Ep. 416 - Carol Roth talks the economy, inflation, small business and more

Carol Roth is on the show to talk about the economic issues facing the country as we march into 2025. 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
This is the FCB Podcast Network.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Break the job, boot change at top.

Speaker 3 (00:14):
We don't listen to y'all this out We don't listen
to y'all this d hotel.

Speaker 4 (00:19):
Make um scream out now like us sound dun cause the.

Speaker 3 (00:22):
Rockets in the clown. Tune in the charge for the Outdoor.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
Tune in the Charge for the outlaun.

Speaker 4 (00:31):
Welcome to a special edition of The Outlaws. This is
Darthy Oogda Kingpaymorrow. Don't forget to like us on Facebook
at Facebook dot com, slash the Outlawsradio, follow us on
x and Instagram and the Outlaws Radio, and make sure
you go to the brand new website, The Outlawsradio dot com.
We have a special interview with Carol Roth, who's been

(00:51):
on this show before. You know, she is one of
my go tosh for the economy, uh for things relating
to business, some small business and stuff like that, and
she always has a lot of great insights. She's a brilliant,
brilliant person, and I was glad and honored that she

(01:11):
took time to speak with us during this holiday weekend,
and I know you all are going to enjoy it.
She's always amazing and so we're going to get to
that interview right now, All right, we have a very
special guest on the show today.

Speaker 3 (01:28):
She's been on this show before.

Speaker 4 (01:30):
She is one of my absolute go tos on anything
regarding the economy.

Speaker 3 (01:38):
Carol Roth, welcome back. How you doing.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
I am doing well, my friend.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
I'm so happy to be back with you, and I
love how this is a very special guest. It reminds
me of the very special episodes that we used to
have on like Different Strokes and Facts of Life growing up,
very special episode.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
So that's kind of what I feel.

Speaker 4 (01:56):
Like, right, that's you know, that's normally the episode when
they talk about something serious.

Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yeah, like drugs or you know, something something horrible like that. Yeah,
I mean there's there's actually some worse ones.

Speaker 1 (02:10):
But I don't want to like send this, you know, off.

Speaker 2 (02:12):
Off the rails out of the box, so like we'll
just we'll just leave it at that.

Speaker 4 (02:16):
Okay, Right when we're talking about we'll be too well,
I mean I was gonna say it's not gonna be
too bad.

Speaker 3 (02:21):
We're just gonna talk about the economy and our debt.

Speaker 4 (02:23):
But that that could eventually put us all on drugs,
So I don't know, that's.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
Right, That's right.

Speaker 4 (02:29):
So speaking speaking of Woods, and I've had these conversations
with people, and I love talking to you about this
stuff because you have a very uncanny way of taking
like really big highphalutin concepts and distilling it down so
that the average person can understand.

Speaker 3 (02:46):
And that's why I love talking to you about this stuff.

Speaker 4 (02:48):
Because I have these conversations sometimes where people about the
debt and deficit and stuff like that, and it's.

Speaker 3 (02:53):
Like, it is a problem.

Speaker 4 (02:55):
We have a debt problem, and no one who's paying attention.

Speaker 3 (02:59):
Can deny that.

Speaker 4 (02:59):
But I think sometimes the deficit hawks when they have
these conversations, they forget one important player, and that's the voters.
The voters have to allow you to do what you
think you need to do to address the To address

(03:20):
the deficit, as we know, one of the largest, the
three largest contributors to the deficit is social Security, Medicare,
and Medicaid, and the voters do not trust the politicians
to do anything to those three programs. And to be honest,
I don't blame them. I understand why they don't trust
the politicians.

Speaker 3 (03:38):
So people say, oh, well.

Speaker 4 (03:39):
No, we're only we're only We're not going to touch
social Security for anybody that's not that's retiring or about
to recut. The voters just don't buy it. They don't
believe you, they say that, so.

Speaker 3 (03:51):
How do so to me? I'm like, I think we're gonna.

Speaker 4 (03:56):
Have to try to grow our way out of this,
because I don't think the voters are going to give
you the power to address any of those programs. Is
it possible for us to grow our way out of this?

Speaker 3 (04:07):
And if so, what do we need to do. I
think we need to be very We need to have.

Speaker 4 (04:12):
A very, very extremely aggressive pro growth strategy. We need
more money into the system immediately, because I just don't
think the voters are going to allow the politicians to
touch Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Speaker 3 (04:25):
And like I said, I don't blame them.

Speaker 1 (04:27):
I love the fact that all my friends are so smart.

Speaker 2 (04:31):
You've hit on so many things, and I think there
are more things that need to be discussed.

Speaker 1 (04:36):
But obviously we have.

Speaker 2 (04:37):
A populace that is financially illiterate, and so they don't
understand the different difference between the nominal value of a
dollar and the purchasing power of a dollar. You know
they're going to fight you, like they did on stimulus checks. Yes,
I want my twelve hundred dollars stimulus checks. And you know,

(04:59):
Carol and Darvy are saying, hey, don't take that, because
you're going to end up, you know, spurring inflation. It's
going to cost you ten thousand dollars a year for
the rest of your life. And they're like, no, no, no,
but I want my twelve hundred dollars. So they don't
understand the difference between those two. And because of that,
that is part of the choreography and the challenges that

(05:21):
we have to deal with. And as you said, you know,
that kind of ties into addressing some of these entitlement
programs because they want their dollars even if their dollars
can't buy them anything, because they were promised that dollar
and they don't know the difference. So we have that
as part of the backdrop. We also have this very

(05:42):
challenging situation and you know, I've tried to explain this
to people and it's hard because these numbers don't really
mean anything until they mean something, and they're so big.
I think people's minds just kind of get scrambled. So
we have debt to GDP, meaning you know, how much

(06:03):
debt we have versus the general output of our nation
that is in the range of one hundred and twenty
plus percent. And you know, to put that in context
because again people are.

Speaker 1 (06:15):
Like, well, I don't I don't know. Is that good?
Is it bad? It's very bad.

Speaker 2 (06:19):
When the IMF and the Treasury and other major organizations
look at debt to GDP, they say that it becomes
unsustainable and you know, puts you on the precipice of
a crisis if you are in the call it seventy to.

Speaker 1 (06:37):
Eighty percent debt to GDP range.

Speaker 2 (06:39):
So we're probably about double where we need to be
in terms of how much debt versus our GDP. And
so you know, that's kind of one thing we have
to keep in mind. The other things that we have
to keep in mind is that right now, you know,
the Biden administration just really destroyed the fiscal foundation that
was already rocky, and they were running deficits in the

(07:04):
order of seven percent of GDP.

Speaker 1 (07:07):
Again, that may not mean.

Speaker 2 (07:09):
A lot, but on a historical average basis historic averages
around three and a half percent, so they're running double
the deficits. We have no war that were the central
participant in. You know, this is this is not a
crisis any longer that we're in other than.

Speaker 1 (07:28):
A financial crisis. So what did they do.

Speaker 2 (07:31):
They took deficit spending money that you know isn't there
that needs to be financed in some way, shape or
form and used it so it looked like the economy
was growing and they were able to show, you know,
depending on the time, you know, a couple percentage points
of growth and GDP. But that's because they were they

(07:51):
were spending more than they were taking in and they
were basically window dressing that growth. So going back to
where you started, yes, we need growth, we need private
sector growth, and we need that private sector growth before
we take away.

Speaker 1 (08:09):
All of the deficit spending.

Speaker 2 (08:11):
And I'm a slash and burn kind of goal myself,
but you have to understand the choreography of where we
are given our debt load, given the overall situation, and
again to put it in context, you know, if you
think about when Ronald Reagan was trying to dig his
way out of a bad financial situation, debt to GDP
was about thirty percent, so we're four times that.

Speaker 1 (08:35):
So it's a very different set of options.

Speaker 2 (08:38):
So you have to have that private sector growth go
first before you can really cut those deficits, because the
deficits are part of that GDP, and if we don't
do that, in GDP were to shrink, we would actually
take in less revenue. We could create a recession, and
that means it would actually drive the deficit higher and

(09:01):
create a bad spiral.

Speaker 1 (09:02):
It could up end global financial markets.

Speaker 2 (09:05):
So private sector growth is huge, but you know, absent
some you know they call productivity miracle that we get
you some amazing energy miracle or technology miracle that really
shifts productivity in a way that we haven't seen in decades, that's.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
Probably not likely to happen.

Speaker 2 (09:23):
So we have this kind of crazy choreography going on here,
and in the meantime, it means that we probably have
more money printing coming down the line and more inflationary
behaviors because the politicians don't have that will to go
in front of the people and say, hey, we need
to cut this entitlement. So we are going to be

(09:46):
we're going to have to run these deficits and you're
not going to really understand the difference. If we, you know,
have this kind of long term sticky inflation, that's you know,
running it multiple percentage points a year.

Speaker 1 (09:57):
So that is the you.

Speaker 2 (10:00):
Terrible financial conundrum that we're in. And as you see
the Trump administration trying to affect policies, they're going to
run into these kind of challenges, these paradox these things
that are at odds with each other along the way.
You know, one of the areas that they've talked about

(10:22):
is something like the growth in producing more barrels of oil.
And we want to drive the price of oil down
because new energy, no pun intended flows throughout the economy.
But there's a problem, which is that it's not profitable
under a certain dollar per barrel for them not only
to drill and refine, but to invest in new drilling

(10:44):
and refining.

Speaker 1 (10:46):
That's going to limit that activity. So there are a
lot of these.

Speaker 2 (10:49):
Kind of you know, barriers that the Trump administration is
going to be up against, and you know, that's kind
of the big financial challenge that we're at.

Speaker 4 (10:58):
Right And I mean you laid it out perfectly, particularly
the element again that I think a lot of people
aren't talking about, which is the growth element. I mean,
when you have so much government spending and you've had
it for a significant period of time. It's part of
the economy. So you can't just rip it out without

(11:20):
anything to replace it, or you'll.

Speaker 3 (11:24):
Collapse the economy beg big.

Speaker 2 (11:27):
This is not understood because they see what's happening with
Avir Malay in Argentina. And you know, we're all business
people and we want to just approach it that way.
But you know, if we had a different financial profile,
we might be able to do that and withstand the pain.
But based on where we are today, we cannot do that.

Speaker 3 (11:46):
Right. We probably would have been able to do that
twenty years ago. Sure, we're not there right now, right right.
And so I've seen some of the policies you know that.

Speaker 4 (12:00):
The incoming Trump administration is talking about on a on
an economic front.

Speaker 3 (12:06):
Some a lot of them are designed to encourage growth.
What are your thoughts, for.

Speaker 4 (12:11):
Example, on the fifteen percent uh corporate tax if you
manufacture in America, do you think that that's something that
can drive not only of course job creation and stuff
like that, but drive more wealth into.

Speaker 3 (12:26):
This country because we need more wealth into this country.

Speaker 2 (12:29):
I mean, listen, I think we should have you know,
as little corporate tax as possible. People don't seem to
really understand that that's coming from somewhere, and so you know,
if there are higher corporate taxes, that's just pushing it
down to the consumer, and that means that the consumer
has less to be able to spend. So I do

(12:50):
think that, you know, it's good for us to be
competitive and to have less you know, in terms of
corporate taxes.

Speaker 1 (12:56):
This whole.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
Manufacturer thing like, it's great in theory, and yes, we
should do it. And we have national security issues around
lots of things in various supply chains, which became very
apparent during COVID that it makes sense for us to
sort of button down and have made here in America.

(13:19):
But again, we don't have the cheapest energy, We definitely
don't have the cheapest labor. We have a very strong dollar,
so there are again a lot of limiting factors. And
when you have things like you know, Trump coming out
and saying, well, you know, we want a weaker dollar

(13:41):
because we want to be competitive on the global you know,
on the global stage, and then we want to have
these massive tariffs. Well tariffs actually will make the dollar stronger.
So you know, we have these issues like it's great,
we want to manufacture in America, but then we have
you know, unions who want to be paid.

Speaker 1 (14:00):
At a certain amount per hour.

Speaker 2 (14:01):
And you know, we have all of these wish lists
and a lot of these things are just fundamentally at
odds with each other.

Speaker 1 (14:10):
And when you get to math, it's not like opinions
and feelings like the math works or it doesn't work.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
You know, these these realities of economics are what they are,
and we just can't have all of the wish lists
fulfilled when you have these things at odds with each other.
And so I think we need to get real about,
you know, what is going to work and what is
not going to work, and frankly focus on the things

(14:38):
that are going to work.

Speaker 1 (14:39):
When when you talk about.

Speaker 2 (14:40):
Growth, deregulation is a great way to go about that.
You know, deregulation is a way to drive more productive
private sector growth and get rid of bureaucracy and all
these things that kind of holds growth back and is
very productive. So you know, as you look at maybe

(15:03):
the DOGE effort and they want to kind of attack
different areas, I think that the deregulation is going to
have to probably come first, and there's going to have
to be a phase out plan with some of the
spending in order to get that choreography correct.

Speaker 3 (15:23):
Okay, So I was like very.

Speaker 4 (15:27):
Lost and unhappy and saying we were stuck until you
gave me a little bit.

Speaker 3 (15:32):
Of hope at the a little bit of a little
better because I'm like, oh God, well, what the hell
are we going to do?

Speaker 2 (15:41):
Well? Yeah, I mean here's the thing, Like, here's my analogy.

Speaker 3 (15:44):
Right.

Speaker 1 (15:44):
They always use the like, how do you eat an elephant?

Speaker 2 (15:47):
You eat him one bite at a time, right, And
so there's a lot of bites that we need in
order to eat the elephant.

Speaker 1 (15:54):
And you know, if we have to start on his backside,
or we have to start you know.

Speaker 2 (15:59):
Under the leg, around the cap, like wherever it is,
there's going to be a you know, some bites to
be had and it will make a difference. But it's
going to take a long time for us to eat
the elephant one bite at a time. And that's what people
need to be prepared for. I think the average American
who is excited about Elon and vag and Trump as
they should be, are kind of expecting the Twitter model.

Speaker 1 (16:22):
Right that Elon.

Speaker 2 (16:23):
Comes in, he slashes all of this, everything still works,
and we're good to go, and the government today is
not run like a business, and there are a lot
of things that are interconnected, and so it's going to
be disappointing to people who are outside of financial reality
when they don't understand that, Like, if we can take

(16:45):
the seven percent deficit down to three, you know, cut
a little bit more than half of the next four years,
Like that's going to be a giant victory for us,
as long as you know, we still have you know,
three plus percent GDP growth, It's not going to sound
like a lot, but going from seven to three and
then you know, upping our GDP growth to three percent
is a major accomplishment. But you have to understand the

(17:09):
nuances and the inside baseball in order to really be
able to appreciate that. And that's the part I'm worried about,
because you know, the media is dishonest and they know
everybody's financially illiterate, so they're gonna say Trump and Elean Levik,
they promised these things and they didn't deliver. When they
did deliver, it's just not in the way that you

(17:30):
maybe had hoped because you were delusional about where you
have this crazy economy stands today.

Speaker 3 (17:36):
Stay tuned.

Speaker 4 (17:37):
We have more to come with Carol Rods here on
the Outlaws, real talk, real conversations.

Speaker 3 (17:50):
We got the heat. Hell yeah, this is the Outlaws
radio show.

Speaker 4 (17:58):
Well, the Magli's jump right back into our interview with
Carol Roth. Well, and also, I mean, and we're talking
with Carol Roth but also I hear some of that delusion.

Speaker 3 (18:10):
And it's very interesting, like both sides of the aisle
have some of that delusion. And I hear that.

Speaker 4 (18:19):
Especially from so called fiscal hawks fiscal conservatives on the
Republican side.

Speaker 3 (18:24):
Who do they think?

Speaker 4 (18:26):
And I don't know if they're just selling us to
the voters or they legitimately believe that one budget cycle
will fix everything.

Speaker 3 (18:34):
And we're not there. It's we're too much in debt,
We've spent too much.

Speaker 4 (18:40):
This thing is not going to reverse itself in one
budget cycle.

Speaker 3 (18:45):
Is it.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
Of course it's not.

Speaker 2 (18:47):
I mean, people on X as we're talking today are
crying about the debt ceiling, raising the debt ceiling, which
you know is a horrible thing and we shouldn't have
to raise the debt ceiling. But what they don't understand
is that's financing stuff.

Speaker 1 (19:02):
That we've already bought and so you know, and then if.

Speaker 2 (19:07):
You're going to run a deficit, like how else are
we financing it? Are we having a bake sale? Are
we selling off you know, national parks? Like what are
we doing here to find these deficits? So you know,
you've got a symptom and disease, and a lot of
people don't really understand either, to be perfectly frank with you,
And unfortunately, there is no economics test, there's no financial

(19:30):
literacy tests to get anybody anywhere near Congress. We know
Democrats are completely decoupled from reality. But for the most part,
I mean, there are handful of savvy people who are
in Congress, but there are a lot of not very
savvy people, that's my very generous way of putting it,
who are in Congress, and especially on the financial and

(19:52):
economics side. So these are people who are good at
repeating talking points. But you know, if I went in
there and I asked them to define money, I guarantee
you ninety eight percent or more could not do that.

Speaker 3 (20:07):
Yeah, yeah, exactly. I mean, it's it's.

Speaker 2 (20:13):
Media, a medium of exchange. You needn't account of store
of value. Like they literally couldn't come up probably maybe
they'd come up with.

Speaker 1 (20:19):
A medium of exchange, but they're not coming up with
all three.

Speaker 4 (20:22):
I'm just saying, especially like they're not they're they're not
versed in economics. Many of them or even many of
them are business owners either, so they don't understand the
economic side from the business standpoint either. So they're saying
things and pushing things.

Speaker 3 (20:42):
That are just not rooted in reality.

Speaker 2 (20:46):
Always and you know what my other concern is here.
This will not be surprising to you, but for people
who maybe aren't as familiar with me. I'm a big,
main street small business advocate. This is another number that
people don't really appreciate. We have more than thirty four
million small businesses at this point in this country. We
have around twenty one thousand big businesses. And in the

(21:09):
side in the private economy, the small business side accounts
for about half the revenue and about half the jobs
and the majority of new jobs. So this is a
really big part of the economy. If we layer on
independent contractors and gig workers, we get to almost seventy
million is the estimate.

Speaker 1 (21:28):
And we have a lot of.

Speaker 2 (21:29):
Visionaries and a lot of disruptors, and a lot of
tech guys who are running around in the Trump administration,
which I think is amazing, but what is sorely missing
is the main street perspective and how this impacts small business,
how this impacts independent work, and they just don't understand.

(21:54):
Just like the people in Congress have sort of a
myopic view of the finance and the economy, these visionary
guys don't really understand. You know, they understand the tech
entrepreneur side of the economy, but they don't understand the
main street, small business side of the economy. And we
definitely need more representation. Kelly Leffler's head of SBA is

(22:18):
not going to get it done, and frankly, SBA doesn't
really have a seat at the table the same way
some of the other cabinet members do. So we need
more advisory that represents a massive part of the economy
if they are going to want to do the things
that they're saying they're going to do, because they've got
Wall Street, they've got tech, they've got visionary, but they
don't have sort of the backbone, and that could be

(22:41):
very problematic.

Speaker 3 (22:42):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 4 (22:44):
I mean, you see, there's one thing and I'm glad
you brought that up because I want you to touch
on this. There's some sort of I forget the name
of the stupid regulation that I don't know if it's
if it's if it's happening, or if they're trying to
pause it. But it's something that you've been really vocal
about trying to get people's attention to say, Hey, you
probably want to stop this. Tell people what that is

(23:06):
and where are we because I don't even know where we're.

Speaker 3 (23:08):
At with you.

Speaker 1 (23:10):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (23:10):
So this is called the Corporate Transparency Act Beneficial Ownership
Information Rule.

Speaker 1 (23:17):
We call it CTA or CTA BOI for short.

Speaker 2 (23:21):
And basically this is the Financial Crimes Division of the Treasury,
who said, you know, we are going to go out
and in the name and try not to laugh, in
the name of stopping cartels and money launderers and terrorists,
We're going to ask if you have a business entity
to register in our financial crimes database, every person who

(23:45):
is an owner of your business or who is a
quote major decision maker whatever that means. And you know,
we're going to need for all those people, We're going
to need to copy their driver's license and passport and
all the different pieces of information and if you don't
do this, or you forget to update us every time
this changes, we can throw you in jail. We can
give you a fine that's now almost up to six

(24:07):
hundred dollars per day, and so on and so forth.
And they went and they said, basically, if you have
an entity, so an LLC, an S corpus C corp,
or another entity. So now how homeowners association boards are
getting caught up in this too, that is basically formed
with a Secretary of State, the entity or a similar

(24:30):
type of group than you're subject to this. Oh, except
for the fact that we're going to exempt financial services companies,
we're going to exempt big businesses that have at least
five million in revenue and twenty employees. And basically it's
ended up just targeting small businesses. It's highly on constitutional,
the penalties are egregious, and it's really freaking out millions

(24:55):
of small business owners.

Speaker 1 (24:56):
The challenge is beyond that that millions more don't even
know of this.

Speaker 2 (25:01):
So by January first of this coming year, that the
initial mandate was that you were going to have to register,
you face these noncompliance fees. Well, we've been trying to
fight this all year long.

Speaker 1 (25:16):
All different groups.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
I went to testify in front of Congress in April
on it. There have been, you know, at least ten lawsuits.
In the spring, the NSBA won a lawsuit at the
state federal court level, and they basically said this is unconstitutional,
but we're going to only apply it to the plaintiff.

(25:38):
And we're all like, well, how does that one?

Speaker 1 (25:41):
That seems insane.

Speaker 2 (25:42):
So just at the beginning of December, the NFIB went
through a lawsuit in Texas where they requested an injunction
and said, you know, make Treasury not enforce this for
everybody because it's insane. And so we got this injunction,
which sounds great, right, Okay, now we don't have to comply. However,

(26:03):
the challenge is that the government appealed this and they're
asking the court to rule by the twenty seventh of December,
So it could be that the court throws out the
injunction or they narrow the scope again, and then that's
going to give three or four days to small business
owners if they figure it out to be in compliance
or again face penalties. Was just just so obnoxious. So

(26:27):
we're trying to get Congress to do something which you know,
we see how while that's going, we're trying to get
the Trump administration to come out and make a statement
that says, hey, we're not going to enforce fees for
non compliance and we'll deal with this when our Treasury
guys you know, in office and hopefully jettison this because

(26:48):
we need the time for this you at a minimum,
to go through the courts, if not Trump to come out,
and nobody is focusing on this for small businesses and
realize the urgency, and this impacts tens of millions of
small businesses who haven't filed, and a little over I
think it's almost ten million small businesses that have filed

(27:12):
and want to know, you know, what's.

Speaker 1 (27:13):
Going on with their data. So this is a giant mess.

Speaker 2 (27:16):
And it's exactly the kind of thing that if you
had advocates who actually knew what was going on for
small business and who could go, hey, yeah, that's not
going to prevent cartels and money launder This is ridiculous
and you've got to stop, you know, gumming up small businesses.

Speaker 1 (27:33):
That would be really helpful. But unfortunately we don't have that.
And so you know, as I said, lots of different
groups are hard at work on this. But boy, has that.

Speaker 2 (27:43):
Given me some ugly insight into just how difficult it
is to get anything done, even common sense things done.

Speaker 4 (27:49):
Yeah, Like, what the hell, how the hell did something
like this pass in the first place? Like this is
a terrible it was a terrible, terrible idea from the
very big Oh my god.

Speaker 2 (28:01):
So can I tell you that it actually originated with
some Republicans. That's and that's, by the way, some of
the resistance, because they don't want egg on their face,
so instead of just saying, hey, we were wrong, you know,
they're being jerks about it. And and you know, so
when I went to Congress, one of them gave me
a culpland he's like, oh, yeah, you know, we just

(28:22):
thought there was gonna be some information on a postcard,
no big deal. And then we handed it over to
Treasury and they turned it into this other thing.

Speaker 1 (28:28):
And I'm like, okay, really, really.

Speaker 2 (28:31):
That's what you thought was gonna happen with this. So
it's very disappointing. Republicans on the House Small Business Committee, which,
by the way, the whole Small Business Committee has been
great and they've been working very hard to overturn this.

Speaker 1 (28:42):
So I'm not trying to throw them under the best,
but there are a few members who miya culpla and said, yeah,
like we regret that we you know, put this, put
this forward. We thought we were doing a good thing.

Speaker 2 (28:53):
Like I'm not sure what good thing thought they thought
they were doing, but we could have helped them up front.

Speaker 3 (28:59):
So Lord have mercy.

Speaker 4 (29:01):
See that's exactly Oh Jesus, we're talking with their wrong
and we have a few minutes left, but been very
generous with the time. I want to keep you too long,
but it's a couple more things I definitely want to
get your thoughts on.

Speaker 2 (29:17):
Hopefully, hopefully it's not the Bears of the Browns, because
that's going to be a conversation.

Speaker 3 (29:22):
I was saving the bears question, all right.

Speaker 1 (29:26):
Maybe maybe by the end I'll be enough enough, I'll
let you let you go there.

Speaker 3 (29:32):
Right.

Speaker 4 (29:34):
So I'm very concerned about the future of work, and
I've had this conversation. It's only a handful of people
that you can actually have this conversation with because most
people are like not paying attention to.

Speaker 3 (29:48):
Any of the stuff. They like, have no idea what
the hell you're talking about.

Speaker 4 (29:51):
Right, when you look at things like AI and a
lot of the automation that's coming in. And I find
myself torn because you know, I'm more of an economic moderate,
I'm more of a fiscal monerate.

Speaker 3 (30:08):
So I want as much growth as possible.

Speaker 4 (30:11):
I want this country to be filthy rich, But I
also don't want to live in Gotham City either, right,
Like I want workers to be able to have good
wages and be able to make enough money to take
care of their families and things like that. And I
am very concerned that we as a country are not

(30:33):
paying attention to the future of work and that we
could end up in a situation where you're going to
have like more people than people realize advocating for things
like universe universal basic income, when AI and things like that,

(30:54):
if it displaces whole sectors of people. So what are
your thoughts on that? Do you share the concerns about
the future work? Are politicians having any of these conversations whatsoever?

Speaker 3 (31:07):
They like they're not paying attention to any.

Speaker 4 (31:11):
Of the advancements in tech, And it's it's very concerning
to me from a people standpoint.

Speaker 2 (31:17):
I honestly feel like we could probably spend a half
an hour on this. It's such an interesting topic. I
think there are there are several things. I would say
that the biggest threat to the future of work is
the government, you know, their handouts. If we go in
a ubi direction, you know, if there is no safety
to have, people will find out a way.

Speaker 1 (31:38):
To be productive.

Speaker 2 (31:39):
Right, there are certain places of this economy that AI
is never going to disrupt. I'm sorry, but a robot
is not giving me a haircut, a robot is not
flying my plane. Even if he is flying my plane,
they're going to still need people who are sitting up
there for whatever reason.

Speaker 1 (31:56):
We're not all.

Speaker 2 (31:57):
Getting on an unmanned aircraft, right, somebody's still going to
serve the drinks or whatever. So I think that, like
anything else, there are places where there's disruption. And you know,
the obvious place that we can see kind of the
discussion right now is with the port strike, right where
you have a union who's trying to preserve jobs and say, hey,

(32:20):
we don't want tech and automation to take our jobs.

Speaker 1 (32:23):
And I'm very sympathetic to it. Like you, I want
people to be successful.

Speaker 2 (32:27):
People have been you know, utterly obliterated by the Biden
Harrison inflation and other issues that have created a non
merit based wedge in this country, you know, fiscal policy,
monetary policy, and like so I'm all for like, yeah,
I get why they want a raise, but also like

(32:48):
we have a port that is like less efficient than
some of these like tiny countries that have like ten
people in them around the world. So I think that
you have to just like everything else is a choreography,
right for the people who are there, you have to
you know, kind of maybe protect some of that, but
you have to find a way to phase in the

(33:08):
automation over time, which means that you know, maybe young
people aren't going into that area of work, what they're
going to pop up in a different area because there's
still going to be things that need to be done.
Somebody needs to build and service the robots right in
the server farms, injury and get and take care of

(33:29):
the energy and you know, again large part of the
service sector.

Speaker 1 (33:32):
You know.

Speaker 2 (33:33):
Do I think with the aging population that you know,
memory care and nursing homes is going to be run
by robots.

Speaker 1 (33:41):
I really don't think that it is.

Speaker 2 (33:44):
I don't think that robots getting you know, somebody who
has dementia to the bathroom. So I think there are
going to be plenty of jobs. I think that they're
just going to be dislocation like anything else. And if
we can do that in a more orderly fashion, that's
going to allow us to have sort of the best
of bull worlds. But it brings up this very interesting point,

(34:04):
which you know, these technology guys who are saying that, hey,
you know, we're going to have all this productivity and
you know, we're not going to need any more workers.
That really weighs into the immigration debate and you know,
do you know, do we really need immigration? And keep
hearing that we need all this immigration and we have,
you know, this this shift in our demographics. But if

(34:25):
we're going to have this massive productivity miracle and we're
not going to you know, have as many workers needed,
then why do we need immigration? And nobody's really had
a thoughtful conversation broad based around that, which I think
is pretty interesting and worth exploring.

Speaker 4 (34:44):
That's a very good point because a lot of the
tech CEOs and tech entrepreneurs, as you know, many of
them are very very big on not only just immigration,
but like why if they want a lot of immigran yep.
And so I think you're making a very good point,
because it's like, well if that if that's the case, A,

(35:09):
who's looking out for the American worker? And B if
you're going to have all this productivity, why do you
still need all these immigrants?

Speaker 3 (35:17):
Right?

Speaker 2 (35:18):
Yeah, the story, the story's not add no, you know,
that's part of I don't know. So that also partly
tells me that maybe they don't think it's going to
be the ultimate miracle that everybody thinks it's. Certainly there,
there are areas where it's going to be super disruptive,
but in terms of the wide spread impact in US,
you know, living in this crazy world, you know, they're

(35:42):
they're talking at us sort of both sides of their mouth,
and I would like to see some reconciliation. So I'm
sure we'll continue to have conversations around this as the
years progress.

Speaker 4 (35:52):
The conclusion of our interview with Carol Roth is coming
up next here on The Outlaws, True Sir, Pray Walking Back,
Welcome Back. Make sure that you subscribe to the show
on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart, or wherever you get your podcast,

(36:15):
and if you listen to the show on Apple, please
make sure you leave us a five star review and
the comment it's very important for the algorithm and for
those of you that have already done so, thank you,
oh so very much.

Speaker 3 (36:24):
And now let's get to the conclusion.

Speaker 4 (36:25):
Of our interview with Carol Roth. Yeah. I mean, and
I'm because my concern is, and you're you're from the Midwest,
like I am, we've seen like the results of devastation
to a lot of our cities up here. Yeah, from
some of these changes in the economy, and not only
just the changes in economy, but people who were leading

(36:47):
those changes not giving a damn about what happens to
the people in Cleveland and Chicago and Detroit, and you
know what I mean, Like we treated the entire whole
sections of our country as just disposable, right. And the
thing that I struggle with is the balancing act. Like

(37:09):
I understand the importance of tech in the Internet. My
entire company is tech based. I get it, you know
what I mean, Like, we are using the Internet to
conduct this interview right now, Like, so I understand the
importance of it. But at the same time, how do
we find that balancing act so that we're not living

(37:32):
in a freaking dystopia?

Speaker 2 (37:35):
Yeah, I mean, that's the challenge when you know, we
pick people to run policy by popularity contests versus by competence.
You know, I am blessed to be a very strategic thinker.
You know, my background is in investment banking. I've been
a strategic advisor to companies as big as you know,
some of the handful of largest companies in the world,

(37:56):
as well as you know, one person with an idea
on the back of a napkin. And so I'm the
kind of person that's always thinking, you know, twelve steps
ahead and hey, if you do this, here are these outcomes,
and if you do this, and there are these outcomes.
And I don't think a lot of that kind of
you know, deep strategic thought goes into these things because

(38:17):
I do think you can find a balance. And it's
kind of like social Security, right, you also have to
have the trust factor is that there could be a solution.
My husband and I talk about this all the time.
There are a lot of wealthy people or fairly wealthy
people who don't believe social Security is even going to
be around. And if you said to them, hey, would

(38:38):
you be willing to give up your Social Security check
if we guarantee you know, there would be a balanced
budget every year, you know, some kind of compromise. They're
a whole sleep people to be like, yeah, it's fine.

Speaker 1 (38:48):
I mean, you know, Bill Gays, Warren.

Speaker 2 (38:49):
Buffett Elon, like, these people don't need Social Security checks
and things that we could do to really kind of
shape them to address the problem. But the challenge is
nobody believes the other side of it. Nobody believes that
the other side of the bargain is going to hold up,
So why would you give up anything? And I think
it's the same way with some of this planning, you know,

(39:11):
with the ports, the you know, we can protect these people,
but you know, bring an automation over this period of
time so that you're not hiring people.

Speaker 1 (39:19):
You know, that is a solution I think a lot.

Speaker 2 (39:21):
Of people would think would make sense. But then somebody's
going to come in and because we're not in a
high trust society, we're not going to trust that you know,
that deal is actually going to be carried out and
executed in that way.

Speaker 1 (39:34):
And that's where it all falls.

Speaker 4 (39:36):
Apart, right well, because you know, we still have the
Social Security lock box, right So, I.

Speaker 2 (39:44):
Mean the amount of people who try to buy into
that when I tell them that like, Okay, this is
not a Ponzi scheme. It's the second you know, cousin
of a ponzi scheme that like literally don't understand.

Speaker 1 (39:54):
The flow of funds is staggering.

Speaker 3 (39:58):
And even that box alone, there there is no.

Speaker 1 (40:01):
There was no lock box.

Speaker 2 (40:02):
And and also just the idea of you know, like
a country like Singapore where there's a compulsory buy in
that you still have to contribute, but that you own it, right,
that that you know, yes, they want people to make
sure that they're taking care of that's the whole point
of the safety net, right, that people are taken care of,
but that it that you actually have something that's yours.

(40:25):
It's not just this like, oh, hey, we're giving money
the government that they're going to spend and we hope
that maybe they give us some in the future from
somebody else like there there are many other ways which
again would help with the big government problem and streamline things.
And uh, you know, then everyone's like George Bush, right,

(40:46):
you just can't have like a a realistic conversation because
again we're dealing with a bunch of politicians and instead
of subject matter experts and people who are.

Speaker 1 (40:58):
Trustworthy and that you know, that's a big part of
the problem.

Speaker 4 (41:02):
Right, And that's that's why, like I said, I understand
why the voters don't want them to touch anything because
they have not proven themselves to be trustworth.

Speaker 3 (41:13):
They rip off the Social Security recipients all the time.

Speaker 4 (41:16):
The last one of the last interviews you and I did,
we were talking about the numbers with inflation, and you
mentioned and about how they fudge the numbers.

Speaker 3 (41:25):
With inflation because the real.

Speaker 4 (41:27):
Numbers they'd owe social Security recipients a lot, right.

Speaker 2 (41:31):
Right, I mean, honestly, these people would rip off their
mom and their grandma if they had the chance, right.
I mean, that's unfortunately some of the people that we're
dealing with. And so you know, the the element of
of you know, moral hazard and just you know, disrupting
the risk reward equation is you know, showing up in

(41:52):
many many places and creating the challenges that we have.

Speaker 4 (41:57):
We're talking about, Carol Roth and as we've run down,
here's two more things I definitely want to get your
thoughts on. One of course, and I think we touched
on is briefly in one of our previous interviews, but
the issue of tariffs.

Speaker 3 (42:12):
And I am I'm not anti tariff.

Speaker 4 (42:18):
I do think it's another thing too, where you kind
of like there's a balancing act. I don't think it's
wise to tariff stuff that you don't make, because then
that just rises raises the price of stuff.

Speaker 3 (42:29):
But I also see, and I've seen how we're lucky.

Speaker 4 (42:32):
To talk about this quite a bit, and I like
the way he breaks it down.

Speaker 3 (42:36):
I also see the value of using tariffs as.

Speaker 4 (42:39):
A negotiating tool where you may not necessarily have to
place the tariff, but you do end up in a
place where you have more free and fair trade. I
do think it's outrageous that a lot of these other countries,
we don't tear of them, but.

Speaker 3 (42:53):
They tear off us.

Speaker 4 (42:54):
I would think that the ideal situation is to get
to a point where neither one of us are tariff
each other. But if we're not in that place, we
should be doing something so that we're not getting ripped off.

Speaker 3 (43:06):
What is your thoughts on the whole tearf situation.

Speaker 2 (43:09):
Well, this, my friends, is the most common sense conversation,
because it's almost impossible to find two people who are
centrist on tariffs, and we have done that, so that's amazing.

Speaker 1 (43:21):
I've also centrist on tariffs.

Speaker 2 (43:22):
Like you said, I have a client who is in
the collectible doll manufacturing business and a twenty year partner,
and they make these dolls in China. It requires a
ton of hand labor, even just to spray paint the face.
They do it by a series of masks, so I
think about twenty four different maths, which each one is

(43:44):
a shape, and they have limited edition sizes. You know,
this is a nice family owned business that's been around
for almost thirty years, and it's great. They physically cannot
move this to the United States. They'd be thrilled to
move it to the US from China, but there is
no capability here. In fact, even the China.

Speaker 1 (44:04):
Capability is getting smaller and smaller because it's just an.

Speaker 2 (44:07):
Old school way to do it, and if you were
to try to do something to replicate it, the cost
would be so high that nobody would buy their products.
So that's a perfect example of a small business that
just doesn't have any other option, and you're going to take,
you know, a lot of money out of the economy
and make a lot of people upset if you put

(44:29):
these tariffs on, because you will torpedo a business where
there isn't another option. On the other side, there are
these you know, national security issues and things where you
know we need to be making you know, whether it's
components and ingredients that go into supply chains or finished
goods or whatnot, and you know, whatever tools are necessary there.

Speaker 1 (44:52):
But again, you know, I'm.

Speaker 2 (44:54):
All for art of the deal. Whatever gets you know,
people to the negotiating table is great. But again, tariffs
is one of those areas where Trump's policy is at
odds with each other because you know, he wants a
weeker dollar in order for us to be competitive on
the global stage and to do things like reshore manufacturing

(45:15):
that we're talking about, and if you put on tariffs,
you increase the value of our currency these of the
other currencies. So again, conundrum like which direction do you
want to go here? And again, if it's just using
it for deal purposes, that's fine, but you're not going
to end up with a weeker dollar and tariffs.

Speaker 1 (45:36):
So you know, you got to pick a strategy at
some point.

Speaker 2 (45:39):
And again, these are the kinds of challenges that the
Trump administration is going to be up against, which is
you know, kind of where we started this conversation coming
full circle, and you know, it will be interesting to
see which things went out well.

Speaker 3 (45:54):
And there's some things that we've been doing that are
just stupid. Why were we.

Speaker 4 (45:59):
Relying on China for like ingredients to our pharmaceutical drugs,
Like it's it's insane. So like there's fools, there's a
there's a balancing act, right, there's some everything.

Speaker 1 (46:13):
That's the theme of this.

Speaker 2 (46:14):
You should call this episode the balancing act because that's
exactly like everything that we've talked about, Like the common
sense answer is like unglamorous in the middle, and everybody's
like a hardliner on one side or.

Speaker 4 (46:26):
The other exactly, because it's like there are some things
like you gotta make it here, like it's it's not
in our interest to make it elsewhere. But then there
are other things where it's like, look, it's not a
good idea to uh tear things that we don't make
or or make.

Speaker 2 (46:46):
Yeah, exactly, businesses that are under a certain size, or
things where there's only so many suppliers, like there are
clear carve outes that again, if you have the right
people being thoughtful about this, you can make and again,
sometimes you know these components like we don't have anywhere
else to get them, so we need a plan to
make them we can all of a sudden, you know,

(47:07):
shut it all down. I mean that's part of the
issue too, is that some of these things, you know,
if they go crazy, like we're the ones that they're
going to suffer from it.

Speaker 3 (47:16):
So because we don't have any some of this stuff,
we don't have a supply chage.

Speaker 1 (47:19):
Yeah, we don't. So even after COVID, even after that
was a parent, it's still an.

Speaker 3 (47:24):
Issue, right, absolutely. So last the last two things for me.

Speaker 4 (47:30):
One, we talked a little bit about tax policy earlier,
and I know that there's a there's a debate about
how much can tax policy actually really contribute to economic growth,
and I do think that it can contribute quite a bit.

Speaker 3 (47:44):
Depending on how you do it.

Speaker 4 (47:45):
A perfect example is what we've seen in urban and
rural areas with opportunity zones.

Speaker 3 (47:51):
You know, I'm friends with the.

Speaker 4 (47:52):
Guy who wrote the policy, and that has been for
people who don't know, it's essentially saying, if you invest
your capital gains into projects in these impoverished or underserved areas,
it dramatically reduces your tax bill. Well, opportunities on this
has become one of the most successful community development programs

(48:14):
the country has ever done in the history of America.
So the media shows that smart tax policy can encourage
economic growth.

Speaker 3 (48:23):
Now it's not the be all, end all, it's not
the panacea.

Speaker 4 (48:26):
But do you think that smart tax policy can encourage
at least some of the growth that you and I
both know that that this country is going to meet.

Speaker 2 (48:37):
I mean absolutely, obviously. You know, the question is do
you want your dollars going to the government to spend
unproductively or do you want those in the hands of
people who are productive? And you know, to me, that's
kind of a no brainer. And the whole point of
a tax is that you put a tax on something
that you want less of. So if you want less income,

(48:58):
you put a tax on it. If you less company productivity,
you put a tax on it. So you know, less
is going to be more up to a certain point.
I mean, you know, we obviously still need to find
ways to pay for things, and there are things that
you know, we have to have a military, and we
have to have court system, and we have to have roads.
But certainly at this point we're taking in five trillion

(49:19):
dollars a year, and that's more than the GDP of
every country in the world other than the US and China.

Speaker 1 (49:25):
So there's you know, there's a.

Speaker 2 (49:28):
Place in terms of financing the country. So I'm gonna
I'm gonna float something at you. This is going to
be probably the first place you've heard because it's just
starting to percolate in sort of top tier economic circles.
I think you're going to hear more about it.

Speaker 1 (49:43):
But there is.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
Thirty five trillion dollars in home equity estimated in the
United States, and you know there's about thirty six trillion
dollars of debt, and so I wrote and you will
own nothing. I was very concerned that they were going
to come after that, you know, from with tax policy
in a negative way. And I think if we had

(50:06):
gotten a different outcome of the election, that would have
been a concern. But the flip side of it is
that we're seeing you very early stages. Is what if
the Treasury were to let you tap the equity of
your house, take out a second lean mortgage or you know,

(50:28):
home equity type of loan very low percentage to buy treasuries.
So you know, maybe you get a two percent loan
treasuries are five and so you can make three percent
on the equity in your home. Wouldn't that be an
interesting funding source that would put more dollars back into

(50:49):
people's hands and get over the hurdle of the fact
that we don't have anybody who wants to buy our
debt at current prices, or certainly not enough people or
and it would free up the requirements of having the
banks being forced to take it so.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
They could make more loans.

Speaker 2 (51:08):
So again, I think you will get a lot of
out of the box ideas being floated by this administration.
If Scott Bessant it ends up being Treasury Secretary, he's
already floated some ideas. But here when you hear this
come to Oh and by the way, my friend step
Palmboy said on treasuries that they could make those tax

(51:30):
free too, So another carrots that not only do you
get that interest, but you're a text on that interest,
right because you're financing the government. So I think you're
going to hear things like this, and when you do,
you can say, oh, I heard it from that check
on Darby Show a way way back and way back
in twenty twenty four.

Speaker 4 (51:49):
That's a very interesting idea. I'm glad we're winding down
on a positive note because now I got to ask
you about your beers. I love the fact, let me say,
I love the fact that, like.

Speaker 3 (52:05):
We we do this on social media.

Speaker 4 (52:07):
Like I love the fact that my friend Carol is
just as passionate of an of a of a Bears
fan as I am a Browns fan.

Speaker 3 (52:14):
So we get to share in each other's misery. So
what's going what's going on with your.

Speaker 1 (52:18):
Be I mean, nothing good? So I did. I did
a thing.

Speaker 2 (52:22):
I don't know if you saw a post on AX
that had a few thousand responses to it, and I said,
what's more painful than being a Bears fan?

Speaker 1 (52:30):
And one of the one of the strongest answers that
came up over and over again was being a Browns fan?

Speaker 2 (52:35):
And you know, it's it's it's sort of like two
sides of the same coin. You know, here's the thing
about you know, you're in Chicago. Chicago is a major
market right where the Windy City where like you know,
this big, wonderful city, and like we don't deserve the
sports teams that we have, Like it is, it's just

(52:58):
not funny anymore, right, like we should have top tier
sports teams, and the fact that you know, even with
all of the great picks and and you know, opportunities
that the Bears have, that they still mess up the
coaching staff and that you know, we have, you know,
the the wrong leadership to be able to to take

(53:21):
advantage of it. It just it's there's just no other
word for it than painful. Because you get excited. You
see the you know, this young talent and they're just
like so bright eyed and bushy tailed, and then you know,
they win a few games, and then they go on
an eight game losing streak and they're dead inside and
you're like, I don't know if these guys can never

(53:43):
be established.

Speaker 1 (53:44):
They're so completely you know, beaten up that the Bears
have ruined them.

Speaker 2 (53:48):
So it's a sad situation. The same thing for the Browns.
You know, it's it's the same thing, right, you see
these sparks of hope and yet you like kind of
get excited, but you know, it's like loose se.

Speaker 1 (54:00):
With the football.

Speaker 2 (54:00):
They're trying to take the football away from us, and yeah,
and it's tough.

Speaker 1 (54:06):
Too with you know, with the division we're in.

Speaker 2 (54:08):
You know, the NFC North all everybody else is good
at this point, so it's it's sad.

Speaker 3 (54:15):
Where the where in the a f C North.

Speaker 1 (54:17):
Yeah they're not good.

Speaker 3 (54:22):
Well not this year, but normally I hate.

Speaker 4 (54:25):
Being in a FC North to be honest, I will
say this, and this this brought me a little bit
of peace as as you know, you know, my my
father passed a couple of months ago, and normally what
we would do during brown season is like when they
start losing, we would call each other and cuts the
team out on the phone. And there was one game

(54:46):
that that the Browns really sucked on, like they were
really really bad, and it was I had two emotions
at the same time.

Speaker 3 (54:53):
One it was like, man, I wish I could pick
up the phone and call my dad. But then the
second one was like, man, I'm glad that my dad
doesn't happen.

Speaker 1 (55:00):
What's this? Well, it's so funny.

Speaker 2 (55:02):
So my dad and I used to do the same
thing too, as they would call each other back and
forth through the game and did you see this?

Speaker 1 (55:07):
And there are.

Speaker 2 (55:08):
Still times and it has been since twenty thirteen, so
it's been a while where I still go to pick
up the phone because I want to you know, you.

Speaker 1 (55:17):
Know, basically just have a beatdown of the.

Speaker 2 (55:19):
Bears with my dad and and so you'll probably be
doing that for for quite some time.

Speaker 1 (55:25):
It's hard to hard to shake that habit.

Speaker 2 (55:27):
But lord, but here's the thing, DARBYO, here's what I
will say, Here's here's my silver lining.

Speaker 1 (55:33):
Is it just goes to show that you.

Speaker 2 (55:35):
And I were loyal people and that you know, even
when our team disappoints us, for decade after decade, we're
still there hanging on hope, you know, with hope. So
nobody could accuse us of being like a bandwagoneer or somebody.

Speaker 1 (55:54):
You know, it's not going to be there. They know that.

Speaker 2 (55:57):
If you know you need someone to have your back,
called Darvo, you called Carol and they've got you.

Speaker 3 (56:03):
That's right.

Speaker 4 (56:05):
Let everybody know how to follow you and keep up
with what you got going on.

Speaker 2 (56:10):
So the number one thing that people don't know about
as I have this great newsletter that is we cover
we break down a lot of economic topics and have
a little fun too. And you can sign up for
free at Carolroth dot com slash news and e WS
Carolroth dot com slash News.

Speaker 1 (56:27):
And then I am on lots.

Speaker 2 (56:29):
Of different social platforms at Carol js Roth, but as
as you well know, I'm most active on X that's
just that's just the one that resonates with me. So
that's hopefully, hopefully until something else happens, you're where you'll find.

Speaker 3 (56:45):
Me, all right. Thank you so much.

Speaker 4 (56:47):
We could we could spend hours, I know, and I
really appreciate, appreciate you being generous with your tom and
and giving us all the insight that we need.

Speaker 1 (56:58):
Thank you so much, Always a blessed.

Speaker 4 (57:00):
H One more time, I want to get a special
shout out to Carol Roff. We're coming on the show.
We really appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (57:05):
We are out of here, see you next time.

Speaker 4 (57:22):
This has been a presentation of the FCB podcast Network,
where Real Talk lives.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
Visit us online at fcbpodcasts dot com.