
they just you know, they came in Manuchin and the company,
they said, this is this is our God is who
we want. And then and then the first thing he
does is he starts the transition from a live board
of sofa. And you know, the more I've been thinking
about this, the more it's pretty obvious that Wall Street
set this in motion and then left Trump to be

(30:13):
their sacrifice, to be there, basically their distraction while they
were running the opera, the operation behind the scenes to
fundamentally change the rules of how we're going to do business,
and that that needed to change first before we can
get the political change that would be durable. And that's
and that process, sadly just takes time. And and then

(30:36):
we have COVID, which was a clear counter attack against
all this and left Powell with, you know, a damaged
reputation and blah blah blahlah blah. So like, you know,
there's a politically there, You're you're you're absolutely correct in
invoking the political angle on the FED in this discussion.
The question is, you know, to what a what angle

(30:57):
do you have to take on the UH on politics
in order to figure out you know why we're even
where we are because where we are is in a
far better place than where we would have been had nothing,
had there not been the opportunity to do what we're
doing now Trump, I just see, Trump's first term was
an opportunity to change the nature of the game board. Yeah,

(31:17):
and uh it's taken eight years for it to play
itself out, and now Powell can leave the scene. I
think with this head hell high, with handling handing off
the situation to Bessett and Trump to reform the FED,
and he probably knows better than anybody else what needs
to be reformed. That's my take on the situation. I
may be wrong about that. He may be. He may

(31:38):
be fully institutionally captured, as Scott Bessen has has alluded to,
but I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (31:45):
Yeah, you and I probably differ on on Powell. I
think sort of his biggest mistake was writing a black
check a blank check during COVID. Uh, so the FED
financed all those I think people like you or I
were sitting around in COVID and we were like, how
in the hell are you American people putting up with this?

(32:06):
You know, with the lockdowns, destroying small business, destroying jobs,
overwhelming blue collar jobs. And of course the reason they
put up with it was because the FED wrote a
I think it was a six trillion dollar check. At
one point the the you know, in terms of increase
in the money supply, I think the Fed's balance sheet
itself was up something like five trillion, right, So in
other words, that's money that they printed. They flooded out

(32:28):
in the market, and that's what financed you know, people
sitting on couch. You do that to ten twenty percent
of the voters, and what do you know, you know
you're going to swing it. And so I think that
in a sense, you know, if Powell hadn't done that,
no other country would I had the confidence to do
that because they would have.

Speaker 3 (32:44):
Been the dirtiest shirt in the laundry basket.

Speaker 1 (32:48):
So I mean, for me, anyway, like in terms of
Palell's legacy, I think that's that's pretty much. Maybe it's
not quite as it burns, but it's definitely up there.

Speaker 2 (32:58):
Well okay, and again I will push back on that
and say that it's also Trump's biggest mistake for signing
the Cares Act the first place, which then created it,
which you know, so It's like one, Powell held out
until Trump signed the Cares Act. If you go back
over it, he didn't. He didn't throw the money out
there until Trump signed the Cares Act, which policy brow
beat him into signing because they had you know this

(33:19):
Trump at that point was he was a mess. And again,
you know, the Federal Reserve ultimately is has been tasked
since the Banking Act in nineteen thirty five with backstopping
the US treasury market. Now that is a problem, but
it is also the Fed's mandate, right, So like it

(33:40):
or not, he didn't really have a choice because Congress
told him he didn't have a choice. If we had
the nineteen thirteen FED, which was only there to support
the commercial paper market, maybe Powell would have been able
to hang out. So again, to hold out again, it's
like everything else. You know, there is a there is

(34:03):
a nuanced reality to the situation. And look, if I'm
drowing Powell and the entire world is saying, look, this
is what's gonna happen, and we're going to destroy the
Like okay, fine, this is what you want. You can
get everything you want. You're not gonna be very happy
about it in the end because when it's all said
and done, I'm gonna I'm gonna gang all that money
back to Powell's credit. The Fed's balance sheet now is
lower by a significant amount under what it was pre COVID.

(34:27):
Powell has reduced as balance sheet.

Speaker 1 (34:29):
No, no, it's a mile yeah yeah, no, it hit.

Speaker 2 (34:32):
It hit below six trillion dollars.

Speaker 1 (34:33):
No, let me, it's numbers. Alright. Wait a minute, okay, okay, this.

Speaker 2 (34:38):
Is that hit that that hit the news wire three
or four months ago. That's all data.

Speaker 1 (34:43):
No way, all right, wait a minute, why am I?

Speaker 2 (34:47):
All right?

Speaker 1 (34:48):
Fred? Let's see balance sheet total assets less eliminations. All right,
we're at six point six at the moment. We were
at four point one. Pre COVID, we.

Speaker 2 (35:02):
Were at six point we were at six point two
at one point. So whether the Fed is added to
the balance in recent times, but no, all.

Speaker 1 (35:08):
Right, so pre COVID. Let's see, I don't know, let's
call it pre COVID. The last day of twenty nineteen,
it was four point two. Then the FED took at
the eight to nine, and now they've qted it down
to six six. We're still light years ahead. Yes, he's

(35:31):
made progress, you know, QT I think has been better.

Speaker 3 (35:34):
It's been at a faster pace.

Speaker 1 (35:36):
I think a lot of us expected. I figured it
was gonna be lip service that they weren't actually going
to drain very much. He has drained what two point
three trillion, but that were still they've got what two
point two trillion in cash saved up, And that's actually
topical because that's one of the things that I think
Kevin Warris has been talking about, where if the FED

(35:56):
comes in with the new chair and slash his rates,
you know, normally, as you know, that would set off inflation.
You mentioned earlier, You've got the lag might be as
much as twelve to eighteen months, but normally slashing rate,
you know, if he cuts off like two hundred basis points.
I think Trump at one point said three hundred basis
points is what he wants isn't cut, which is insane,
but you know that's also how Trump talks. You know,
this can be unbelievableright with him, but any rate, what

(36:21):
what what's interesting coming out of warsh is that if
they cut really hard like that, the idea is that
they can just crank up QT so they can cancel
out the low rates, and so the way he characterizes
it as is Robin hood. So you know, mainstream gets
lower rates, mortgage rates, credit cards, and so on, but

(36:42):
Wall Street he takes a haircut on that stash of
bonds that the FED bought up.

Speaker 2 (36:49):
Fair enough, fair enough, I'm okay with that. And if
that's Kevin Worsters and analysis, I all agree with that. Yeah,
I'm okay with that. Let's go back to let's go
back to let's go back to more QT.

Speaker 1 (36:57):
But but of course, at some point run a QT, right,
and so you know, kind of the the punch line
on that is that that could buy Trump three years
of slashing rates with no inflation. But whoever's coming next
we can't slam.

Speaker 2 (37:14):
Well, yeah, I mean again, it depends on how we're
It depends on how we're dealing with the with the
way the government is being funded as well, of course,
because remember we're not dealing with we're not dealing with
massive deficits. We're not dealing with you know, we're not
dealing with budget. If we're dealing with a fiscal house
that's in order. And now let's go back to the
tariff revenue. Now we're talking about and now we're talking

(37:36):
about you know, and we're talking about the boomers aging outs. Security,
medical costs are already starting to fall off. I mean,
this is a this is a process which you know,
over that three year time span, you know, thirty to
forty billion dollars a month in tariff revenues all of
a sudden changes the nature of that beast, you know, tremendously.
And and that's just the beginning of it. Clearly, what
Trump wants to do is the growest way out of

(37:57):
this and accept the existing inflation as as wrote, where
this is where we are. We're not going back to
pre COVID pricing levels on anything, and then we go
from there. So that's that's clearly their plan.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
Yeah, I agree, And that's really the big game, and
it's it's the biggest game.

Speaker 3 (38:16):
Right, So we are an unsustainable physical path.

Speaker 1 (38:19):
What we learned this year when you take the GOP
sweep in Washington, right, So we had GOP control of everything,
including the Supreme Court, and we had Elon Mosk who
he's a force of nature. Right, So you put Doge
together with the GOP and we should have had massive
cuts in spending, which the GOP has been promising for

(38:40):
you know, seventy five years and instead we had seventeen
billion jump. Okay, it's not that bad, but compared to right,
we had the perfect storm. Trump for all of the
attacks he gets on spending. Every single budget in his
first term, he proposed huge cuts over like one hundred
and fifty two hundred billion, which was a lot of money.
Then every time Congress said no. So Trump is constitutionally

(39:04):
opposed to spending. He has tried to cut spending over
and over. You had Doje, you had Gop Sweep and nothing,
and that to me, I think that's a big reason
why gold took off and bitcoin as well. Is that, like,
once you know, you have like a natural experiment, is
it possible if we just vote the right guys into office,
can we cut spending? And now we know the answer

(39:26):
to that natural experiment, Absolutely not. There is no way
to fix it. The only way that we're ever going
to cut spending is that we got to hit the crisis.
And I mean, you know, you would need Democrats to
wake up tomorrow and agree to a balanced budget amendment
in order to hit this thing off. Maybe Warren Buffett,
he's got a suggestion where he says, if Congress can't
balance the budget. They all have to resign with a

(39:47):
lifetime ban from politics. That would work, but that ain't happening.
So realistically, we are one hundred percent headed off the cliff.
The only question is how long is it going to take?
And that's fascinating from an investment perspective, Right, you can
continue on let's say equities for a long time, right,
like if the end of the game is coming in
twenty forty, who cares right now? Right, you can literally

(40:09):
sell your Nvidia tomorrow. Okay, your your horizon is not
fifteen years. Your horizon is like this year for tax
purposes or whatever. So you know, sort of the background
here is that, yes, we can continue making money. Guys
like Peter Schiff, you know who. You know, this guy's
always falling next Tuesday, You're gonna lose a lot of money.

(40:29):
My opinion with guys like that, I love Peter Shift,
but from an investment perspective, the guy's toxic.

Speaker 3 (40:35):
He will destroy your life savings.

Speaker 1 (40:38):
But in terms of you know, like for investment strategy,
we are headed off the cliff. It's probably gonna take
a long time because they're gonna move heavy on Earth,
you know, they're gonna monetize everything they can. They're gonna
find sneaky ways to tax us A, They're gonna let
inflation roll. You know, early in Biden inflation Powell was
talking about a three percent target, right, which would massively

(40:59):
ramp up the effective inflation tax. There's a lot of ways.
There's a lot of contingency tools that they have, you know,
to stretch it out so like the end's not coming
in three years or anything.

Speaker 3 (41:10):
You can still make money as it is. But I think,
sort of as a.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
Background investment thesis, there is nothing stopping this train.

Speaker 2 (41:19):
Well, Okay, I'm not don't I don't buy that argument ultimately,
because I think that there's a I mean, I get it,
and I'm not saying that I'm not hedged for it.
I'm not telling I'm not saying that I don't have
my people from an investment perspective, not prepared for it. Dude,
we were in bitcoin eight hundred dollars, for Christ's sake,

(41:41):
the same thing with you know, it's called gold, goats
and guns for a reason. Right. But when I think
about all of this, the focus on debt is the
is one side of it. And what I've been exploring,
is what do we do with the assets side of

(42:01):
the balance? Yeah, okay, when you look at when you
look at the country and you only focus on one
side of it, deficits that this that everything else is fine. Okay,
But what do you do? What do you do when
you've got assets that you've written to zero because you've
hived them off from environmental policy, or you've done this,

(42:21):
or you've done that, and all the regulatory scheme that
has made it, that has brought us to this perilous point.
I'll be honest with you, Peter, I've been you know.
I do this because this is what I do, which
is to think about the recent history or think about
a current situation and then reframe it. Right, Let's reframe
the last seventeen years post two thousand and eight as

(42:45):
the Great Depression. Let's reframe it that way. It doesn't
feel like the Great Depression because ultimately they papered it
over and we all and you know, and we lived
off of the last bit of the savings. But look
at where we are. Culture really the border of this
that the invasion all of this stuff. I think we've

(43:05):
already hit rock Bob as a people and now this
is the statement of we cannot go any farther. We
now need to figure out we need to get rid
of all of these first world problems like CO two
is a pollutant and a poison and all of this,
and we none of this stuff matters anymore. What matters
is what I watched a three minute video of iquitd

(43:26):
it out last night of Mike Rowe talking about the
absolute need for one hundred and fifty thousand electricians and
welders to build submarine. Can you get them to me tomorrow? Right?
Five hundred thousand electricians that kind of thing. And when
someone and when asked about, goes, where are you going
to get those people? Where are they? And Mike's like,

(43:46):
they're eight years old. Yeah, that's where they're So what
do you do between now and then? Like, and I
got news for you, Like, if Mike ro ran our
economic policy, we'll probably be in a better state.

Speaker 1 (43:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (43:59):
So the but clearly the other side of what Trump
Investment and everybody had been talking about is what do
we do with the assets that have been written to
zero on the balance sheet? Yeah, and how do we
unlock those to change the book value of the United
States and then use that as a means by which
to attract investment. And I think that what you've what

(44:20):
you alluded to, what you talked about in the trade
deals and the investment that Trump is brought in, I
think that's part of the key. And then everything else
is happening on the regulatory side as well.

Speaker 1 (44:30):
Yeah, I think I'm absolutely right, And that's a big
reason why I've been optimistic. It's one reason I'm optimistic
on tariffs, right because some of that is going to
be replaced domestically.

Speaker 2 (44:40):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (44:40):
And you know, earlier I was saying it's the big game, right,
meaning that on the one hand, you've got this giant
boulder of debt, and the debt's been growing and there's
no end to it. But the other hand, exactly what
you're saying, that the mere fact that the American people
elected Trump twice right against I mean, everything was a

(45:01):
rate against him. And you could say the first time
was a fluke, but the second time they went even harder,
you know, And you know twice is not a quite
you know what is it? Enemy action? Right? The fact
they did it twice? Americans intentionally elected this guy to
shake up the entire system and you know, when you
look at crises, the concern is always that people will

(45:25):
fix things in a crisis, right, nineteen ninety one Soviet Union,
they fixed it. Right. Russia today is much better than
it was in nineteen ninety despite the war. But what
you hope is that you can get that without a
major crisis. The ideal is that you might get it
with a little mini crisis that people might get upset.

(45:45):
You know, in the nineteen seventies we saw this, right.
So the nineteen seventies were not the Great Depression, they
were not the end of the Republic. They were not
nineteen ninety Soviet Union. They were bad, you know, public safety, inflation,
joblessness hit I think whatever, ten twelve percent, maybe fourteen.

Speaker 3 (46:00):
They were bad, but.

Speaker 1 (46:02):
They were just bad enough. It was like falling off
a cliff and then hitting a ledge. You know, twelve
feet down, it's gonna hurt r but you're not dead yet, okay.
And maybe at that point, you know, you can start
asking whether he should keep walking off that cliff, and
you can argue that that's exactly what happened, you know,
because of two thousand and eight, and then you had Obama.
Obama in two thousand and eight looks a lot like

(46:24):
the nineteen seventies, right, you had this kind of precipitating
economic crisis, and they had this this.

Speaker 3 (46:29):
This goofball who made a lot of things worse.

Speaker 1 (46:32):
And you know, of course Obama led into Trump and
then now you know, Biden blessed Biden. He was like
Jimmy Carter on steroids. I mean, he just he ticked
every single box. We've got the inflation and it was perfect.
It's like God himself reached down and gave us a
Jimmy Carter repeat so we could get a Reagan moment.
So but yeah, I think you're absolutely right. And you know,

(46:54):
Bessents talked about how how you know we need six
percent growth so we can grow out of the debt,
which is interesting because that shifts the narrative, right, that's
shifting the narrative to growing the pie. Now, now a
pessimist could say, okay, well, Bessent now understands that we're
not going to cut spending and so that ship is sales.
So now we move on to the other part. But

(47:15):
as you say, growing the pie is the more important part.
Our national debt is not that big. If we increase
GDP by say a percent a year, right, compounded over
thirty years, we actually start out growing the debt at
some point. And the reason why it's the great game
for Trump is that, yes, he's got this existential debt,

(47:39):
and Trump is saying, you know what, I'm actually gonna
do it. Screw it, I'm going to go for the
sixt percent growth. I want America to grow like Singapore.
You know he's doing that with the tariffs. He's doing
the mass repeal of regulation is a doage tool that's
supposed to be cutting fifty percent of regulation, something like
one hundred thousand regulations. I'd be massive, especially for small
business because regulations small is much harder. You know, if

(48:02):
you go to a small town in America today, you
know it used to be a little mom and pop
bed and breakfast, little general store, a little restaurant. Now
it's like a burger king and a gas station. That's
regulations right. So I mean Trump is he's actually going
for it to try to grow us fast enough that
we could grow out of the debt. If that's the case,
you know it's going to be incredible for asset prices.

(48:25):
It's gonna be incredible for blue collar wages really across.

Speaker 2 (48:27):
The board, it's gonna be well, I mean, honestly, Peter,
it's it. I think his I think his his sights
are even bigger than that. And this gets me into
what I'm thinking about with in terms of his uh
bringing Fanny and Freddy out of conservatorship line. There's so
many pieces to this that I look at it all
and I'm like, I can I know what he's trying
to do. He's trying to free up the cash flow

(48:48):
the little class who've been burdened with this insane level
of taxation and debt. And that's why he keeps talking about, well,
let's just get rid of income. Actual for everybody under
make a nund one hundred and fifty grand a year.
They don't pay any I mean, they don't pay The
lions here become taxes anyway, like they don't, right, So
and then you know, and what is inflation done? But
you know, but crept up the uh the tax brackets

(49:12):
so that the tax brackets don't grow at the same
rate that inflation does, so you know, a larger percentage
of the taxes fall in the middle class. And this
is all designed. Every bit of this is designed. And
this is why that meeting in Washington yesterday was so important,
because those are the people that gave us that system,
and Trump just told them off. I mean, I hate

(49:32):
to be like, I know, I don't really hate to
be blunt, but like, the point is is that that's
a system that we didn't sign off on as people.
We were bribed. We were bribed into it because of
FED policy and deficit spending and tripping's the lemon and
all of this stuff, but we didn't benefit ultimately in

(49:55):
the long run for it. We have a GDP that
is nice and nominal and terrible in real terms, meaning
it's not building real wealth for American people. So one
of the things that came out of the podcast that
a recent podcast they did with katelin Long also in
this this this this high Mind Quasiu of Libertarian thinking
on this is that one of the points that she

(50:16):
made when we were talking about stable coins and the
Genius Act and all of that, is that she reminded
us that seventy percent of the credit in the United
States even today is produced is generated by small and
regional banks. They're the ones building the libraries and the
strip malls and the this and the that, and you know,
the actual acupuncturists, and you know the small office spaces

(50:37):
and all the rest of it that's not JP Morgan.
And then those banks need to not be competing with
JP Morgan for car loans, right, BofA shouldn't be in
the car loan industry. The small banks should be in
the car loan industry. And that's part of the end
run that the stable Coin act is can set in motion,

(50:58):
which is a return of the means by which all
of this investment money comes in and gets flooded into
the local markets because these banks can now can now
monitor an effect directly monetized their reserves and do the
end run around the FED by now having a transmission
system that runs through the Treasury and their own reserves.
And we get back, in a nascin sense, if you

(51:21):
start to think about it, back to a much more
free banking model that built the country post reconstruction or
post Andrew Jackson's getting rid of the second Bank of
the United States, which is you know, that's another angle
on this. And so I think all of those things
are what's in play. And I know, having talked to
people within that are in omb that that is the

(51:43):
fucking plan is they have a problem with this Congress.
This congress was designed in you know, Trump won in
a landslide and should have had a forty seat durable
majority in the House and an eight seat or nine
seat majority in the Senate. He should have had that
political revolution, and they stole those seats. Okay, it was

(52:04):
clearly that clear from like the minute they tried to
shoot him, and he survived that. Now the goal was
how do we steal all the down ballance which made
no sense statistically. How do we do this such that
we leave him with a compromised Congress. Why I think
Trump is working the political angle so hard is to
get to the midterms and have that revolution happen in Congress,

(52:26):
and then we're going to see the Congress that does
what you just said can't be done, which is to
actually get the durable spending cuts through a different congress. Right,
because what we have now is still we still have
enough holdovers within the old system, the McConnell's and the
Schumers and the Thunes into this one and that one.
Those people all need to go away and they're all

(52:47):
certain age out. Yeah, and some of them are going
to wind up, you know, getting subpoenas. I think whether
they go to jail or not is a different story,
but just the threat of the subpoena alone is enough
to get them, yeah, you know, to start playing ball.

Speaker 1 (53:02):
Yeah, I mean, I hope you're right. Trump certainly seems
to be abnormally focused on the midterms. Most presidents just
kind of do whatever they're going to do. Early on.
You know, Bill Clinton his big thing with school uniforms.
If you were around at the time, it was just
goofy crap. I was yeah, yeah, and you know, but
Trump seems very, very tactically interested in the mid terms.

(53:23):
He seems to think that they can't expand in the midterms.
Historically the ruling party does worse than midterms, but he
seems to think that they've got a chance. He just
put this thing out on the mail in ballots, right,
So he's he's very He does seem to have plans
for the midterm, and you know, to be hoping that
maybe he can get a lot more in you.

Speaker 3 (53:42):
Know, I think during one big beautiful during the big beautiful.

Speaker 1 (53:46):
Bill you know, I, like many of us on the
right were attacking it because I wanted it to be
more aggressive. Trump was defending it, but I completely understood
what he was doing at the time, Like I never
went after him for defending I was like, yes, no,
I understand.

Speaker 3 (53:59):
You got to go to war with the army you have.

Speaker 1 (54:01):
Trump's got to say certain things, He's got to keep
certain relationships. But that puts in an interesting frame if,
as you say, he's basically just trying to do a
placeholder at the moment because the congressional majorities are so thin,
and then what he's hoping for is that they can
do a landslide during the midterms. But it's striking. You know.
The gerrymandering that Democrats do against Republicans is at this

(54:23):
point famous. Even in the Senate, something like one out
of five Democrat seats are in red states. A single
Republican seat is in a blue state, meaning a state
that Kamala won. So I mean that's a seven seat
swing in the Senate, which is much less gammable, right,
you know, the House you can jerrymander. So yeah, I

(54:45):
think without a doubt, if just to put it in perspective,
if every state fully jerrymandered, just kind of get a
sense of like what the country sort of should look like.
It would be something like forty to fifty seats that
would swing to Republicans. So that's seven seven in the Senate,
fifty in the House. They would have been able to

(55:06):
cut a massive amount in one big beautiful if they
have those kinds of margins.

Speaker 2 (55:12):
No, no, I agreed. And this is the this is
the part that is is is is clear, which is
that we've been gasolet into believing that this is a
forty nine to fifty one country and it's not right.
It's a sixty forty country. Yeah, it's a sixty forty country.
And the rest of it is all is all just
is all just nonsense, and you know, inflated voter rolls,

(55:34):
cheating this, that and everything else. A lot of us
want to believe that our system is you know, that
there's a natural kind of half a percent or one
percent corruption within our our our our our electoral system,
which is just that's just human nature, is the way
it is. I'm okay with it. It's not it's like
seven percent, yeah, I mean it's it's it's an enormous number.
And you look and then when you do that, and

(55:56):
you when you understand when you finally really understand that.
And then you look across the pond that Europe, and
you look at the way they run their elections over there,
you realize it's the exact same playbook. It's the exact
same game that they play. It's just tuned for a
parliamentary system. They do the same thing here, and they're

(56:19):
making noise about wanting to resens us, to redo the census,
to redo this, or redo all of these things. And
the point of all of that is to say, our elections,
even if we clean them up, are still dirty, terminally corrrected,
and we have a lot of work to do. And
so then the question is, okay, well that's a problem.

(56:40):
That's not going to change anything. And this is the problem,
how do you actually get to the mid terms where
you can get any of this stuff that you want
to get done done. Enter Dni Gap and she's the
one putting the Manila envelopes on the very important desks
of the very important people around the world, which is

(57:01):
giving Trump the leverage to come in and cut the
trade deals that he is and get things past it.
Because he shouldn't have gotten one big boot off the
bill passed. Yeah, it should not have passed. He does
not have a real majority in the House. He does
not have a real majority in the sense he is
nominal majorities in both in the legislation. What he has
is a bunch of people who will who will say

(57:23):
they'll they'll back him because they're nominally Republicans. But what
they're actually asking for is more war in Ukraine, or
more this, or more this or more that. What are
you going to give me for that? Because they have
enough leverage over him, because of the majorities are so thin,
because they've stole so many freaking seats in the twenty
twenty four election. And I'm I'm going to my grave
on this one, folks. I know I'm right about this.

(57:44):
This is not conspiracy. This is just basic electoral electoral
freaking statistics that have made no sense since twenty eighteen
at all.

Speaker 1 (57:53):
Yeah, there's a fascinating dynamic, all right. So many countries
in the world cheat on elections. It's a permanent temptation
at the maker, whether you're in Latin America, whether you're
in Africa, whether in Europe, and the pattern is fascinating.
Once a party starts cheating, right, the key to any
political party is that it is a permanent civil war
between its voters and special interests.

Speaker 3 (58:15):
Right, so the voters wants, you know, whatever.

Speaker 1 (58:17):
Republicans or Democrats are selling us, so let's call it democrats.
You know, they want a good life in New York
City and Detroit and for you know, public safety this okay,
And the special interests, of course have other ideas how
to use that money or you know, sometimes the actively.
So anyway, it's a permanent civil war. And so what
happens is that once a party, like in Mexico or something,

(58:38):
once it starts cheating outright, the party goes insane because
what happens is at that point it doesn't have to write.
It can ignore the other size voters, was the whole point.
But it can also ignore its own voters. And so
in that permanent civil war, the special interests get the
upper hand. Next thing, you know, it does absolutely crazy things,

(59:00):
for example, defunding the police and black neighborhoods, where blacks
are the overwhelming majority of crime in the US.

Speaker 3 (59:06):
Massive, whatever the commit rate is, the victim.

Speaker 1 (59:09):
Rate is similar. All right, massive men are women, okay,
like just I mean bunker stuff, right, So you see
this crazy stuff going on. You say, ah, I know
why that's happening, because they're cheating, right, the party no
longer belongs to the people. And you can see this
in real time with the Democrat Party where the Democrat Party,
how do I know they're cheating because they ditched their voters, right,

(59:32):
Their voters were rust belt union guys, inner city mothers,
you know, who want to be able to walk to
church in Harlem without getting shot. That is their base,
since they've been their base for one hundred years. They
walked away from it. How do I know Republicans aren't
cheating because they did the exact opposite. They've been, you know,
reaching across the aisles that've been you know, trying to
appeal to Hispanic voters, have been trying to appeal to

(59:54):
union guys, which worked.

Speaker 3 (59:56):
Actually, the Hispanic voter thing worked, although not.

Speaker 2 (01:00:00):
That was that was actually the easiest because most Hispanics
are really based ultimately at the end of.

Speaker 1 (01:00:04):
The day, which is fascinating. I mean, you know, this
is the great irony because Democrats imported these guys to
be reliable Democratic voters and uh and it ain't working.
And now you know, the next front here, I think
is going to be the cities, this long order thing.
I want Trump to stick with that.

Speaker 2 (01:00:17):
I want him to go.

Speaker 1 (01:00:18):
Boo Kelly hard on this. By the way, we've had
presidents who've suspended havias corpus meaning mass roundups and no trials.
So there's there's actually a lot of constitutional room in
there if he wants to go that direction.

Speaker 2 (01:00:31):
Uh well, and I'll say that they're There's what they are,
what they're doing right now is they're actually setting Trump
up to become Lincoln. Yeah, so that they can they
can choose to then say, well, we need to secede
from this this guy. That's what they're clearly planning. That's
what Gavin Grusom is doing out in California. That's what
they're doing in New York. I mean, that's what they're
doing in New York. I mean it's really really obvious

(01:00:53):
to me what their what their plan is. And that's
why they install Mark Carne in Canada to be you know,
an oppositional uh, to be a classic oppositional force and
candidate against the United States. Meanwhile, you know, all the
all the cartel drug money is being wandered, be it
Chinese or Cia or Mexican or whatever. It's all being

(01:01:13):
wandered through Canadian banks. We know this, like it's it's
a big deal. This is all of this is a
big deal. So like we have to start treating these
people like hostile actors. Yeah, yeah, not like people that
we actually share a country with. They need to be
we need to be looking at them that way. And
it's going to and this is what this is where

(01:01:35):
you know, everybody's kind of libertarian fefees need to you know,
be dealt with in you know, in therapy for a
little while. At times you have to just stand up
and say that's enough, enough is enough, and we're doing this,
and then we will deal and then we'll deal with
the consequences of quote unquote violating people's you know, non

(01:01:56):
aggression principle rights or whatever afterwards. But when you're at war,
you fight the war to win. You don't fight the
war with your morals intact. Sorry, every you know ain't no,
you know, it doesn't work that way. You have to
at some point say I am willing to do X,
Y and Z to get these things done because in
the long run, this will be better for everybody. And

(01:02:16):
then we can fix. We can fix the over corrections afterwards,
which is what happened, you know, after reconstruction.

Speaker 1 (01:02:24):
Yeah, in many ways, right, And you know, the game
they've been playing is that their guy drives a truck
through the constitution, whether it's fd R, Wilson, Lincoln.

Speaker 3 (01:02:33):
I'm taking Lincoln as a left winger here.

Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
They drive a.

Speaker 3 (01:02:37):
Truck through the constitution, and then we have to do
the whole be better.

Speaker 1 (01:02:41):
You know, follow the rules, queen what is it, the
Mark Marquess of Queensberry rules.

Speaker 2 (01:02:47):
On the way back.

Speaker 3 (01:02:48):
So you know, when they complain, you.

Speaker 1 (01:02:50):
Know, for example, if they have some ridiculous court decision
that they lay on Trump, ignore it.

Speaker 3 (01:02:55):
Why because that's what FDR did. If they would like
to cut a.

Speaker 1 (01:02:58):
Deal where we're going to vacate every single thing FDR did,
I'll take that deal and then I'll tell Trump you
got to behave now, guy.

Speaker 3 (01:03:05):
But until that day, right, No, we got to do
what we got to do at self defense.

Speaker 2 (01:03:11):
Yeah, no, I agreed, And it's ultimately it's a very
simple self defense argument. And you know, and if that means, hey,
I'm one of the things I really want him to repeal.
When this is all said, and done is the Banking
Act in nineteen thirty five, and get us back to
the pre get us back to a reformed FED that
only backstops the commercial paper market. Yeah, you know, and
uh and enforces the the international value of the dollar

(01:03:34):
to the standing roupbo facility in a foreigner rebouf facility,
you know, And and interact with foreign central banks, and
the Treasury contake care of the rest of it, and
the and the commercial and the domestic commercial banking system
can deal with itself. We have a we have a
dead endex rate to to figure out what the cost
of dollars is internally. We don't need to know what

(01:03:55):
the cost of dollars should be in Malaysia. We all
give a shit or city of London or Luxembourg or
Zurich or anywhere else. Fuck these people. This is about Minneapols.
This is about taking Minneapolis back from the IQ sixty
Somali is that of Barack Obama and the zip coded
zip co targeted to take Minnesota. Fuck that enough. I'm
over done. I don't care to port all these people.

Speaker 3 (01:04:17):
I'm at that point, yep.

Speaker 2 (01:04:19):
And it has to be done. And you put that
you like at the end, of the day. We're being
bullied into being good guys, yes, into being nice guys. No,
I'm not going to be I'm not gonna be bullied
in being a nice guy. Fuck out of my country. Yeah,
like that's enough.

Speaker 3 (01:04:35):
And you know what's in comprehensile with me?

Speaker 1 (01:04:37):
All right. So I spent about twenty years as an immigrant.
I was an immigrant in Mexico, Canada, Taiwan, Japan and
throughout this you know, so like you know, of course
that was always illegal immigrant. And so like when I'm
living in Taiwan, if a bunch of criminal like Russians
are sneaking into the country as illegal immigrants, I want

(01:04:59):
them out.

Speaker 3 (01:05:00):
I'm not some like what what what I'm going to
support them because like we're all white.

Speaker 1 (01:05:04):
That that's that's a disgusting notion, right, I want them
out because a they're bringing my brand down. Right, he's
gonna look at me like I get criminal Russian now.
So I want them out for that alone. But they're
you know, they're they're dangerous people. They victimize people, They
victimize time when he is they would victimize me. So
I want these people out. So like the the sort
of Democrat default where like if you're Hispanic, you've got

(01:05:26):
to support illegal what And that's why I think. You know,
Trump got fifty five percent of Hispanic males, like he
is the choice of Hispanic male. Hispanic males are Donald
Trump supporters at this point. And I think that's the
reason why, because you know, the main victims of illegal
immigrants are legal immigrants. They're competing for the same jobs,
they're living the same neighborhoods, their daughters are dating these guys. Right,

(01:05:49):
there's a lot of social fallout for these characters. And
God bless uh. Democrats went so crazy, they got so
wrapped up in this whole tick the box, tick the box.

Speaker 3 (01:05:59):
They off side of it.

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
And you know, if if from here on out, if
Democrats are rather Hispanics are actually gonna trend, you know,
towards Republicans. If Trump succeeds on this law and order
thing and starts to win back urban whites.

Speaker 3 (01:06:15):
At least he got twenty five percent of black males.

Speaker 1 (01:06:19):
I mean, like, it's it's not impossible. And you know,
I grew up in a part of Philly that was
right next to the hood. I know people in this neighborhood,
no matter what race, they.

Speaker 3 (01:06:28):
Are they really want more police? They all want more police.

Speaker 1 (01:06:32):
They see a white guy move into the neighborhood and
they're like, thank god, there's white people. Now we're gonna
have police.

Speaker 3 (01:06:36):
That police are finally gonna come when we call them, right,
I mean, it's.

Speaker 1 (01:06:40):
Just and like at some point I gotta wonder, like
do Democrats talk to their voters? You know, Trump intuitively understands,
he understands what black voters want, what Hispanic voter he
he has in a He's like the Steve Jobs of politics, right.
Steve Jobs's genius was that he could see what you
want when you didn't even know that you wanted it, right.

(01:07:00):
You wanted the Jesus phone for eight hundred dollars. You
didn't think he wanted it right when it first came out.
I was like, you got to be kidding by the
way that phone, the iPhone came out eight hundred bucks.
That was like five times across so many other phone
came out on the eve of the two thousand eight crisis,
worse timing in history, most successful product in history. Why
because he knew what you want. Donald Trump knows that
Democrats instead. I think what's happening is that they spend

(01:07:21):
so much time with the freaks or with the you know,
university focus or what do you call it, faculty meetings,
they don't actually know what their voters want. So if
sort of wrapping that up, right, if this is a
sort of Carter like mini crisis where you know, people
the voters woke up, they were volted, which it feels like, right,

(01:07:41):
we have kind of this tide turning like almost to
the minute that Trump took office and all this woke crap.
If we're at that moment, and then if you've got
these structural changes where you know, the Midwest at an
absolute minimum is purple, it may well be read at
this point even like Minnesota X the parts that aren't Somali.
So you know, he's he seems to have one on
the Midwest, which is a big part of the Democrat coalition.

(01:08:03):
He seems to have won over Hispanics, which is another
big chunk of the coalition, and that was really where
they were putting all their marbles.

Speaker 3 (01:08:08):
They were trying to grow that.

Speaker 1 (01:08:10):
And then you know, if if like cities can become competitive,
I think, you know, the Democrat Party at that point
is in free fall.

Speaker 3 (01:08:19):
Hopefully it goes back to the drawing board.

Speaker 1 (01:08:21):
Tries to become a sane party, maybe something closer to
Bill Clinton, which was not that bad in the Grand scheme,
and at that point we have a two party system again.
I think there's a good chance of that. I think
in the election, Trump lost New Jersey by something like
five points is New Jersey? Yeah, which since yeah, that's
like this close to a swing state. So I think
the trend is good.

Speaker 2 (01:08:43):
No, the trend is very very good. And I noted
all that. So the New Jersey was in some ways
it was never in play per se, but it was
more in play than it ever was. Oh, and he's
cleaning out Virginia. Yeah, okay, which outside of loud in,
Fair Bax Counties is deep red. Now he's cleaning out. Now,
he's cleaning out Virginia, and he's just spurt and cospital

(01:09:04):
is dispersing half of those people around the country and
putting them in different places like that. It's happening like
you start cutting all those people out of the out
of the system, and they're not they're no longer gaining. Again,
go back to my statement about you know, excessive margins.
These are people that are bureaucrats pulling down government salaries
and living lifestyles that they have no business like, no

(01:09:25):
business maintaining. No, you've got to go back and start
working for fifteen percent of gross margins like the rest
of us are as. You know, that's what we're doing,
and you don't get to live on our on our
diam anymore. But hey, we're going to We're also going
to bring a lot of jobs back to this country.
We're going to get rid of the people that are
stealing those jobs and making our highways unsafe and all
the rest of it. Like it's this is what has

(01:09:47):
to happen, and it's not an easy task. But the
thing that should that I think should make that should
make us feel actually quite good about this is how
well he did with the young people. Yeah, especially young males,
and that's where the opportunities lie. I've told this story
before and I'll tell it again. Like one day, my

(01:10:09):
daughter came to me right after she got her first job,
which happens to be, you know, doing some you know,
relatively important work, the entry level work over at the
University of Florida. But then she heard about how much
you know, like welders make again back to the micro
point and I and we had talked, and it's not like,
you know, it's not like the micro ted talk isn't

(01:10:31):
on like permanent, you know, like it's not like permanently
you know, running in the background of my house. If
you've not seen the micro ted talk, folks, and you
must and ignore this and parapatea and the it's just
it's brilliant. But like it's not like she didn't know
this stuff. But then when she finally saw like a
friend of hers like entered into the trade program and

(01:10:54):
it's making like, you know, ninety grand or one hundred
grand a year, and it's just like I can do that.
I'm like, yeah, you could if you really wanted to.
My my point is is that's the those are the
jobs that that generate the real wealth. You know, we
have a you want to say, if Wall Street wants
their AI revolution to turn this into you know, you know,
to suck up all the power, they're gonna have to

(01:11:16):
we're gonna have to lay an awful lot of copper. Yeah,
and we don't. We don't produce a lot of copper.
And that means that there's a whole lot of jobs
out there for the copper industry and the aluminum industry
and then in an end and there ain't no way
to get around that with robots. There ain't no way
to get around that by having you know that, there
ain't You're gonna have to just go and get this

(01:11:37):
stuff done. And it's real and it's durable. And the
small businesses, the small uh contractor groups that are out
there are you know, they're your growth industry and uh,
you know, I was talking to a friend of mine
the other day is an electrician, and he's like, yeah,
I'm the business is at this point, I have the
ability to turn to like boomers who I know aren't

(01:12:00):
going to make any who who are going to pay
me whatever, and I can just add another you know,
twenty five hundred dollars to the abilities like but at
the same point, I've got enough of those now that
now I need to train somewhere like and he can't
find anybody to train, right, So then it's getting you know,
so it's a good These are all good signs. So like,
this is the world that we're trying to that he's

(01:12:21):
trying to affect. And then you know, if we get it,
if we stop my My point always, Peter, is that
you know, we can get caught up in whatever it
is that they're whatever it is that we think we
should be focusing on. But you know said it many
times in the last few years, in the last few months,

(01:12:42):
the five most important words ever spoken in a in
a film ever was in the you know generally terrible
episode one that Fantom menace. Your focus determines your reality.
If you only focus on the debt and you don't
focus on the assets, you're not looking at the entire company,
You're not looking at the entire not doing the entire analysis.

(01:13:02):
So I mean, what I'm asking people to do, and
what I ask guests to do when I come on,
is to sit there and literally challenge you know, what
is you what is your focus? And you know, what
do you think you know? And you know, go away
with a different a different set of parameters to the
boundary conditions of the problem, and see if you can
come up with different boundary conditions that solve the problem differently.

(01:13:24):
And if we do, if we all do that within
the commentariat, it's gonna be amazing how quickly the zeit
gey changes because we affect what goes on on Capitol Hill.
We are the new media. And if we all parent
the same points about debt and deficits and everything else
and don't try and figure out what it is they're
actually trying to do, then we're not giving them, you know,
and and and then steal man in the arguments that

(01:13:45):
they that guys like Bessett and Trump and the rest
of them are making. We absolutely should be doing that,
won't get me wrong, Like that's our that's our real
value as commentators in this space. And and that's what
I you know, I try to, you know, structure each
one of these podcasts. When they I bring somebody on
to discuss them. This is why I don't do a
lot of podcasts. I do four or five a month,
as opposed to won every freaking day. So which I mean,

(01:14:07):
don't get me wrong, I'm not. That's not a dig
at your your business model. I think your business model
is brilliant. Oh my god, I have to do a
short guy, do a short, to do a short video
every day on a particular topic one is incredibly difficult.
Don'll don't be wrong, And and I don't have the
stamina for it. But I appreciate that you do and
the way you do it, I think is is incredibly valuable.
I really really do. And so you know, I wish

(01:14:29):
you nothing but the best of best of fortune with
that business model. It's a different business model for sure.

Speaker 1 (01:14:35):
But yeah, yeah, no, yeah, if I did long things
like you like, there's no way I am fifty two,
there's I don't have the maybe if I were twenty five,
but who knows. But the point you're making right that
to focus on the opportunities one hundred percent. It's critical.
And there is so much happening right now in terms
of opportunities, right. Uh, start with the AI and the robots. Right.

(01:15:00):
Media loves this narrative that it's going to be disastered.
You know, we're all gonna eating cat food. Absolutely not.
That is not how any automation worked, all right. When
you know, farming came in, right, it took away all
the hunter gatherer jobs. When fired came in, it took
away I don't know what job that took away, digesting flesh.

(01:15:20):
When every new technology, it wipes out the old jobs
and it replaces them with new jobs that pay better.

Speaker 3 (01:15:26):
And this has been true for thousands of years.

Speaker 1 (01:15:28):
Aristotle in ancient Greece worried that oxen were going to
take away all the agricultural jobs, and then you'd have
all these agricultural workers that had nothing to do. In
medieval Europe, they worried about water mills right on, like
streams and wind mills. Those were going to take away
all the jobs and nobody was gonna have any jobs.
All right, it's goofy the industrialization of agriculture, right. Another one. So,

(01:15:53):
in the space of like thirty years, something like half
of jobs and you got starting an eighteen eighty or
so vanished. What happened? Wow, we discover new things, right,
because human wants are endless.

Speaker 2 (01:16:04):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:16:04):
There are services, there's repairing stuff, there's you know, consider that,
like vending machines have existed for over one hundred years,
yet people go to bartenders, right, Bartenders is more expensive.

Speaker 3 (01:16:14):
Bartenders are different than a vending machine. People go out to.

Speaker 1 (01:16:16):
Dinner, even though we have robots that make food and
put it in packages at Walmart. So anyway, but the
point is that whenever in economics, whenever you have some
change that adjusts the prices, the relative prices, that it's
like it's like, I don't know if You're like a

(01:16:36):
kid and you're looking for a crawfish in the creek
and you pick up a rock and you get all
these juicy little ones. Right, that's where the good stuff is.
When a price changes, you have enormous opportunity. Right now,
we have four big changes happening. We have the automation,
starting with AI was going to hit white collars first,
not going to hit blue collars, right. Robots, yeah, robots

(01:16:57):
are probably about ten years after that. You have the illegals,
where all these blue collar jobs are now being opened up,
and now they actually have to pay living wages. Right,
so you know they fire the illegals in Nebraska the
meat packing factory making seven bucks an hour, and now
they got to hire a thirty huge opportunity. You have
the tariffs, right, which when you combine the tariffs with
the robots, right, so the robots and the AI remove

(01:17:21):
the benefits of cheap labor. Right, So those actually give
you a massive planning field advantage versus the China and
the Vietnams that have been stealing the jobs. And then
you've got deregulation right which takes the boot off the
neck of startups. This right now, you take all those
factors together. This maybe the nineteen nineties with the Internet
comes close, But this is the entrepreneurial moment of our lifetimes.

(01:17:44):
There is so much opportunity right now, but you have
to take it right. You have to keep an eye out.
You have to ask yourself, what can I do for
other people? What can I do for them that's so
valuable to them that they'll give me money for it? Okay,
that could be fixing screens. I live in Florida.

Speaker 3 (01:18:00):
Everybody's always got busted screens.

Speaker 1 (01:18:01):
You can look on YouTube. You can learn that in
three minutes how to fix the screen. You got a
little supline. All right, figure out some service. You are
going to make much more than you do today because
the metaphora uses that automatation is like an escalator. The
escalator moves us up, makes us richer, but every so
often you us take a step down for the automation. Yeah,
do that with the Internet, for example, you know there

(01:18:22):
were a lot of industries that got wiped out by
the Internet. Nobody makes maps anymore. I used to use
a media clipping service back in the early nineties where
they would look for your company's name. That's gone now right,
it's a Google alert. Lots of jobs got nuked, and
guess what the new jobs pay better?

Speaker 3 (01:18:38):
So yes, well one hundred percent. That's what people should
be focusing on.

Speaker 1 (01:18:42):
It's good to talk about the threats, you know, to
talk about Ukraine and tax rates and deficits and things,
but fundamentally, ninety nine percent of all of these factors
are under your control depending on what you focus on.

Speaker 2 (01:18:57):
I agree at SWOT the first thing we do when
we look at a company strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
not just don't just focus on the threats, folks, don't
just focus on the on the weaknesses. That's what they
want you to focus on. That's the story that they're
telling you on a daily basis, because they're making money
by you focusing on the negatives as opposed to your opportunities.

(01:19:18):
That is the key. So no, Peter, thank you very
very much for that. That was a that was a
perfect way to end this podcast. At times a little contentious,
which is what I hope for every time I do
one of these. So I enjoy having people push back
on some of my of some of my bullshit, and
then I appreciate it so with that said, you have
a heart stop. I have a heart stop. When don't

(01:19:40):
we pull it, we'll we'll we'll pick it up on
a few more months and we'll do it again for Tom.
Thank you. So you know, give everybody a shameless plug
on the way out the door. And let's get this thing.
Let's wrap this.

Speaker 1 (01:19:51):
Yeah. I make daily videos three and a half minutes
long so you can't get bored talking about economics and freedom.
Those are up on X and then follow me at
at proft SAT on R O F S T O
n g E.

Speaker 2 (01:20:03):
Okay, there you go, Peter sat once, thank you very
very much. And you guys, I'm Tom, he's Pete. I'm
TfL seventeen twenty eight. Keep your stick on the ice.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode #228 -- Peter St. Onge and the Numbers Behind America's Critical Shift

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

All Episodes

Episode #228 -- Peter St. Onge and the Numbers Behind America's Critical Shift

Stuff You Should Know