The Fed’s quiet return to money printing marks the end of 2% inflation targets and the dawn of a permanent, political inflation regime, one that rewards asset owners and punishes savers.
Marty Bent and Gary Brode argue the Fed’s latest easing (rate cuts and ending QT) signals the quiet death of the 2% target and a shift to de-facto 5–6% inflation, a political choice that transfers wealth from the productive economy to asset holders. They link this to eroding global trust in the dollar after the 2022 Russia asset freeze and to China’s push for gold-linked settlement and leverage over rare earths, exposing U.S. fragility after decades of offshoring. At home, “Fed independence” is a myth; inflation stems from Congress’s fiscal excess, not the overnight rate. Positioning should favor real assets (Bitcoin, gold, energy, equities). Brode rejects the idea that AI needs cheap money, Big Tech’s balance sheets fund it, seeing bigger upside in an energy renaissance powered by nuclear, especially SMRs accelerated via DOE review, plus behind-the-meter demand from AI and miners. Politically, a prolonged government shutdown reveals how little D.C. is needed day-to-day and could even restrain spending. Despite dysfunction, they’re optimistic on reindustrialization, nuclear build-out, and Bitcoin as a lifeboat in an inflationary fiat regime.
“What this Federal Reserve has done is take money from the 99% harmed by inflation to blow up another asset bubble. The non-productive part of the economy is stealing from the productive part.”
“When we froze Russia’s dollar assets, we told the world: the dollar is safe only while you stay in Washington’s good graces.”
“The Fed was never independent. Every president, Democrat or Republican, has leaned on the Fed for easy money.”
“People are financing burritos with buy-now-pay-later. That’s not healthy inflation, it’s desperation.”
“We no longer have a 2% target. The Fed’s real target is five or six percent inflation.”
“AI doesn’t need cheap money, Google and Nvidia have fortress balance sheets. The liquidity argument is just cocktail-party logic.”
“If you want to fix inflation, stop Congress from spending. When they’re shut down, they can’t make it worse.”
“Energy is the base layer of civilization. The correlation between energy use and quality of life is one-to-one.”
“Zoomers figured it out, you’re better off being a 22-year-old electrician than a college graduate with debt.”
“Do I think Bitcoin hits a million? Absolutely. Congress isn’t going to stop overspending, and they’re not going to stop debasing the dollar.”
This episode frames the Fed’s latest pivot not as a response to recession fears, but as a political necessity: a tacit admission that permanent inflation is now policy. Brode’s argument ties together the erosion of U.S. industrial self-sufficiency, the global exodus from the dollar, and the domestic awakening to fiscal unsustainability. Yet amid the chaos, he sees optimism in tangible production, nuclear energy, manufacturing, and Bitcoin, as the assets that will thrive in this new era of inflationary fiat decay.
0:00 - Intro
0:54 - Tariff ramifications
5:58 - US/China saber rattling
8:06 - China’s gold
11:26 - Fed meeting
14:50 - SNAP
19:54 - Bitkey & SLNT
21:42 - Timeline of policy benefit
26:39 - Fed’s inflation target
30:42 - AI stimulus
34:44 - Obscura & Unchained
36:29 - AI/Energy
48:26 - Zoomers reindustrializing
51:38 - Government showing their uselessness
55:44 - Mamdani
1:00:43 - Offer for listeners
(00:00) Basically, what this Federal Reserve has done, taking money from the 99% of people who are harmed by inflation and blowing up another asset bubble, the non-productive part of the economy is taking from the productive part of the economy and saying, "We're producing a$180 of benefit for every dollar we steal from you.
(00:17) " What we really have now is a 5 or 6% inflation target. We should be concerned about the fact that more than half the world's population is looking for an exit for the dollar. And if we go back to the first quarter of 2022, the Biden administration basically stole hundreds of billions of dollars of Russian dollar denominated assets.
(00:36) What happens when we get to the point where the only thing we export is dollars? It's not a sustainable situation. China has just basically exercised influence over US trade policy by saying you can't have these things that you know they have an almost a near monopoly on. You can take entire US industries offline. Gary Broad, it's been too long, sir. Welcome back to the show. Thanks for having me back, Marty.
(01:02) Well, we were just discussing before we hit record. The last time you were on, I believe remember it was in the midst of or right before the tariff tantrum. And regardless of whether it was be right before or right during, I think your your call was pretty impression. is that this is going to take time to see the sort of ramifications of a a shift in trade policy toward tariffs to play out.
(01:35) And so we've had uh about eight or not eight like six seven months now of the implementation of the tariffs. What is your what what are your thoughts on on how this has played out so far as it pertains to tariffs specifically? So, you know, back when, you know, we had Independence Day roughly 6 months ago, 7 months ago, something like that.
(01:59) Um, you know, what I said at the time was this is not going to be the disaster people think it is. You had all these fiat economists screaming, oh no, you know, we're going to have horrible inflation. It's going to crash the economy. And none of that has happened. And, you know, to their credit, some of them said, hey, you have to give it time.
(02:16) It takes a while for these things to work their way through the supply chains, but you know, here we are and we're now a day away from November and we're just not seeing the kind of goods inflation that indicates any kind of disaster or, you know, any kind of massive slowdown. Regardless of that, I I think, you know, there's a a huge error in the academic models.
(02:43) You know, Porter's theory of competitive advantage, it makes sense in a classroom. Um, and I'm a free market guy myself, but the issue with this stuff is the United States has been outsourcing its manufacturing capacity to lowerc cost um, partners. You know, I use that word very guardedly. Um, and that's been going on for about 40 years.
(03:06) And so what happens when we can no longer make our own um, pharmaceuticals, our own chips? um you know there there are all sorts of aspects of our economy that we no longer have control over and you know what happens when we get to the point where the only thing we export is dollars. So it's not a sustainable situation and one of the things I really like about what President Trump is doing is he's bringing back manufacturing to the United States.
(03:36) We have trillions and trillions of dollars of companies saying we're going to build manufacturing capacity in the United States in order to avoid these tariffs. That to me is pretty good way around this. And touching on the the point of it's going to take time to really see the full ramifications of of this policy shift. When do you think we'll be in the clear? Do you think we're in the clear now in terms of understanding the the effects of tariffs? Is it going to be a 12 to 18 month sort of window where it's like, okay, we're in this this period where we're adjusting and we'll have clearer information once we once we get a year year and a half out or is it safe
(04:15) to say now that this is moving in the right direction? We should be leaning in harder. So, I I think we're leaning in the right direction. Um it'll be interesting to me to see if the fiat economists who were screaming that this will be a disaster but saying it's going to take a little time.
(04:33) You know, we'll get um CPI data and we'll get like PMI manufacturing data over the next couple of months and it'll be interesting to me to see if there is no gigantic spike in goods inflation if they'll just admit we got it wrong.
(04:53) And if you take a look at, you know, the history on this stuff, one of the ways that the academic theories have gotten it wrong is people do substitute for different goods. But also when there are tariffs, you end up with an increase in domestic manufacturing. And that's exactly where we're heading.
(05:11) The thing that I'd be watching for right now is all the companies who have said, "We're going to build trillions of dollars of production capacity in the United States." I want to see them follow through on it because that's that's the long-term win is to put Americans back to work building things, making things. Um, and I get that I sound, you know, like a 1980s and 1990s, you know, Rean commercial saying that, but there is something to it.
(05:35) And outsourcing all of that, you know, to Asia or to Mexico, that's again not sustainable. It's not something that I want to see happening long term. You know, we're at a situation right now where China has just basically exercised influence over US trade policy by threatening to withhold, you know, certain things that we need. Do do we really want to be at their uh at their behest? You know, I I think that's not a good place for us to be. Yeah.
(06:04) It's been a topic on the show for the last few weeks is the posturing between the US and China, particularly around rare earth medals. Obviously Scott Bent Trump meeting with Xi in his uh cabinet this week. Are you optimistic that something good can come out of these meetings? Yes and no. Um I think shortterm first of all they've said you know we're going to come to an agreement and and the smart money was always on them coming to an agreement because it's in both sides interest to do that. The thing that I think this particular White House understands and I wish you know more
(06:37) Americans understood is China's viewing this as temporary right they the like the thing that they were using as leverage is access to rare earths which we need for things like technology um auto manufacturing you want EVs we're going to need those and a lot of our weapon systems require that advanced weapon systems you need these kinds of things um so China by saying you can't have these things that you know they have an almost a near monopoly on.
(07:12) You can take entire US industries offline and that's that's where we are. It's not an accident that China has such a monopoly on this. And you know, one of the things that will happen is if other places start to produce rare earths, you know, China can drop their price. They will lose money.
(07:30) they're willing to lose money in order to maintain market share or or basically monopoly market share. Um this is not an accident. And so, you know, I think China views what's happening here. We'll have an agreement, but they view it as temporary while they continue to build strength in areas where we're going to need them.
(07:50) And if the United States doesn't understand that we need to build our own capacity again in rare earths, in pharmaceuticals, in semiconductors, you know, these kinds of of critical industries, without that, we're going to be in trouble. Um because what are we going to do when we don't have something to negotiate with? Yeah. And that's China this year particularly with the sort of rare earths the tariff saber ratt uh saber rattling between the US and China and then I'm sure you've noticed but the sort of shift towards this alternative settlement network by putting a lot of gold registering a lot of gold on warrant at the Shanghai
(08:30) exchange and beginning to broker deals with with other countries to settle trade deals in yuan that can easily be reconverted into gold uh because they're putting all this gold up and so it seems like China is like moving their pieces on the chessboard to say hey US we have uh a strong economy number one number two we're not happy with the way you guys are weaponizing the dollar system and are beginning to set up alternative rails to sort of hedge that exposure.
(09:02) Yeah, that I mean that brings me to something where I I've had, you know, multi-year arguments with people. You know, if we go back to, you know, I think it was the first quarter of 2022, um, when the Biden administration basically stole hundreds of billions of dollars of Russian dollar denominated assets.
(09:24) Um, and I said, "This is a bad idea." And, you know, people got angry at me. They said, "Oh, no, you know, you're supporting Russia that you like Putin." No, that's not it. I'm an American. I want what's best for the United States. And what we've just done is we've communicated to the rest of the world.
(09:42) That the dollar is something you can rely on only as long as you stay in the good graces of Washington DC, a place that switches leadership every 2 to 6 years. Right? I mean, we we just made the dollar unreliable by doing that. It didn't stop the Russian war machine. It didn't slow Putin down. Um but it did hurt the United States. On top of all of that, you know, I've I've had this multi-year debate with people where, you know, they're the the bricks coalition, right? Brazil, Russia, India, China, uh, South Africa.
(10:14) Now, now that that group has grown to a couple dozen countries that um encapsulate more than half the world's population, you know, they're saying we're going to come up with our own bricks currency and, you know, so we need to take this seriously. And people have, you know, they've argued with me on X, formerly Twitter, and said, you know, hey, they can't do it. Who will trust them? That, you know, they don't really have the capacity.
(10:36) They're not coherent. Okay, fine. But we should be concerned about the fact that more than half the world's population is looking for an exit for the dollar. And, you know, I've I had never owned gold before 2020, but in 2020, I started buying it in size. I've never sold anyone. I've just held that position.
(11:02) Um because you have a situation where the dollar is being debased at an increasing rate. You know, the purchasing power of the dollar is declining. But also, you have central banks all over the world that are saying, "We want to sell dollars and buy gold and we're just going to hold it." And they're they're not price sensitive, right? The central banks buying gold don't care if they're buying at $3,000 an ounce, you know, $1,500 an ounce where I first bought it at $4,000 an ounce. It doesn't matter. They're just going to stick it in a vault.
(11:27) Yeah. Well, and that turns to sort of domestic monetary policy here in the United States. And I think throughout the course of this year, it's been pretty clear that the Trump administration, particularly Scott Ascent, uh wants to sort of align the the goals of the Federal Reserve with the goals of the Treasury and begin to sort of erode the perceived demarcation between the Fed and the Treasury, the Fed's independence.
(12:00) And there's been a number of things that happened this year, but obviously we had a Fed meeting this week and I believe it was last month's meeting or maybe in Jackson Hole. Jerome Pal had to come and make an about face and acknowledge that tariffs weren't as inflationary as people thought they were.
(12:19) But um in recent months it's this idea or this this theme that you have sofur rates blowing out. You have the standing repo facility being tapped and many people wondering if a liquidity crisis is on the horizon um in the back end of the system and yesterday cut 25 pips and um it looks like inflation is not screaming like the Fed thought it would at least as it pertains to CPI inflation.
(12:48) um what what do you make of the Fed's decision this week? What's been happening in recent months and this sort of quarreling between the Treasury and the Fed? Yeah. So, I I have a lot of thoughts on that, but first I actually want to address something that you said.
(13:05) One of the reasons I love talking to you, Arty, was the way you said the perceived independence of the Fed. Um and again, like this is a disagreement I've been having with people. You know, you you have all these people saying, you know, the Trump administration is, you know, they're changing our norms. They're uh you know, they're violating the independence of the Fed.
(13:23) Okay, Marty, you know as well as I do, the Fed has never been an independent institution. For the first couple of decades, the chairman of the Fed and the Treasury Secretary were by law the same person. FDR used the Fed to finance his whole, you know, New Deal. uh Lynden Johnson, you know, literally picked up Fed Chairman Arthur Burns and slammed him into a wall, literally strongarming the guy into lower rates. President Nixon, you he did the same thing.
(13:53) Well, you know, he didn't slam anybody into a wall, but he, you know, he pressed for lower rates. Um got it and we had the inflation of the 70s, you know. Um, it's this has been a constant feature feature. You know, I'm I'm on team and the Fed, but we have never had a politically independent Fed. And every president, whether Democratic or Republican, has always wanted a Federal Reserve that would give them easy money policies so they can juice the economy.
(14:28) Every president wants to point to lots of economic growth, even if it's meaningless nominal growth, right? It's it's why Washington spends so much money right now. They can all say, you know, look, while they're stealing, they can they can just say, you know, look, uh, we have GDP growth. Well, you know, is it really is it is it really product or are you just, you know, wasting our money? Um, and counting it on your own scorecard, right? Well, every $1 SNAP benefits contributes $180 to GDP. If you knew that. Yeah.
(14:59) Great. Yeah. Um, I'm glad to know that. Yeah. the government multiplier. That is, you know, if you think about it, that is one of the most incredible um examples of of a scop I've ever seen where the government, which even when it's effective is not efficient, is trying to convince us that every dollar they take from us, every dollar they take from the productive private economy and spend on their own prerogatives somehow leads to more benefit for us than we would have produced ourselves, right? Like literally the non-productive part of the economy is taking from the productive part of the economy and
(15:36) saying we're producing a $180 of benefit for every dollar we steal from you or $5 or you know like guys like Kugman you know would make a living talking about the multiplier effect. It's, if you just think about it for a second, of course that doesn't make sense.
(15:54) But it's an incredible scop that, you know, the newspapers reported and like how stupid do we have to be to accept that as the truth. I I think people are waking up to it, though. I mean, that was the uh I mean, that was it seems like one of the wrote scripts that was handed to uh Democratic politicians last week.
(16:15) You had Tim Waltz, Keem Jeff I believe, tweeting it out like, "Hey, we need to turn SNAP back on because it's actually stimulative for for the economy." It's like this doesn't really make sense. You know, one of the things I think is really interesting, um, you know, look, Marty, I know one of the things that you pay attention to is the Overton window, right? What what are we really allowed to talk about? And I have seen an incredible change in the last couple of weeks as we've come up on like you know the snap cliff.
(16:46) Um and previously if we go back you know five or 10 or 15 years it would have been unsemly to say hey I don't care about this program because people said oh no you want people to be hungry you want people to starve and and we couldn't have talked about it. My thread on X, my feed is full of people saying, "Wait, how many people are getting fed by the government? How many people are on benefits?" Like there there is this visceral anger from people who are working saying, "Wait, how many people am I feeding who aren't in my household?" And it it didn't this this
(17:21) situation has actually ended up opening the Overton window wider where that's not what I would have expected to see. You know, people are openly saying I we've got too many people who are on benefits. Yeah. 40 million 15% of the country and and to not come off as uh sort of soulless non-mpathetic individual.
(17:44) There certainly people who may need some assistance, but if you look into the details, it's like you're supposed to be looking for a job. Uh what you're allowed to spend the benefits on. Like you can buy any crap you want. It's becoming clear if you hop on TikTok and you find people talking about what people actually do with the benefits, there's a lot of people just selling them and um just using as loophole to to not have to work. And I I think that's whether it's the SNAP benefits or the broader immigration conversation that's
(18:15) h happening in the country right now. I think a lot of people are getting back to first principles. Wait a second. There should be rules. there is a rule of law and if we don't um if we don't enforce the rules whether it pertains to what you have to do to get these SNAP benefits or the rule of law of what you have to do to be here legally as somebody who came from outside the country people were saying wait a second like we're not following any of these rules and that can't happen anymore you don't have a society why does the government exist if they're not enforcing any of these rules that is the
(18:46) contract that we engage in as citizens with them is to enforce these pretty basic rules Yeah. And in fact, you know, one of the things people, you know, the conversation has to take place in this, you know, humane, you know, we want what's best for people. We want to be kind.
(19:07) But I have more concern for my fellow Americans than I do for people who came here illegally. And one of the ways our government is harming our fellow countrymen is by taking people who came here illegally, giving them free housing, giving them these these SNAP benefits, giving them food, and basically covering their expenses.
(19:26) And what that means is that these people can work for below market rates, right? I mean, basically, imagine, you know, you're you're a bluecollar worker and your job gets taken by somebody who who's supported by the government, right? who's like, "Yeah, I I can work for lower rates. I can work for a lower wage because the government's covering my grocery bills and my rent.
(19:51) " And that's I you know, why is it somehow wrong to express sympathy for our own people? Sup freaks, this rip of TFTC was brought to you by our good friends at BitKey. Bit Key makes Bitcoin easy to use and hard to lose. It is a hardware wallet that natively embeds into a 203 multiig.
(20:10) have one key on the hardware wallet, one key on your mobile device, and block stores a key in the cloud for you. This is an incredible hardware device for your friends and family or maybe yourself who have Bitcoin on exchanges and have for a long time but haven't taken a step to self- custody cuz they're worried about the complications of setting up a private public key pair, securing that seed phrase, setting up a pin, setting up a passphrase. Again, Bit Key makes it easy to use, hard to lose. It's the easiest zero to one step.
(20:36) Your first step to self-custody. If you have friends and family on the exchanges who haven't moved it off, tell them to pick up a big key. Go to bit.world. Use the key TFTC 20 at checkout for 20% off your order. That's bit.world, code TFTC20. Sup freaks. This is brought to you by my good friends at Silent. Silent trades everyday Faraday gear that protects your hardware. We're in Bitcoin.
(20:56) We have a lot of hardware that we need to secure your wallet emits signals that can leave you vulnerable. You want to pick up silence gear, put your hardware in that. I have a tap signer right here. I got the silent card holder. Replace my wallet. I was using ridge wallet because it's secured against RFID signal jacking.
(21:13) Uh silent, the card holder does the same thing. It's much sleeker. Fits in my pocket much easier. I also have the Faraday phone sleeve which you can put a hardware wallet in. We're actually using it for our keys at the house, too. There's been a lot of robberies. They have essential Faraday slings, Faraday backpacks. It's a Bitcoin company. They're running on a Bitcoin standard. They have a Bitcoin treasury. They accept Bitcoin via Strike.
(21:31) So go to slt.com/tc to get 15% off anything or simply just use the code TFTC when shopping at slt.com. Patented technology, special operations approved. It has free shipping as well. So go check it out. to your point, I think the over window is shifting. And that's what I what I wonder is is there enough time between when these policies started getting implemented earlier this year and the midterms to really see immaterial effects that sort of gets regular Americans like you and I, more not maybe not like you and I, bluecollar Americans specifically waking up and
(22:10) saying, "Oh, this actually did help me. I can get a job now. And when you think about immigration specifically as it pertains to rent and housing and all that um like pushing up the cost of real estate and the exacerbating the housing afford affordability crisis, like if they're successfully able to cut the benefits of illegal immigrants and get them out of the housing, bring housing costs down, bring uh jobs back to market, bring consumer good costs down, then I think there's a good chance that people can say, "Oh, wow. this is actually working. We should lean into this harder. Yeah. So I, you know, one thing I think
(22:46) was lost in the data that we got earlier this year was you had uh a decrease in the number of jobs available, but you didn't have a decrease in the number of Americans working and wages went up. And you think, wait, how how is that possible? This this shouldn't these things shouldn't have existed together? And the obvious answer was you had people leaving.
(23:16) So you had fewer jobs available, but you had fewer people looking for those jobs, enabling Americans to hold on to their jobs and get wage increases, right? They they were no longer competing with illegal labor. And you know, so what you had and and Powell was he was careful the way you said it, but he talked about a labor market that was surprisingly imbalanced.
(23:34) This is a few months ago and some people may not remember but um I think people were surprised that you had so many things shifting all at once but remaining in imbalance. Now you know one thing you and I should talk about is he had some other interesting comments in this week's press conference but you know this is as long as we're talking about policy it makes sense to you know reference what happened earlier. I think it was in the summer. Yeah.
(23:59) What what comments this week stuck out to you? Well, you saw the market, you know, tank when Powell said that, you know, a December rate hike wasn't, you know, baked in. And I think, you know, people, anybody with a brain would have said, well, there's no universe where Powell would have actually said, "Yeah, we're planning on rate cut for December as well." He was never going to say that.
(24:28) But I think it was the part where he said, "Far from it, right?" It was like this hawkish hawkish message like telling Wall Street, don't don't count on this. You know, I we it may not be coming. And you know, people got really worried about a hawkish Fed. My take on it was very different. And and I know you read the piece I put out on it. Um but my take on it was very different.
(24:55) You had the Fed cutting for the sixth time, you know, in this cycle with the CPI, which is understated, you know, at 3%. 50% above the 2% target, which itself is 2% too high. you know what what the Fed is basically doing and you know they can talk about the employment market all they want but you know Americans would rather have 5% unemployment which is you know 1% above that baseline and 0% inflation because inflation affects 99% of the country whereas 1% of the country would be losing their jobs. Um, and that's, you know, that's something that I I think a lot of people are missing. But
(25:30) basically what the Fed has done is they've made it clear the 2% target is it's gone. We now have a 3 or 4% target. And when you figure that the CPI is understated most, you know, most obviously in the difference between K Schiller and OER, the owner's equivalent rent, which makes the housing prices that people are seeing in CPI not reflect the reality, which is much more challenging unless you're selling a home.
(26:01) Um, you know, what what we really have now is a five or 6% inflation target, right? and and they just did that at the same time that they're saying, "Yeah, we're going to end quantitative tightening." Everybody was focused on Powell saying from it, meaning we haven't decided on a December rate cut and got upset about it.
(26:26) But the reality is this was very doubbish action by the Federal Reserve, right? You you had the CPI going up, the CPI understated a Fed cut and the end of quantitative tightening. How much more doubbish is the Fed supposed to get? Right. Now, I mean, and to Jerome Pal's credit, I guess to your and to your point, like what could people expect like him to come out in November and basically tell you exactly what he's going to do in December, but you you wrote it in your piece like the stock market um is focused solely on expectations now, like forward-looking expectations. Yeah. And by the way, that's something
(27:05) that I find really really strange, right? So the like, you know, last week the market was looking for a 3.1% CPI print. We got a 3% print. And so like let's talk about a 3% print means, right? You got a 2% target, which is just a madeup number. It's literally it was made up by a European econ. Yeah.
(27:29) Like a guy from New Zealand is on a TV show. Somebody asked him a question. He's like, "Ah, you know, 1%." like he just made it up on the spot. But the Fed's mandate, as you know, is stable prices. That's a 0% inflation target that we should have. Okay. So, they're going for the 2% target, which is not right. It's just made up, but fine.
(27:47) Um, but we've been above that since the beginning of it's been 5 years, right? Since early 2021. It's been five years, right? and and they cut but you saw people the week before when we get this CPI print it's below expectations right so instead of 3.1% we got 3%. It's below expectations. Powell has to cut.
(28:11) What? What? Why? Why? The absolute number is still too high, right? I mean, it's people are using buy now pay later for their groceries because inflation is too high because the cost of groceries is not up 1 or 2% like the Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us it is. Right. People aren't financing burritos because, you know, the like it they're doing it because a burrito and a Coke is $20 or $18, you know, whatever it is.
(28:43) Like people are suffering from inflation and the Fed just reduced rates, right? And and Wall Street is saying they have to reduce because our expectations were 3.1%. I you know, I followed the logic, but I don't agree with it. Yeah. and um excuse me, coughing number one, but number two looking for um I forget it was the head of one um one of the banks. I thought it was City Bank, but I can't find the clip.
(29:15) But essentially, he was we're getting to the point where the bankers are admitting that like cuz you have this sort of dislocation between the stock market um hovering around all-time highs and the real economy, if you will, if you will. And it was the first time I've ever heard a bank executive explicitly say um I think people are flowing into equities to escape or outpace inflation. Like it's equities are explicitly being used as an inflation hedge.
(29:41) They're not um people aren't going into index funds because they think the um the financials of the companies within that index are producing uh value and they're being productive companies making a profit and that may spit off dividends. It's like, no, we need to escape this inflation.
(29:58) So, we're just going to push all of our money into the stock market. Yeah. That So, the stock market, gold, silver, Bitcoin, energy, right? I mean, the basically what this Federal Reserve has done is they are taking money from the 99% of people who are harmed by inflation and blowing up another asset bubble. So, you know, like what are you going to do? I I have a no black pill policy, um, which I put into writing this week. Like, I don't like it, but I'm not going to complain about it or whine about it or be upset about it.
(30:35) I'm just going to own the things that are going to benefit from more long-term inflation. Yeah. Well, and that and we're at this weird crossroads too where you know people escaping into equities to escape inflation. But then you you have this sort of AI theme in the background too. And there's this idea that we need stimulus to be able to invest in the infrastructure that can manifest what many believe to be the holy grail productivity gains. And not only that, but an arms race against China to be the dominant AI player in
(31:17) the world. And so you have that sort of external force implicitly begging for more liquidity so that they can go build out this infrastructure. And then not only that, but then you obviously have the effects of the productivity gains from artificial intelligence if they're real, which I think they are to an extent right now and could grow stronger moving forward.
(31:41) in that effect on the jobs market and the economy overall like how it seems like an interesting variable that's been added to the mix the last two years. Yeah, look I first of all I I do think AI is going to be real. I I do think there will be gains. I do think there's there's value to it. Um we're not there yet.
(32:06) um you know like my my my version of chat GPT um actually tried to send me to a place that was closed when you know I had a time-sensitive situation and I said why why are you doing I said verified information only why are you sending me to a place that was closed 3 years ago and it responded I was just trying to maintain the momentum of the situ of the conversation like what I I'm not asking like I'm not looking to chat I'm looking for information right Um that said, I'm not buying the argument that we need lower rates, that we have to, you know, debase our currency
(32:40) in order to end up with AI leadership. And the reason for that is I'm going to give you two reasons, right? One is the idea here is that if we lower the Fed funds rate, we'll have like a lower 5year, a lower 10year. That but that's not what happened.
(33:05) right? The Fed cut and and what happened that same day the the 10-year uh yield was up eight basis points. The next day it was up five or six basis points. So you had increases and the reason is the market is correctly baking in uh higher long-term inflation. So we're getting higher bond rates.
(33:23) People have this weird idea that the Federal Reserve controls interest rates. They don't. The Federal Reserve controls the overnight rate. The bond market controls the rest of the yield curve, right? So, Federal Reserve overnight, the bond market, everything from one day to 30 years. So, the the Fed doesn't have that much control. But the other thing, yeah, there you you got it right there.
(33:44) That was that was on a rate cut. So, you know, I don't know about that. The other thing is AI spending is not being done by the general economy. You have half a dozen companies that are doing that and those that half those half dozen companies have fortress-like balance sheets. They're doing this with like the the cash on the balance sheet, right? Google, Facebook, Meta, whatever, Alphabet, um you know, Apple, Nvidia, these aren't companies that are going into the market to borrow and needing lower rates. If anything, higher rates
(34:24) bring them more income. Those companies have billions and billions of dollars on their balance sheets, right? So, the idea that if like lower rates just means their interest income is lower. So, I I'm not I'm just not buying that answer. It it sounds good, you know, at a cocktail party, but if you sort of look at anybody's balance sheet, it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
(34:49) Supreaks, have you noticed that governments have become more despotic? They want to surveil more. They want to take more of your data. They want to follow you around the internet as much as possible so they can control your speed, control what you do. It's imperative in times like this to make sure that you're running a VPN as you're surfing the web, as we used to say back in the '90s.
(35:06) And it's more imperative that you use the right VPN, a VPN that cannot log because of the way that it's designed. And that's why we have partnered with Obscura. That is our official VPN here at TFTC. Built by a Bitcoiner, Carl Dong, for Bitcoiners focused on privacy. You can pay in Bitcoin over the Lightning. So, not only are you private while you're perusing the web with Obscura, but when you actually set up an account, you can acquire that account privately by paying in Bitcoin over the Lightning network. Do not be complacent when it comes to protecting your privacy on the internet.
(35:35) Go to obscura.net. Set up an Obscura account. Use the code TFTC for 25% off. When I say account, you just get a token. It's a string of token. It's not connected to your identity at all. Token sign up. Pay with Bitcoin. Completely private. Turn on Obscura. Surf the web privately. Obscur.net. Use the code TFTC for 25% off.
(35:59) What's up, freaks? Bitcoin's market cycles tend to follow the same old pattern. Parabolic spikes, brutal crashes. This time is measurably different. The Bitcoin check from Unchained and Check onChain shows how the 2023 to 2025 cycle has permanently reshaped Bitcoin's market structure.
(36:15) Inside you'll find why volatility has collapsed, why ETFs have anchored new five and six figure price floors, and why long-term hodlers remain firmly in control. Download now and you'll also get access to the online event featuring James Czech. Bitcoin has crossed the Rubicon. Get the report at unchained.com/tc. That's unchained.com/dftc.
(36:33) And so with all this in mind, how do you think people should be positioning themselves never doom? Do you think the ramifications of the Trump admin policies basically being able to get a track record and really get some teeth in terms of um being deployed and having long-term ramifications come to fruition coupled with the AI narrative whether you believe it's stimulative or not like if we're going to go after that it could be really good for the economy but tied to that AI narrative is energy, which we've been talking about for years. And if
(37:11) that is just a an externality, a positive externality of the AI boom, and that's all we get, that's I'd be happy with that is increased energy capacity expansion in the United States. And with that, talking about overton window shifts, it seems like the overton window as it pertains to nuclear power specifically has completely been blown open.
(37:35) And looks like we're going to go after it. Yeah, that's that's definitely where we're heading. I've been doing a lot of calls in that area and and that's the way I'm playing the whole AI thing. Um, you know, and and look, congratulations to the people who have owned Nvidia for the last few years.
(37:53) They've done incredibly well, but we're, you know, we're also at the point in the show where they're creating their own revenue, right? They're sending money to their customers that has to be used to buy their products, right? And this is the kind of thing that, you know, you saw with Cisco 25 years ago. So, you know, that's um that's something that we're seeing right now.
(38:17) And, you know, I think that's that's a a potential issue. You know, there's certainly huge demand for their products, but they're financing their own customers. And that's a that's a gigantic potential problem. The way I've been playing it is on the um the energy side because some of these individual contracts actually require like some of them require like you know 8 gawatts of power or 10 gawatt of power.
(38:49) Um and if that's the case that's multiple Hoover dams worth of power worth of energy. Where is that going to come from? Because we don't have it. And so the way I've been playing this is is on the energy side. I own huge amounts of uranium. Um, and that's, you know, because I'm a believer in nuclear. I I own, you know, an SMR company, small modular reactors.
(39:10) Like I I think that's the direction all of this has to go. And, you know, it takes 10 to 20 years to build a gen 3 big nuclear reactor like, you know, Homer Simpson works at on the Simpsons. Um but you know these SMRs can be built in factories and rolled out and and you know located very close to populations. There's no meltdown.
(39:36) You know there's no kind of like Chernobyl or 3M island possibility with these. Um you know a core can be replaced when that has to be refueled. Um but there's no there's no danger. There's no radiation issue. So I think that's where all of this has to come from. Yeah. And it's been interesting.
(39:55) I'm not sure if you've been following the announcements coming out of the Department of Energy, particularly as it pertains to FK and demand response, but um as somebody who's been paying attention to the US electricity grid and capacity expansion since 2018 when I got into Bitcoin mining, it seems like with Chris Wright um at the Department of Energy, who really understands this stuff, they're they're beginning to understand the problems and find unique solutions um to to to expand capacity so far came out and once the FastTrack large load interconnection um and basically use
(40:34) Bitcoin miners or uh AI data centers to basically be like a buyer first resort for energy um and wait for interconnect built be built out and I think that's another thing that's a good positive is people actually understanding the true problem as pertains to energy.
(40:59) We've had massive capacity expansion expansion in the US, particularly in URP and other parts of the country as well, but we've been lacking on transmission and interconnects. And I think the administration and the market more broadly is beginning to realize like, okay, we are beginning to get our legs under us and remember how to build out an energy system and prioritize.
(41:19) And to your point about small modular reactors, I've literally been beating this drum for like 5 years now, which is like plop down the reactor, mine Bitcoin with it, build out transmission, connect it to the grid, and then rinse and repeat. It seems like that is the express intent of of this administration and organizations like FK right now. Yeah, I I completely agree with you.
(41:41) And one of the things that's really interesting, at least as it relates to Bitcoin mining and um AI data centers, is we actually don't need to build transmission, right? What what I think what we're going to see um are is one of two things.
(42:05) Either individual companies like Google will will literally buy their own SMR and build a data center next to it and they don't need to hook it up to the grid, right? Just go from there. The other thing that we're seeing um like in Pennsylvania right now is some of these big tech companies are buying power from the independent power producers and they're hooking in, you know, basically behind the meter.
(42:26) Um, and so some of that is going to stop because it's getting expensive for Americans who just want to run an air conditioner and, you know, they're saying, "Wait a minute, I I'm I'm competing with Facebook or, you know, Google for my power and they can out bid me and I don't like this and it's going to lead to problems.
(42:47) " But you know what can be done is because a lot of these places are already zoned for energy and in some cases nuclear, you put an SMR on or near the site and just hook in, you know, behind the meter and you can go from there. Um, the thing that I really like about what the Trump administration is doing here is they've correctly realized that the NRC, the the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, basically as soon as they took over in the mid1 1970s, the United States stopped approving and building nuclear reactors. Over the last 50 years, we have closed more nuclear
(43:23) reactors than we've built, right? And and I think in the last what we what have we permitted and built to in the last 40 years? So the NRC whether intentionally or not serves to prevent any kind of actual building, right? It just they require companies to submit millions of uh pages of paperwork and regulatory filings. And so what the Trump administration has done is they've started a an accelerated program.
(43:50) They've got 10 companies enrolled in it where they can get accelerated review by the Department of Energy. And that I think is phenomenal. And you know there by the way there is a um an SMR company that's part of it terrestrial energy uh that just had their they you know went uh through a despacking the ticker was HD now it's IMSR um for integral molten salt reactor but you know you've got these companies that are saying wait a minute let's do the accelerated DOE review um and not get stuck for another 40 years not building power plants. How profound is that in your mind? Like
(44:32) how if we get a few of these SMR companies going through the accelerated review successfully, they begin plopping these down like how transformational transformational do you think that could be for the energy sector in the US? I think it's enormous. Uh, I mean, look, before the NRC, we built more nuclear plants than anybody in the world.
(45:00) And if you were somebody who wanted to stop the use of nuclear power in, you know, 1976, you couldn't have done better than to have a regulatory agency that somehow manages to never approve anything, right? That just somehow manages to never make it work. the people there, you know, are are they dishonest? Are they, you know, not playing? I don't know.
(45:27) You know, maybe they're just all worried that if they approve something without getting 2 million pages of documents and it goes wrong, you know, you don't want to be the person who approved the next 3 mile island. So maybe maybe they're not dishonest. um maybe they're just, you know, ridiculously cautious because from their point of view, you you can turn everything down and say, "I'm just being careful.
(45:53) " The thing that I really love about the DOE review is if you can get this accelerated process done that what can happen is that that process will then produce data that can be given to the NRC and they can then be in a position where they're approving something that's up and running and working. Um, and that may get things moving again. I also spoke with an expert in this area yesterday who said something really interesting.
(46:17) He said, "Look, the people at the NRC, you know, they're in their mid60s. They've been there forever. You know, all they know is how to reject things." He said, "The, you know, the younger generation of engineers coming up actually are in favor of nuclear power and want to see these things done.
(46:36) " And so there may be kind of a changing of the guard along with more and better data that could allow some of this stuff to proceed. The unfortunate part of this is it's not going to happen in the next 3 years. And so I'm hoping, you know, whatever administration follows the Trump administration is in favor like they're I want them to be pro energy as well, you know, and pro- nuclear energy because Gen 4 is safe, you know, and it's something that we should be taking advantage of, especially when you consider this chart.
(47:07) I think you just got to get this chart in front of anybody in the US government, particularly the NRC, and say we need to fix this problem. We need to bring down these prices. Energy is the base layer of our economy and we should be exploring any option that allows us to expand capacity generation and drive down these prices cuz I mean at scale and that's the one thing that people will knock on on nuclear specifically. It's like ah it's not economical. It's too much of an upfront cost, but we haven't had the ability to
(47:38) really experiment with a wider implementation of of this technology which arguably over time should drive down cost. Marty, I completely agree with you and would simply add that, you know, for the people who don't know it, there is a near 100% correlation between the energy a society uses and a good material quality of life.
(48:05) And if people want to say, hey, you know, but you've got your health, your spiritual, you know, practice, your um, you know, your connection to other people, yeah, those those things will all determine whether you live a good life or not. But if we're looking at material quality of life, the R squar between that and energy usage is one. Yeah.
(48:28) And that's why I mean a lot there's a lot of dooming out there right now, but I'm extremely optimistic. I'm not sure if you've been following the sort of industrial startup community. It's it's forming in Elsa Gundo. There's a lot of companies in Austin. And there was just a metal fabrication startup that launched in Michigan.
(48:47) Like the young people specifically uh the Zoomers are fascinated by this trend of re-industrialization and really going out and starting companies. And I think that's interesting just watching the the sort of psychological and sociological side of things where I think people particularly millennials, Gen X boomers have been conditioned to think it can never be re-industrialized like this is just the way it is.
(49:14) But it it's been extremely refreshing to observe younger generations, particularly in the startup community, really lean into starting hard industrial companies over B2B SAS products in recent years. I I completely agree with that. Um, and in fact, like one of the things about the Zoomers is they have figured out that you're better off right now being a 22year-old without a college education and with four years of experience as an electrician than you are being somebody who spent the last four years on a college campus. If you want to get a job and get paid,
(49:55) Yeah. And it'll be really and it'll be really interesting to see if this is allowed to flourish. I really I'm optimistic that it will be. But you have this political class particularly in DC that seems to be um filled with a bunch of lites particularly on the left.
(50:22) I mean everybody says don't get political but I think it's objectively clear that the left has gone completely insane. We're seeing it with the this shutdown um their inability to to bargain over this this spending bill. Um and I think they're falling on uh tactics that were tried and true in the past. they were successfully able to um point at government shutdowns and blame it on Trump uh during his first term, but this term it's you just look at the polls um people are basically figuring out like, oh, you're holding the US economy hostage because you want to get your your jibs passed uh included in the spending bill.
(51:02) Yeah, it's I there's no question that's been going on. I you know I also think Democratic messaging has been bad here. Um I like I've seen them they get on these shows and people ask them you know direct questions about it and instead of answering the question you can tell they go to the talking points it's the Trump administration did this this and this and you know we're they're responsible for it. But anybody who's followed it has realized that there have been more than a dozen votes and Republicans are
(51:32) voting to reopen the government and Democrats are voting to keep it closed and and that's fine. As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and keep it closed. I actually like the government closed for one key reason. It's because it is a phenomenal message to Americans that we don't need them to manage our lives. Right. So, I'm I'm pro shutdown.
(51:52) Like if the Democrats listen, you know, you you made the great point like let's not get partisan. Let's not get political. I am strongly in favor of the Democrats keeping the the government closed, right? Great job, team blue. Keep it up. Right. I'm I'm I'm on your side on this one. Right.
(52:12) Um and the reason is like, think about it. The government is in every aspect of our lives. We've now had a month without the government open and there have got to be 300 million Americans saying, "What do we need them fly?" Yeah. Right. What What is it they do? How do they help us? I'm sending tax money for what? Right.
(52:32) And great, because we've just had a one month experiment in them not running our lives. And somehow we're managing. Let's let's give it, you know, 6 months or a few years and see how it goes and check in and, you know, figure out if we need to reopen things. I tweeted that out 4 days ago on the 27th.
(52:51) I was like, "The government's been closed down for 27 days and I have not noticed any material degradation in the quality of my life. Let's keep this going." And that's how did I miss that? That's the funny thing too is the Democrats has made manifest their own demise because I was watching something that Peter St. put out earlier this week and apparently mechanically if this goes on for long enough like you literally have to start firing the furled workers completely.
(53:26) So you could see at least onethird of the federal government workforce um get fired if this goes on I believe past January. And and the thing I want to emphasize is those aren't temporary layoffs. That's not temporary. Those are those are permanent workforce reductions. And the amazing thing about this is, you know, a year ago I was saying, I really hope Doge is successful, but I'm skeptical. I don't think anybody can shut down government spending.
(53:51) I just don't think it's possible. And you know, and you know, Peter Theal is right. never bet against Elon Musk. Um, and I I was really hopeful, but it didn't surprise me when, you know, that didn't really cut a whole lot of spending. Um, but this could be the thing that does it, right? Like this this could be the the Doge moment when we get a real reduction in government spending. And by the way, that's something that's certainly necessary.
(54:19) You know, you and I were understandably and reasonably critical of Federal Reserve Chairman Powell in this conversation, and I've been critical of him for the last however many years. Um, but let's, you know, let's also be honest here. There's nothing he can do, right? Inflation is being created by overspending out of Congress, and that is a bipartisan problem, right? Whether Washington's been controlled by team blue or team red or some combination of, you know, white house and congress, no matter what the combination is, we only have increased
(54:48) spending. And that's the thing that's really causing inflation. It's something that I've talked about as counterintuitive inflation. Lyn Alden talks about it as fiscal dominance. Um, but there's nothing Powell can do to stop that. There's nothing he can do to stop inflation. And so, you know, we should we should throw him a bone on that. But this is really the fault of Congress. So if they're out of session, at least they can't spend more.
(55:11) Yeah. It's cautiously optimistic because uh Right. because I think I mean unless you're marching in a no Kings protest, I think most your average American is looking at this and and saying what you said earlier like, "Yeah, do we really need this? What are we paying for?" And so Marty, you and I agree that it's the Democrats keeping the government closed.
(55:40) Should I post on X? Marty Ben has just endorsed uh Democratic policies. Yes, as long as not New York Democratic policies. If it's federal democratic. Well, that I mean, and it's interesting like we've got wins there, but then you have this sort of emerging sort of socialist populace um particularly in New York City with Mdani um coming to it seems inevitable that it will be come to power uh in a couple of weeks here.
(56:12) Uh and it's this weird sort of manifestation of this overt democratic socialism in the financial hub of the world. And it is scary to be honest that there are a number of lemmings out there who will take this guy's sort of campaign speeches hook line and sinker and think that they can actually um impose socialism on the United States's largest uh city and have good outcomes.
(56:46) But um I think that's something we need to keep an eye on moving forward. And that's what I've been thinking of like how do you really cut through that narrative like this never worked throughout history wherever tried to be implemented. Um we should not be doing that anywhere in the United States particularly the financial hub of the world.
(57:10) Well, you know, we've seen the same party and the same policies in every major city in the United States and living conditions in those cities continually gets worse. But the people there keep voting for the same policies. So, you know, the truth is anybody who knows any history knows that socialism or communism or redistribution, it doesn't work.
(57:32) And and you know, everybody says, "Oh, you know, we just did it wasn't real communism." Yes, it was. It's it doesn't work. It's not going to work. Um, unfortunately, you know, every generation needs to learn that lesson through hard experience. It's available in books, but that requires, you know, reading something longer than a Tik Tok video. Um, and you know, people don't want to do that. Okay? You know, fine, then they're going to learn.
(57:56) And the thing that is really amazing to me as somebody who lived in New York City, who lived in Manhattan and worked in finance for 25 years, um, you know, all these people who say, you know, the rich aren't paying their fair share, hey, well, you know, one, nobody ever defines fair share. The beauty of fair share is everybody's in favor of fair, but it's never specific.
(58:16) Um, but more importantly, the the tax base of New York is a very very small number of people. The top 1 or 2% of taxpayers there are highly mobile. They they run finance firms. They can pick up and leave, right? They all they have and by the way, they don't have to move to Florida. They can. They don't have to. They they can move to Connecticut. They can go to Greenwich.
(58:41) They can go to Westchester and they can go to Long Island or New Jersey. Like, they don't have to pick up and have all of their employees move. They literally just need to go one county over in any direction. And and New York has just lost its entire tax base. So, you know, u none of this is going to work. Um, you know, I own a home in Connecticut.
(59:04) We're expecting a flood of refugees and much higher property prices. And it looks like there's a good chance that New Jersey could get a Republican governor uh in a couple weeks. Look at how incredible that is. Right. Right. Virginia, New Jersey. Like people are they're getting tired of of seeing these policies. They're willing to try something different.
(59:27) The thing that worries me, Marty, is, you know, so we've been very critical of the left in this conversation and reasonably so, rightfully so, right? I I endorse everything. I I said everything I've said. I stand behind it. Um, but one of the things that does worry me is Republicans run for office saying, "We're the party of fiscal sanity. We're going to get things under control.
(59:53) you know, we're we're, you know, not going to be the party of tax and spend and we're going to do things that make more sense, right? We're the adults in the room. But they don't actually do it, right? They're lying. Republican team red when they're in charge of Washington, they don't cut spending. They talk about it, but they don't actually do it.
(1:00:13) And so, you know, we correctly criticize Democrats as being horrible communists, but we should also criticize Republicans as being liars because they spend like Democrats. It's a bipartisan problem. Yeah, it really is. And hopefully the government shutdown doesn't give either of them the ability to lie. I I think I think it's incredible that if we could get you elected to the Senate, you'd be voting with the Democrats right now.
(1:00:38) Ah, this is fascinating. The uh I'm very optimistic right now. And I guess to wrap this up, uh you have a deal for the listeners of the show for Deep Knowledge Investing if you uh I'll let you explain it. Yeah. Yeah. The So, if you go to deep knowledgeinvesting.com, there's a subscribe now button in the top right if you're interested. So, you know what we're doing there.
(1:01:09) I I talk about macro stuff like this all the time. But, you know, I also have my own portfolio up there and you know, whenever I have a new idea, I write it up for subscribers and explain how I'm investing and why. And because the important thing is, you know, you and I, we've just complained about a lot of stuff, but I'm investing in a way to take advantage of all these things that you and I don't like.
(1:01:32) And so for people who want to take advantage of that, just click, you know, the subscribe now button and we have a coupon code for you, for your people. It's TFTC21 and that gets you guys 21% off of a paid subscription, whether you do monthly or yearly. Well, I appreciate you offering that to our audience. I mean, I I think you're one of uh this audience's favorite recurring guests over the last couple years.
(1:02:03) The YouTube comments are always um clamoring for me to bring you back on more consistently. And so, I'm sorry it took us 6 months to catch up, but I'm I'm glad we did. And not only that, uh it's on Bitcoin white paper day. It's uh the 17th anniversary of Satoshi Nakamoto releasing the Bitcoin white paper.
(1:02:23) So, Marty, I'm going to tell you, Bitcoin is my largest position because I bought a medium-sized position and then didn't sell. It just became it just became huge. And and you know, the one change the one change I made. So, I bought in 2021 20 no 2020 when it was 15,000. Runs up to 64,000 comes back down to 15,000. I didn't get upset. I didn't lose sleep. I didn't worry. I just bought more.
(1:02:50) You think we're sitting pretty now hovering at 110? Uh yeah. So I you know I I saw somebody you know saying do you think it hits 100,000 first or 150 first or you know is the next 10,000 or 20,000 up or down? And I don't know the answer to that.
(1:03:10) But somebody asked me the other day, do I think it'll hit a million? And I said yeah absolutely. And a friend of mine said you know I want to buy Bitcoin but I think I missed it. And I said you didn't miss it. He said, "How do you know?" And I said, "Well, do you think Congress is going to stop overspending?" "No." "You think they're going to stop debasing the dollar?" "No." "Then you're not too late.
(1:03:27) We're all going to be billionaires one day in dollar terms." Uh well, yeah. It's that little Saturday Night Live Jimmy Carter thing, you know, like wouldn't you like to have a $6,000 suit, you know? Wouldn't you like to have a $100 cigar, right? Like, not really. No, Gary. Go. This has been a pleasure.
(1:03:50) Thank you for joining me on this Friday morning and uh I hope you have a great night in Tel Aviv. Yeah, Marty, thank you so much. Really appreciate you having me. Always great talking with you. I I enjoy these conversations. Looking forward to the next one. I have as well. Peace and love, freaks. Okay. Thank you for listening to this episode of TFTC. If you've made it this far, I imagine you got some value out of the episode.
(1:04:09) If so, please share it far and wide with your friends and family. We're looking to get the word out there. Also, wherever you're listening, whether that's YouTube, Apple, Spotify, make sure you like and subscribe to the show. And if you can leave a rating on the podcasting platforms, that goes a long way. Last but not least, if you want to get these episodes a day early and add free, make sure you download the Fountain podcasting app. You can go to fountain.fm to find that.
(1:04:38) $5 a month gets you every episode a day early, ad free, helps the show, gives you incredible value. So, please consider subscribing via fountain as well. Thank you for your time and until next time.
