Tom Luongo on What Happens With Powell if Ron Paul and Elon Audit the Fed
01:08:16 Share

Well, I'm back with a very interesting guest, someone who got a lot of people talking last time we had him on, so we had to do this again. Tom Longo, how you doing?

I'm good, Dave. How are you? Doing great. So look, goats and guns and gold. I mean, it's what everything is just really kind of shaking things up. Even a lot of the things you said continue to really circle around people's conversations because it looks like you're onto something, Tom. We've got Jerome Powell. He's going to be probably what you think the Nobel prize winner this year. I don't know about that, but let's, let's, let's, let's just, let's put it this way. Um,

I think it's pretty obvious that any problems between Trump and Powell in 2024 was all kayfabe. It was pretty obvious that there were a lot of things that were happening to try and create split between Trump and Powell. I'm not saying that there isn't problems between the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve, right? But those are two different things. If you look at Trump's tweet after the FOMC meeting, he was very critical of the Fed.

But then he was asked a couple of days later, he's like, well, what do you think about, you know, they're trying to then get him to like throw Powell under the bus a couple of days later. And he said, oh, no, I think Powell did the right thing in holding interest rates where they were. So it's obvious that there's something going on here where at the top of the Federal Reserve, we have people who want to reform how the Fed operates or how the Fed has been operating.

It's trying to clean up what's been done. And at the same time, we have a lot of organizational rot within the Fed that's trying to stop that, just like we're seeing at USAID and the Treasury Department and everywhere else.

I'm interested to see what happens here because I know, I guess part of the reason why you and I wanted to talk today was because we got Elon Musk and Ron Paul thinking about auditing the Fed. Yeah. And it was just great. And I, you know, this is funny that it's really funny. Actually, my Twitter feed blew up and I'm like, well, how do you feel about that? Like you could go after Powell. I'm like, oh no, I don't think Powell has any problem with going after auditing the Fed if we're going to audit, like, I don't know, the San Francisco Fed under Yellen or under Mary Daly, or we're going to go back and we're going to look at what

Bernanke did during the 2008 financial crisis or what Yellen did when she was Fed chairman. There's a part of me that really does believe, I mean, maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe Powell will fight this tooth and claw, but I haven't heard anything from Powell yet. So I feel like I'm writing my biggest anti-Fed arc so far, and you're writing your biggest pro-Fed arc so far. And yet there's a resonance because of course these things are not black and white. So it's interesting because just a little context for the audience, for those that didn't know,

I was, you know, the guy that put, I asked Ron Paul before the election, would you help Elon? No one had thought to ask or recruit him to the doge. I said, let's see if he would do it. He gave me a kind of a humble yes.

We blew that up. It went wild. We got Elon Musk's attention. He said, I'd love to have Ron. And then it became election impacting bromance over the weekend leading up to the election. After the election, Elon continued to tweet out like six, seven, 10, 12 times Ron Paul shows and comments. And he'd retweet him and he'd get millions of views. So Ron's bigger and more powerful than ever before. I mean, he's getting his return arc right now.

beautifully, cinematically in his older years now. And at the same time,

It got a little quiet on my part because I said, wait a second, because I've been kind of pushing things around here and there trying to keep this relationship strengthening. And then they kind of announced, okay, Vivek is going to be the guy. And I felt that was the Trump administration's way of saying, okay, you want Ron, we're going to give you Vivek, right? You know, Vivek is someone who kind of imitated a lot of Ron's stuff in the primary and everything, good little fit. Well, Vivek then stepped down. So I wrote a piece in the American Conservative last week

called, you know, the people's choice. Why Doge needs Ron Paul. And the point was, is that Ron didn't want an official position, but I felt like he could be doing more right now, even if it's not coming there every day, just a ceremonial role. And I proposed that he should have a liaison that, you know, is there on the team ground floor executing on behalf of Ron and giving Ron's vision of what, what, how to approach certain things.

and priorities. And I also propose that they do podcasts together to kind of update the, to have a dialogue between Elon and Ron about what's being cut and why. And so I did that. And then three days later, Elon is over there pushing, Hey, I'd like Ron to be leading the audit for the federal reserve for Doge. So this is huge.

At the same time, we have the Tom Lelongo factor about how this works out with his narrative about the Federal Reserve, which is not as black or white as a traditional Fed critique. Yeah, no. And again, my critique of like what I would put to you this way.

If you look at what the Fed has been doing in terms of how it's been handling monetary policy, how Powell's tried to handle monetary policy since he took over, which is the first thing he tried to do is start raising interest rates. Everybody's like, you can't do that because if you do that, it'll break this, it'll break this, it'll break that. Well, that was true in years when LIBOR was the law of the land and the euro dollar markets were in control over monetary policy. That is not the case anymore.

And we have now three years worth of prima facie evidence, which states quite clearly that the United States economy can handle higher interest rates than the typical critique of the current monetary system would suggest we could handle, right? That was all done under the OSPIT. That system, that milieu, framework, whatever you want to call it,

the amount of leverage that was in the system existed under Bernanke and Yellen who helped create that massive amount of leverage, that massive amount of offshore dollar liquidity. Powell's drained all that, right? And brought the dollars on shore. And so what I think is clear, if you look at everything that's been done by Powell and John Williams over at the New York Fed has been to rein in the offshore dollar markets and force a...

force the Fed to be the conduit for all of, for the world to come and get dollars, right? Meaning, but at the same time, that means that domestically, it's the Treasury's job to make sure that there's domestic liquidity. And we, of course, obviously the Fed also regulates the American, the domestic banking system and everything else. But there's a clear separation between how

the rest of the world interacts with getting new dollars and the way Americans are now getting new dollars. And in the broad scheme of things, I do firmly believe that what's being set up is a form of soft closing of the US's capital account. It makes sense

when you think of everything else that Trump is trying to do, secure the borders, bring capital back home, blah, blah, blah, blah. Everything is about creating a kind of Fortress America at a metaphoric level, right? Let's have a country again, as opposed to this kind of post-Westphalian nation state that doesn't really, that serves just the whole world, right? That's the United States in name only. So if that's the case, then auditing the Federal Reserve's past behavior

under Bernanke and Yellen, and even to a lesser extent Powell during COVID, right? Makes perfect sense. We should audit the Federal Reserve. We should find out what they did. Everybody, and note also that if you look at what Musk has been talking about in terms of about auditing the Fed, he keeps putting Bernanke's picture up there. Keeps putting Bernanke's testimony from the 2008 financial crisis up there. Not Jerome Powell.

Like, this is a, these are very important little details. Yeah, the clip that he shared yesterday was with, or yesterday or the day before was of Bernanke talking about all that was half a billion. Half a trillion dollars worth of swaps. Going to European central banks, right? And they said, are we going to be accounting for it? And he's like, I don't know what's going on.

And if we were just being, that was the slush fund for all the criminality going on, the European families and stuff, right? They were just taking that. Some form of that. I'm not going to, you know, do we know? We don't know. So let's not speculate. But what we'll say is the following.

Didn't Rod used to say there was two to three trillion unaccounted for during that whole crisis? Probably. Probably, at least. I mean, the whole banking system seized up, right? So now let's think about this. And that, by the way, ushered in an entirely new monetary system. Because the dollar reserve standard, honestly, in my mind, fell dramatically.

and failed in 2008. And then it was papered over. And then we had coordinated central bank policy for the next 13 years or 12 years from 2009 to 2021 when Powell started tightening. And then he started breaking with the

with the orthodoxy, which is that all the G7 central banks were all coordinating themselves. I used to describe it as we had round robin QE. Like it would be in the US's turn. Then it would be the, the, the, the ECB's turn. Then it would be the bank of England's turn. Then it would be the bank of Japan's term. Then the bank of Canada, the bank of Australia, then the Swiss national bank, and then back to the US. And we just keep growing and levering up the system and keep adding more and more money at the zero bound to keep the whole system liquefied. What now, uh,

Powell said, you know what, we're done with that. No, no, no. And then he told Christine Lagarde what his plan was when he told her in June 2021, right before he started draining the world of liquidity, was, look, I have a dual mandate of stable prices and full employment. I'm not climate change and I'm not going to do that.

This is my job. Now, the first criticism of Powell that always comes to mind is, well, he went back to the zero bound and did QE during COVID. And my reaction to that is the same as it's always been, which is that the Fed will always come in to protect the treasury market because that's ultimately its job.

Because ultimately, if there is no treasury market, and the treasury market goes bidless, and there is no US dollar, and if there's no US dollar, then there's no US banking system. There's no US banking system. There's no dogs and cats living together. We're done. Nothing matters anymore. The whole system collapses. So the Fed has to step in there. So now you ask yourself the question is, was COVID in operation to get the Fed back to the zero bound? That's the question I ask immediately.

Because no one was happy with Powell raising rates. Janet Yellen toyed with raising rates the second half of her campaign.

her last term, her term in office. And she didn't do so. She kept saying, Oh, maybe next time, maybe next time. And then Powell comes in the office and starts raising rates the first time in 2017, he starts raising rates when he finally gets a chance to raise rates and he has to, but then the minute he starts trying to raise rates, then the system collapses and he has to go back to the zero bound. The system was not designed to allow the United States to get out of this trap. Hmm.

because the offshore dollar markets were controlling our monetary policy at that point. Everything was so levered up that any tightening of liquidity while the world was on LIBOR and the United States, all the United States debt was indexed to LIBOR meant that if the Americans raised interest rates, if they'd raise interest rates, everything would collapse. Well, replacing...

LIBOR with the secured overnight financing rate in 2020, which is fully implemented by 2022. So those first years of Powell's first term at Powell's office, he's literally just trying to manage chaos, right? He's trying to do the right thing. By the way, to remind everybody, when Bernanke, going back to 2008, 2009,

Bernanke came in to a Federal Reserve, to an FOMC meeting, and just unilaterally declared that we now have a 2% inflation target. There was no discussion about it or anything else. He just unilaterally came in and said, this is now our new policy. The only real dissenting opinion, as we have from Daniel DiMartino Booth's book, Fed Up, the only dissenting voice in the room at that time was Jerome Powell as a junior member of the FOMC.

Powell was one of the few Hawks, him and he and Richard Fisher, to be fair, because a lot of Daniel's experiences at the Fed are, you know, colored with her relationship with Richard Fisher. So...

And Danielle's book is a scathing critique of the Federal Reserve, right? So like I'm a scathing critic of the Federal Reserve, so is Danielle. But at the same time, we recognize that in the world we live in today and the way the world operates, we still can't operate without a central bank. So now the question is, given what we –

what changes we're starting to see from the Trump administration and what they clearly want are trying to push towards, which is getting rid of the income tax, replacing it with a tariff structure, going back to some kind of domestic hard asset back version of the dollar, which is where I think they're going. Then the question, of course, you ask yourself is, well, what role does the Federal Reserve then need to play in that world? Well, I can see two roles and they are not the roles that the Federal Reserve

occupies today or performs today. The first one is to go back to being a lender of last resort, like it was originally meant to be for the domestic commercial paper markets in case of a real financial crisis, i.e. an exogenous shock or whatever, one. And then the second is to manage the flow of dollars across the political boundary, to actually have control of and set the price of

what we call today Euro dollars or offshore dollars. They should be circulating at a higher price than domestic dollars, meaning Americans should be advantaged to go get debt relative to the rest of the world to build America

versus building the rest of the world. Those are the two roles that I can see the Fed occupying, and that means a complete overhaul of the Federal Reserve in many ways. And that also then means, of course, an audit of the Federal Reserve. Because what might we find out? We might find out that we actually have a good Fed chairman for the first time in our history.

Who was actually trying to undo all the damage that the previous ones have done. So paint a picture of realistic, how audit might make Powell look like a good fed chairman compared to the others, you know what they might find. And, and, and still, you know, uncover some things that were done wrong. And, and,

the reforms that are necessary in order to get things done, to reshape things. Because one of the things that I, when I started thinking about SOFR, when I first was introduced to the program,

So from what the things that started to percolate into my head and we were me and my, you know, my, my, my, my monetary policy spurgs in my community. And I use that word lovingly, by the way, we were all like theorizing, what would this mean? I said, well, one of the things that this would actually allow for is to go back to the original conception of the federal reserve, which is a re-regionalization of the Fed funds rate, meaning the,

we would have a local and internal demand for money inside the United States that would be regional because everybody could now quote potential debt contracts, mortgages, business loans, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, in terms at a premium or a discount to SOFR so that where the demand for money was high, we should see debt go off at a premium to SOFR, say SOFR's at 4.3%.

Okay, but the demand for money in California is still 5.5%. Well, let it go to 5.5%, but in Mississippi, it's 3.5%, meaning the money is going to flow to Mississippi. And one of the things that I've been – and I brought this up to Daniel Booth when I had her on my podcast in February of 2023. I said, wouldn't this lead to the re-regionalization of the Fed funds rate? And she said, oh, yeah, absolutely, but they'll never give that power up. I said, well, okay. Okay.

As of right now, at that time, sure. But here we are in 2025 and we're in a completely different game.

Now, what about the classic Ron Paul argument that, yes, we need to have transitions. So maybe you're describing a transition, an incremental step. But what's so wrong with the notion of letting the market decide the price of money? What does that look like? That's what I'm getting at. So far is a market driven rate. It's not a set rate. Fed funds rate actually would be.

The Fed funds rate is now, it used to be tied to LIBOR. It was always the tail. The market was always setting the short-term interest rate. Mm-hmm.

That's the lie that the Fed really has that much control. They really don't. They can tinker with it. They can get half a percent away from where it should be and they can play around. And don't get me wrong, they've got plenty of skeletons in their closet. I am not absolving the Fed of their making any mistakes. But yes, SOFR is a market-driven rate. Unlike LIBOR, which was decided upon by a consortium of 18 London banks get together and decide what the price of dollars are going to be every day, SOFR is just...

what the price of money is in the repo markets. And the Fed sets a range. And as long as the demand for money doesn't get outside that range, then maybe that's the demand for money.

Maybe that's, you know, it's a little bit of a chicken and egg in the egg argument. But I think that the first stage of this is getting the market used to the idea that we're going to have a more market-driven rate within these parameters with the Fed providing guardrails for this relative to the structure of the banking industry, which has got a lot of damage that still needed to be worked off. We're still working off the problems from 2008.

Even if it just kept its minimal role of lender of last resort, would that still create boom-bust cycles like the Austrians say? Well, boom-bust cycles are natural. Yeah. The question is whether it's exacerbating them or making them worse. Right.

With the moral hazard of a lender of last resort, right? Is that still going to... I'm just trying to steel man all the sides of this that I'm trying to imagine. Here's the thing, Dave. We're so far away from that outcome. It doesn't matter at this point. I'm not here to have theoretical arguments. I'm dead serious. This is where libertarians really need to get their heads out of their collective ass.

asses. We live in this world. There are trillions of dollars of fund managers and prospectuses and investment professionals and this and that and everything else. These contracts are in place. They're not going away. If you just say let the market decide in a kind of hand-waving gesture, there's so many areas where the market is still rigged and manipulated and

That it's just, you can't, it's like saying, let the human live. No, the human will get murdered at some point if you put, you know, or die or something like that. Remember that Libertopia, whatever you want to call it, this stateless society, is not a thing you impose by saying we're going to get rid of everything.

That's an imposition. That's an act of violence in the current world today. Like it or not, it's a thing that you move towards. It's a true Marxist kind of withering away of the state, but it's done without the heavy hand of saying we're going to just remove government and then we're going to watch all the chaos as opposed to realizing that we have strict guardrails around the way money moves.

Other countries are not interested in being libertarian about these things, oh, by the way, and therefore will use their central banks to predate us. And if you don't have something on your side to fight in your corner that war, then you're insane. It's literally like saying, hey, we declare ourselves a country, but we're not going to have a standing army and we're going to disarm our people.

and no one's going to protect us, and you're not allowed to protect yourselves, and there are barbarians all around you that want to steal, but we're going to be rich, and we're just going to assume that everybody around us is going to be nice and just trade with us. No, they're going to have to remember that insurance companies provide the defense, remember? You haven't read that. I have read that, and I've read Hop's work, and I agree with it, but as a, you have to,

evolve the way people act and by giving them positive incentives through generations to get them there. They're not going to get there in the current state of things when we have a system that has maximally expressed psychopathology within our society. And you wanted us to just turn over the, hey, let's just turn everything over to the psychopaths, which we already did. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be getting rid of these things and we shouldn't be loosening those guardrails.

Of course we should. That's a process. It's all I've ever argued. And what I've been trying to do is explain to you, everyone who would listen, that here's part of the process by which you remove those guardrails. And these are the initial steps that are being taken. And now we're in a moment where I'll be honest with you, I'm blindsided by what Trump and company are doing.

Okay, I'm completely gobsmacked. What blindsided you the most so far? The fact that they came in with four guys and mapped like the Treasury Department in six hours. Yeah, yeah. And then published it all on the internet.

And then they did that to USAID. And now they're doing it to the Department of Education and this one. And this is what needs to do, what needs to happen. Go through all of those things. I have no problem with an audit of the Federal Reserve. I want to see what they did. And I want to make sure that that never happens again. Do you think information from that audit could be used by the opponents of us, the globalist European bankers to...

to cause hell for us or something you know i don't know who cares who cares what they think because we'll just raise the cost of capital that they need they desperately need and they're all screaming and bitching for today like no excuse me you're the ecb and you're the enemy you get the borrowed money at seven percent from us why because we said so that's why well you know but but el salvador is our friend they get three percent but that's not fair i don't give a shit yeah

Who said we had to be fair about this? El Salvador said they're going to take all our serial killers. There you go. Exactly. And you don't think we can't give them a discount for some loans to build prisons? Yeah. Like, hey, Ursula von der Leyen, why don't you get rid of the 100% tariffs on our cars? Like, all of this is nonsense. Every bit, I am so over the having to pander to

and cede the moral high ground and the moral argument to people who have no morals yeah yeah and stop and we have to stop clutching our pearls as libertarians and understand that we've been predated and themed from and we have every damn right to set the terms of how we go back and get the money back and if that means that we use i don't know a little bit of violence well we're justified under the non-aggression principle because these people stole from us

I'll use the argument. Like, I'm as radical a libertarian as I've ever been. I just understand the full consequence of the non-aggression principle, which is that you don't start the violence, but when you've been predated, you do get, because you reserve the right to go, I want it back. And why can't we use the Federal Reserve to do that? Why is that so fucking anathema to people? How do you think this plays in on the fiscal side, all the great things they want to do, and

It looks like theoretically they're going to run up against the brick wall that is Congress as owned as it is by the same old usual people.

you know, globalists and neocon interests. So how will they get the real substantive fiscal reforms we all want? You know, I think about a John Thune. Because they're already doing it. At the income tax being abolished. And I think John Thune is more interested in being John Thune. Well, sure. But, you know, that's going to come from the American people when they see just how badly their income taxes have been squandered. What's building right now, Dave, and within four days, we've already seen it.

There's a middle class revolt coming that everybody wants their income taxes back. Everybody wants a tax holiday. And they're damn right that they deserve it. Yeah. What do you think is going to come first, the IRS audit or the Fed audit? The IRS audit. I mean, I'll be honest with you. I think I'm okay with...

The Fed and the Pentagon are going to be the McDonough audits right there. Let's do it with the Pentagon first. Yeah. Right? Because then that, we started with USAID, which was clearly the way they were funding the insecurity of our border, our elections, all of this stuff. They didn't fund guns and goats and gold, did they?

Not that I know of. And if they did, it was only for goat in ISIS to give them guns to go steal gold from everybody across the Middle East. Oh, by the way, I'm telling you, everything you've seen so far and the rate at which they're moving,

And you listen to Pam Bondi really closely. We're going to seek prosecutions in this country in a way that we've never seen before. I know everybody's all blackpilled. No, we get away with it. No, no, no. You can see it. Everybody's security clearance is being revoked. Their ability to go into federal buildings is revoked. As far as I'm concerned, those are all leading indicators that those are the people who are going to be prosecuted. It's going to be Hillary and Obama and Blinken and this one and that one. They're going to go after the McCain Foundation next. McCain.

Oh, McCain was hip deep in all of this stuff. They're going to explode that. Why is Meghan McCain best friends with Tulsi Gabbard? What's that all about? Then she's trying to cozy up to the woman who has her dad's...

have the keys to her dad's legacy. I was surprised when I saw that. I was like, because I saw on Twitter, Meghan McCain said, you better leave Tulsi alone. She deserves this. She should be our DNI. And she's one of my best friends. And she had a picture of them hugging each other. She knows where the bodies are at the McCain Foundation. Is that what you said? Let me put it to you this way. Meghan knows full well that, you know, her dad funded ISIS. Wow.

Okay. And the amount of rot within the Arizona political machine is insane. So Scott Pressler, let's give you an idea. Scott Pressler tweeted out this morning that he's like, we're inside the voter rolls.

in Pennsylvania, we've already uncovered like massive voter fraud and voter roll fraud. And we're about, we're within 90,000 votes. This was an hour and a half ago. We were doing this at one o'clock on, on the 10th of February. It was like an hour and a half previously. So you're like, we're within 90,000 votes of flipping Pennsylvania red on, in terms of the voter rolls, just by cleaning them up. And we're not done yet. So if you think that's bad,

Pennsylvania is bad. Imagine what they've done in Arizona where they prove where they've already proven that the same social security number was used to register a hundred thousand illegal votes in the 2020 election in Arizona alone to steal Arizona. So all these people are Katie Hobbs going to jail. Yeah. Okay.

Like, this is happening. And then I don't know how true it is. I've seen multiple reports, but I didn't follow up on it. Like the fact that Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, was working with the Biden administration to conspire to kill the president and Butler. Really? Where's that at? Yeah, I've been seeing reports of this. I don't know how accurate that is. Maybe it made...

I saw it on the internet. Salted with, I've got a deer lick, 50 pound deer lick of salt next to me. You were watching those TikTok videos that make those... Is that where you got that one from? I don't know, but if it's true, but you know, even if it's, it's not even that it's far-fetched that these people

I believe all of this. The idea of it coming to light is so hard to believe still. You know what I mean? It's a lot harder when you've got four kids. When you've got kids with laptops and proper AI. I want people to have seen this. They got the good AI too. They got the top shelf AI we don't have yet. They're using it. Let's remind ourselves. I said this to my patrons yesterday. I'm going to hold up my phone. You realize that you have more computing power in your phone than the entire federal government had like 30 years ago.

The whole federal government runs on old AS-400s and stuff from the 1990s. Yeah. And COBOL. When the last Fortran and COBOL programmer dies, the federal government grinds to a halt. You do realize this, right? And old coders know what I'm talking about. These are the guys who... We're talking about shit that goes back to... We haven't used since the 70s.

This is part of the problem. Okay. So these kids have, we have so much unused compute that we can use on a, on a personal laptop or cell phone or the iPad or whatever that you can literally go in with the right, you know, with the right algorithm and map 60 years worth of treasury payments in six hours. Yeah.

I don't think we really understand just how far along on Moore's law we are relative to the people that we're fighting against because they were working in political time. Yeah.

And we're working. These guys are working in compute time. Doge may find out some of those payments that went to kill in Kennedy faster than the executive order will reveal those documents. Exactly. Interesting. And this is what and this is, I think, what has everybody a little gobsmacked, including myself, because I start to really think about this. I'm like, oh, my God, like they could map the entire federal government in a month.

And I think that that's simply because they have to go to each individual building and interface with each of the servers. It might take them a month to do that. Yeah.

But then in the process, like every six hours, oh, well, we found this. Oh, here, you want to be out? Here's the next thing for the outrage cycle for tomorrow. And while Emily's List and company are all, and for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, go look up what Emily's List is. They're going to put out their Emily's List for the week on Monday as to what their talking points are supposed to be. And by the

Then by Tuesday, whatever they put out on Emily's List on Monday will be dead and will still have six more days of the news cycle for them to deal with. They just don't know how to deal with this. I want to say something too. I want to push back a little bit

Because a lot of the new right, not on you, but just on a point that I've heard, is the new right guys online, they always talk about, well, we don't want to get rid of all these little mechanisms of coordinating media talking points and USAID and all this stuff. We want to use it for our stuff. And I'm like, dude,

Why do you want to imitate an outmoded way of like old fashioned, outdated 20th century way of like commanding humans? It's not going to work. So if you go do a MAGA version of it, it'll just be as stupid as their version, you know? And then I would like that. I would also like to submit that anybody who's from the right, who's saying that, um,

has been getting a paycheck from USAID via, via, via GCHQ and MI6. Yeah. I'm just going to put it right out there. That's my, there's a lot of the, I mean, I'm just saying we, we dunk on the libertarians and all that, but a lot of the people who are most vocally not libertarian, right. That have emerged from,

And recent years under Trump to try to like define the elite theory, you know, style of conservatism. I get it. I get that there's points that they make that are valid. But a lot of that circle is always talking about, oh, let's just use all of this. USAID, we can fund our stuff. Pro-life magazine. I mean, it's like, come on. How stupid, you know?

This is the dissolution of these command control outdated models. They're falling apart. It's not just that evil people use them. The system is evil. And there is a principle that Lord Acton and all that stuff, you know, power corrupts. And that has to be maintained alongside some of the valid information that you can understand about using things like elite theory. You know, like, yes, understand how power works.

But also understand that power also has its own, you know, overreach that collapse its own inertia eventually, right? That's a kind of an Aikido approach to it, right? No, agreed. And I would also say, imagine how effective the Federal Reserve could be as a lender of last resort if everything they did was publicly auditable in real time. Yeah, yeah.

And then we as a people went, yeah, okay, we're not going to let that community bank fail because they made a – because there was a – and that's going to create this cascading effect here and there because there was a hurricane in, you know, that hit Louisiana. We don't know what to do with it. I mean, there are going to be moments – and this is part of the problem with the – you know, we're so angry.

about so much of the fraud and the waste and everything else that we, I hate to put it in these terms to a bunch of libertarians, but there are legitimate uses of government.

And what I mean by that is the following. And I don't mean that there aren't better ways that the private sector couldn't do it. But we're not interested as people right now to have the private sector do that because it comes with other costs is what I was trying to get at. So, for example, like I don't, I mean, at the end of the day, would I like to see like the DMV completely outsourced to the private sector?

Right. I'd like to have a database of all of who owns what car. Yeah. Because, you know, I'd like to be able to go to court in case somebody steals my car so I can prove that it was mine so I can get the fuck back. Okay. And maybe the private sector can do that five or 10 or even 15% or even 25% more efficiently than the MV. But at the end of the day,

Do I really care if the DMV costs me $5 a year or $70 a year as opposed to $55 a year? Do I really care? Hey, can we get to a point where I care so much about that $15 that I'd love to live in that world where I cared about that $15. What I care about right now is that they're stealing $15,000 to $20,000 of my money every year. And so I want to get rid of that first. And so for right now,

This is the DMV as far as I'm concerned, is a perfectly legitimate use of government for right now. Same thing with the Federal Reserve under certain ways that it should and can regulate the banking industry. They're going to do a great job. It's just like anything. It's like, no.

It's like anything, you know, the government funds the EMS system. If you have an emergency and you fall and you're gushing out blood, that's taxpayer subsidized service. And you're not going to get there when they arrive. If you're hemorrhaging blood and say, excuse me, this has been funded by violence. I cannot do this. I must get my own car. Will you pick me up and take me to the hospital? Come on.

I mean, obviously there's all this, there's all this head stuff and then there's the reality of what we have to deal with. Yeah. And that's why I don't use the libertarian critiques to critique the state. I look at the state as, as a vestige of human sacrifice. And I take that from Rene Girard and his work and understanding the medical theory and all that. So,

I've always told libertarians the idea that you can go to your fellow neighbor and try to like intellectually persuade them out of their adherence to having a state involved in their life to some capacity is like trying to convince a tribal culture to like let go of their religion that they've practiced for thousands and thousands of years. To try to intellectually persuade someone, let me give you an axiom. They're going to say, I don't give a damn about your axiom.

You see the last guy that gave us an axiom, his head's on the pole up there. We worship him every Thursday. So that's...

That's what we deal with in reality. That's fucking great. I'm sorry, dude. That's hilarious. I love that. I'm going to use that one. I'm stealing that one. I'll give you credit, but I'm still stealing it. Holy shit, dude. That's great. That's what we're dealing with. So, you know, it's like you could be, you know, I like the term political atheist. You know, you can understand the emperor has no clothes. You can see the...

the reality of the religion that is, or the vestige of sacrificial religion that is the modern state, but you also understand that we're dealing with culture as it is, not as we can abstract it to be, right? And abstractions can get you into a lot of insane situations.

Actually, that's where a lot of sin comes from and making bad choices. You abstract some ideal in your head. Well, if I just had that car or if I just go with that car,

you know, Vegas hooker or whatever it is. That's the abstraction in your mind. If we just killed all the white people. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Well, don't give them all the people with glasses because they're smart. Right now, man, we got to pray for our brothers over there. Everybody.

Right. People are being filleted. It's just like at the end of the day, we have to realize that there's an infinite Gulf between the world that's in your head and the world you want in the world you've got. And you should never give up America. That's what the infinite Gulf is.

Well, there's that too. We're doing this on Gulf of America Day plus one, which is hilarious. But my point being is I'm not ever saying keep up the one in your head. The world in your head is perfectly, if that's the world you want, you should work for it. You should absolutely commit body and mind to it. But that also means body, mind, soul, all of it. But it also means being realistic that how you deal with your fellow man, you still, and this is a very Ron Paul thing.

To say, look, you still got to do no harm in the process. You still got to figure out a way. You can't force them to not sin. You can't force them. If the state, if liking the state is a sin, you cannot force your neighbor to not sin. Yeah. I mean, like at the end of the day, people make choices and you don't have to like those choices. And, you know, when they choose, when they choose to, you know, to repudiate those previous choices, you're,

You live in a world where you forgive them for that, for that, and you move on and you accept it. You know, it's again, how hard is it to, how hard is it that to, you know, hate the sin, but not the center, right? Like that, isn't that, isn't that kind of the point? Right. I don't know. I'm not even particularly Christian, but that seems kind of good to me. I was raised Catholic though. So it's like, it's all, it's all right there. I mean, that's the, that's the, that's the superiority of using Christianity to found your, your principles, not an abstraction like libertarianism. This is,

We've got to talk about this. This is the elephant. Okay. The end of the penny. Has anybody used the penny? What does this represent? The end of the penny? What's going to happen? It just represents the fact that copper is $4.75 a pound. And no, actually, it more represents that zinc is over a dollar a pound, which is the real problem.

Does this symbolize that we're about to get our digital currency very soon? No, we're going to get a digital-only version of the dollar. When I was talking earlier about a domestic dollar, I do believe there's going to be a digital asset-backed version of the dollar. It's going to be domestic-only. It's going to be domestically ownable, and it's going to be domestically circulating. It's going to be backed by domestically-owned assets, be those assets.

be those treasury bonds that are only sold to Americans and or American companies. I think that that's where we're headed. And this is me schizo posting that. This is me projecting out where I think this ends, because how else are you going to mobilize the asset side of the American balance sheet of the government and the people, and then not have all that money wind up overseas? Unless you create a firewall and...

Is that different from a central bank digital currency? Oh, absolutely. I'm not talking about a programmable central bank digital currency. I'm not saying we're going to give the Fed this power. It'll probably be issued by the Treasury. And it does not have to be the dystopian nightmare that you have in your head.

It doesn't. It can just be literally not much different than the dollars you currently have in your bank account, which are all freaking digital anyway. But Tom, let me, let me, let me. I don't, I don't say, and I'm saying that, that this is not going, that this is also going to circulate right next to cash. Like I don't see cash going away. I just see, I just see there's going to be a, look, if you want to, let me put it this way. If we call back hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars of money,

Okay. And we, and we, and we, and we monetize the assets of the federal, of many of the assets of the federal government. And there are many, and that, and of the people themselves. And we put that into the banking system as liquidity to rebuild, you know, our, our failing infrastructure, our cities, everything else. And that money circulates domestically to build businesses and everything else. 95% of those dollars right now are all digital anyway.

Like that's the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is that 95% of all dollars are digital. So what is this going to do to help? What this does is that actually it'll see, we have a deflationary, we have a, we have a, we're going to cut government spending, right? Now government spending is cutting government. Spending is deflationary. Money flow, money velocity is going to slow down because we're,

The government is not printing money into existence to liquefy and keep asset prices high. So you have to see that's deflationary. The Federal Reserve continuing to do QT in the background and sell off its stock of either roll off to maturity or sell off its stock of treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, right? That's deflationary as well because you're literally destroying the money stock.

of the reserves of the banking system, right? So we have to have something that's inflationary to offset it. Isn't there, isn't there, now I'm just- In order to keep this from being a recessionary, a deeply recessionary environment where asset prices all fall by 30, 40%, I mean, or 50% or 90% or whatever. So what you're going to see is a mixture of both. And what we're going to have is also a shift

from financialization of assets to funding of the lower orders of the structure of production. This is why Powell didn't cut interest rates and why Trump was okay with Powell not cutting interest rates and why Besant said explicitly, we're not interested in lowering interest rates by dictating.

which is how everybody interpreted Trump talking about lowering interest rates is all about. And that's why, oh, there's this fight between Trump and Powell. They hate each other. And that's all...

literally all Bank of England MI6 propaganda. That's what they want. They want you to believe in divide and rule. It's not true. What Bessette literally said was we are going to change and alter the way we handle money to make the economy more efficient that will allow for interest rates to come down because there will be a demand for dollars that will be insane.

And it will be organic and the demand for money will be large because people will be wanting to invest and the money that's coming. And there will be a lot of money coming in through overseas, which will also be inflationary. So it's a complete reworking of the way the system currently works. It's not going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, or even a year. It's going to take years to play out.

But this is where we're heading. And when they go to give us our refund checks for the income taxes that Hillary Clinton and everybody else stole, how do you think that money is going to get distributed? Do you think it's going to get distributed in anything other than as a digital dollar? You're out of your minds. Of course it is. It's going to circulate right next to the Federal Reserve note.

And we'll let the market play and we'll let the market decide which one is the better. Tom, the big picture of things, isn't it good to have a little bit of a deflationary effect over long term, right? Because you want to be able to protect savings, right? So people can invest in the future. You want to protect purchasing power.

And you also want to protect people's retirement, right? That they can put a little bit of money away and not have to gamble it on the stock market to have a retirement, right? Am I right? Dave, we're talking about an asset back, a bearer asset back. Okay, yeah. Digital dollar. Yeah.

Based on the sovereign wealth fund, gold, Bitcoin, this, that, oil revenues, all this stuff. This is what the freaking Russians are doing. Why can't we do it? So is Bitcoin going to be a commodity asset? You think that's where it's going to go? It's going to be more of a commodity feature? It's a reserve asset. It's a reserve asset. Just like gold. It's a reserve asset.

It's going to be a reserve asset on the Treasury's balance sheet, not the Fed. I used to say before Trump took office that what will bake everybody's noodles the day that the Fed puts Bitcoin on its balance sheet. I'm not sure I agree with my previous version of myself anymore because I now begin to see what these guys have planned. It doesn't look like that's the way they're going to go. That's okay.

There are, there, there's many ways to recapitalize the United States because there's plenty of assets. We have, Bessette was clear during his confirmation hearing. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. We bring in, the federal government brings in plenty of revenue, right? Probably too much revenue. We have a spending problem where we spend more than we take in. Well, okay, so let's fix the spending. That then changes. Now, once the spending is fixed, um,

Now you have a balance sheet problem. You got a lot of debt, but do you have assets to offset them? And if you're trying to cut back on the amount of money having to be pushed into the system via deficits in order to keep asset prices where they are, well, then what do you do? Well, you monetize the assets to offset the liabilities and pay down the liabilities in the process.

It's a balance sheet problem at that point. It's taken out because you've taken care of, you've neutralized cashflow and revenue, right? You've neutralized cashflow and outlays.

And now it's a balance sheet issue. Now it's just about equity. And that's a, you know, think about it in those terms. Think about the incomes. Think about how the income statement flows to the balance sheet flows to the cash flow statement of any company. And now that's the way they're looking at this. That's the way the percent and Trump and all these guys are looking at. And they get buy-in from Powell over at the Federal Reserve, which Powell's like,

stated explicitly multiple times over the last three years, Washington has to get its fiscal house in order. There's only so much the Fed can do. It's not the Fed's job. He said this repeatedly at FOMC meetings, Humphrey Hawkins testimonies, and everything else. Y'all need to get your shit together on Capitol Hill. There's only so much I can do.

And they didn't want to stop spending money because they were trying to vandalize the country and bankrupt it. And Powell was like, well, if you want to bankrupt America, that's fine. I'm going to take you there faster. And then we'll see who, and we'll see if there's a political revolt on before you finally bankrupt the country. And that's exactly what he did. And that's why Powell's not going to be fired by Trump or any of this other rotten nonsense, all nonsense.

They're all in on it together. So I guess the hope is that Doge is going to be able to expose enough of this fiscal rot that it will force Congress to pass massive cuts or what? Because I'm still very curious about Congress. Again, I think there's $1.3 trillion. The number I've heard is easily $1.3 trillion worth of cuts coming out of Russell Vogt over at OMB.

This year. Without Congress. From waste and fraud alone. Yeah, without needing Congress, right? Without needing Congress. And Congress still thinks that they're going to force us to spend money. I got another idea I want to run by you. So if you look at local, state, county governments, I looked up how much they spent last year. It's something like $6.1 trillion. How about we unleash every city of Doge?

Yeah. Yeah. No, I agree completely. You know, the direct-to-video team, you know, the direct-to-video, you know, they're not going to be Hollywood, but we're going to get every hacker, every little young guy, Gen Z, autist, you know, coming into their local city and they're going to be, you know, make this a mimetic phenomenon. Let a thousand doses bloom, huh? Yes. No, exactly. Exactly. And...

How much of that $6.1 trillion is this repurposed frigging money that was stolen out of the communities in the first place, laundered through USAID and all the rest of it. And then we got 10 cents back on the dollar to fund, you know, some democratic primary in, I don't know, you know, Paducah. Like I'm done with it all. Doge is the hottest thing in politics right now. And we need to have a thousand doges bloom. Every city a doge. That's what I'm calling for. I'm going to put it together.

Yep. I think you're absolutely correct. And I think that- That'll open up a lot of wealth too, is what I'm saying. You know, why- Dave, you're absolutely right. And what I'm saying is that from the top down, if they cut all this funding out, like they've already done, get rid of the Department of Education. Now, all of a sudden, the state and local governments are like, well, where are we going to come up with our money? Kathy Hochul over in New York is already screaming that she's got to raise taxes. I'm like, good luck with that, hon.

Good luck with that. So you think this is what I'm confused about? You really think the rest of New York State who hates you outside of Brooklyn and Manhattan?

And Albany? Yeah. Yeah. You really think you're going to get away with that? This is what we call in anthropology apocalypse. It's an unveiling of things hidden since the foundation of our order. And the order that we're rolling back here, I guess, what would you say? Are we rolling back post-World War II era or FDR, Woodrow Wilson? How far are we rolling back apocalypse here? It's just...

The whole progressive era, yeah, I would say. Woodrow Wilson. It absolutely goes back to Woodrow. We've got to get rid of that income tax. That's something else that I see. I've got to get better promotions around me because I'm knocking all these things out of the park. Curtis Ellis was a great senior Trump candidate.

advisor for economics. And I did an interview documentary with him back in 2021. Now he passed away since, but he was a senior guy. We were talking at the time in this interview in 2021, he was talking about how these free trade guys don't want to work with us on our tariffs. They're always doing their thing. And I said, listen, here's what we do. We're going to make a deal right now. You bring the free trade guys on by saying no income tax.

deep regulation cuts, deep spending cuts, unleash the renaissance, and then you guys get your tariffs in there to replace whatever the shortfall is. And he's like, I love that idea, David. That's amazing. He says it on the film. And I think he went back and took that to his team, Trump,

And I think that became the germination of what we have now, where they're systematically preparing for the rollback of the income tax with deep regulatory cuts and tariffs to replace what's needed left. So I will be. I need to get credit for that. You can watch. And again, and again, if you think and if you think about that, doesn't that also dovetail with the idea of having a domestically circulating dollar? Yeah.

digital or otherwise like it should be an onshore dollar versus like the chinese have a closed capital account to get onshore you want an offshore you want right why can't we have that we're having that we're already putting up the capital controls around gold and silver um that's already been that's that that's been slowly being that that has been put in place has been we saw that coming 18 months ago vince launchy and i saw this company 18 months ago um and um you know the basel 3

The Basel III removal of being able to use unallocated gold futures contracts as bank reserves is going to change everything. That's what's happening currently to the London Bullion Market Association. That's why gold is doing what it's doing. And it's why everybody's repatriating their gold and why the Bank of England is now short. The Bank of England, I'm telling you, they are in the crosshairs because they are, by the way, the germination, the root of all of this rot.

Because this whole, if you really want to know what the apocalypse is, Dave, what we're unveiling, it is, I've been saying this for years. It's the beginnings of the formation. It started with the formation of the Bank of England in 1694 and the use of the central bank and currency arbitrage to beget political power. Okay? And the, and it's,

Neil Stevenson wrote about it in the Baroque cycle and in Cryptonomicon when Neil Stevenson was actually not a Seattle shipler. He's gotten older. Please don't read anything beyond of Stevenson's after the Baroque cycle because it's all garbage. But those four books, yeah, you should read those.

Because there are historical dramas built around that period. And then the end of that story with the formation of a gold-backed cryptographically secured monetary system that exists outside of the...

the existing system. And that's what, "Cryptonomicon" is the end of the story. He wrote that book first and then he went back and wrote the quote unquote prequels. Those are just to give people a framework of the kind of thing we're talking about here. But this goes back to the formation of the Bank of England. This period of history is over 300 years long. And this cycle as Martin Armstrong put this macro cycle of 310, 320 years,

is coming to an end. And it's, I think it's the, it's staring us in the face and we're living through it right here, right now. And we're going to have a new system of the world.

when this is all said and done. Tom, when is housing going to be affordable again in America to rent or buy? Well, that's what we have to... In order to keep the banking system from imploding and in order for our way of life for it not to implode, we are going to have to bring the undervalued assets on our balance sheet, on the national balance sheet. That's what I mean by equity.

Right now, housing is too expensive, so we have to bring everything else up. Wage inflation is already happening. In many ways, the wage inflation that we've all expected to happen has already begun, has already started to happen. Like minimum wage, for all intents and purposes, is $16, $17 an hour. Okay? Like when I – I've used this story before, and I'll use it again. And I will say that I think, in this case, my daughter –

kind of lucked out but she got an entry-level job over at the university of florida her first job out of high school no resume to speak of just had an interview from you know got a reference got in front of the right woman sat down half an hour half half an hour zoom call and three days later she starts her she starts work at 16 an hour to make 32 grand a year

Now, let's think about what that means. When I left college, right, I was making 16 grand a year, degree in chemistry. I got a job, 16, 17 grand a year, right? Start to think about what rents were back then, what I was making, and basically my housing cost me about 10 days pay. I had to have a roommate or in my case, a wife who had to go out and work, right? My daughter, 18, 19 years old, like the average 19-year-old,

If you're making $12 to $16 an hour, you can get together with two of your friends and rent a three bedroom apartment. And somewhere between six and eight days a month, if you're making that kind of money, you can cover your rent. And two weeks of the year, you cover your rent and your utilities. And then a week for gas and all the rest of the food. And then you have maybe two or three days a month of the rest of it for savings and that. Is that not a...

An affordable situation. You're 19 years old. You're not going to buy a house. You can't afford to buy a house. You're 19 years old. You don't want to buy a house. The job you have now, I was trying to explain this to my daughter the other day. The job you have now, you might not have in three years. You don't want to tie yourself to a piece of property. So you rent until you're stable. You find a mate. You do the thing. You want to start a family. Then you settle down.

Like it's not that far off already. The people who are fucked right now are the people who started their careers in the previous cycle of wages where they started at $9 or $10 an hour, $8 an hour. And now they're making six and now they're in the prime of their careers, making 16, 17. They can't.

live at that rate. Those are the people who have to be brought up, but they're the ones that are in the belly of their prime. They're the ones entering their prime earning years. And we need to get them into the 25 to $30 an hour range. If we're going to keep asset prices at the current level. And how do we do that? We reinvest in the country.

I know I sound a little radical here, but I just think that housing in general, especially for young families, should be like the Amish where you get, you know, they come together and they pitch in and they get you a house and

that the community builds to give you that start to get your foundation right so you can be a flourishing member of community i think that should be something should like that should work here i would love to get back to that but we're nowhere near that and that is absolutely the that is the world again that's the world i want am i becoming that's the world i want i agree with you dave that's the world i want so we should keep that as our as our north star how do we get back to that

For those of us who, I mean, I'm now in my prime earning years, thankfully, finally a little bit successful. And I only have one kid. If I had four kids, there'd be no way I could do this, but I have one. And I know that if this system that's being put in place now, I'm going to be able to help my daughter with that. I would love, I just told my daughter the other day, I literally said to her, I was like, look, let's,

cards on the table you don't want to go and get you know you and she's talking about i want equity rent is a waste i don't want to spend i don't want to spend money because it's a it's a waste rent she's already got it in her head she's like rent is is dumb i'm like yes but we're not quite in the position to be able to do that yet but it would be really nice that in four or five years you come to me and you say dad like i've met the the person of my dreams we want to start a family blah blah blah i'm like that's great go find a house and you can come to the bank of dad for a loan

And I'll give you, you know, market minus 3%, which is going to be your money anyway. So you're just paying me interest that's going to go right into your inheritance anyway. Like, you're my daughter. Like, who else is going to get this money? You know what I mean? Like, so like, and that's what we're going to do. I would love to be able to do it otherwise, but hey, we'll do it that way. And the reason we have to do that model is because I made terrible mistakes when I was younger. But now I have the last, you know, 15, 20 years of my life. This is my goal.

of how can I set my progeny up and do it right so that she starts at a... She's starting at a place at 19. I was...

Far behind her. Because I went to college for four years. Five years. Do you think, though, that massive deregulation and maybe some doge exposure at the local level for some of the corrupt laws around housing and building and all of this and zoning, do you think with a great apocalyptic shift that continues, perhaps,

And then you get 3d printing and other innovations that we can really get housing, really high quality affordable at a car price. I want it to be car price level. I don't think we'll get down to that, but I think I, but I'd love to, but I mean, look,

In 2001, when I, 2003, sorry, when I built my house, I had to build my house myself. Right. I had to build it myself. The office that I'm, that I'm working, that I'm broadcasting from, I had a guy build last year, but my house, which is over there, I built. Why? Because I couldn't afford somebody else to build it for me. Yeah. Okay. I could go out tomorrow and, you know, quit doing what I'm doing and go building and build me the new house that I want to build. You know, my wife and I want to retire somewhere else.

Or, you know, we want to the next phase of our life. We're going to go. We're moving. We're leaving Florida. We're moving. No, I'm going to have somebody build it. It's going to cost me way too much money. And that's going to be the way it is. But that being said, we had to do that, you know, and I got friends to help come in and help me do it. And we paid for the labor was mine, you know, and I saved all the labor and I learned a whole bunch of stuff and I did the whole thing. And it's a, you know, and I'm proud of it and I'm happy that I did it.

And it helped set me up for the transition to the, without me having done that 20 years ago, there's no way I would have been able to transition out of being the chemist that I was to the person that I am today in that radical career shift.

If I had a mortgage, if I had a huge, you know, mortgage hanging over my head two and a half times the size of what it would have, because it would have been two and a half times the amount of money that I spent. All right. So no way I could have done that. So, you know, I live within my means. I right-sized the house relative to my income at that moment in my life. I did the thing. And a lot of other people are going to do the same thing. And you're going to see that. And there's going to be just a return. You know, people are going, people always find ways, right?

So as of right now, you know, things are as bad as they're going to be. Let's get everything. Let's get rid of cafe to get the car, get car prices down. Let's get rid of all the safety regulations and the, and all the bullshit that were placed on the American people purely to make cars expensive. Yeah.

As opposed to when you drive to Mexico and you go to Mexico and you look at the cars that are available in Mexico and you're like, why can they have these cars and we can't? I bet Elon would like that. I don't know. Will Elon like that or will that help his competition? Yeah, Elon doesn't give a shit. Tesla's not important to him at this point. Starlink and going to Mars and this is what's important to him now. Tesla's what it is. As a matter of fact, as far as I'm concerned, he wants to sell Tesla's to the Europeans because they're the only ones who want electric cars. Right.

like you know what i mean like we don't want them but if we if we want electric cars we'll buy them like it's funny i think it's really funny that all the people and i live just north of gainesville you know right that gainesville is shit lib central i think it's hilarious that all of the shit libs driving teslas in gainesville are all complaining about elon musk what are they going to do sell their teslas and buy subarus that would be hilarious

That would be, you know, I think a political statement, that would be hilarious. And they got social status to keep. They can't do that. Well, they'd have to change. They'd have to go from Tesla to Subaru in order to maintain their social status and gain. Absolutely. Even Toyotas don't work. It has to be. Even a Toyota hybrid will not work. It has to be a Subaru. Well, Tom, it's always fun talking to you. Give us a shout about where we can go to follow your podcast and your newsletter and everything else you got going on.

So you can follow me on X slash Twitter at TFL one, seven, two, eight, where the very worst version of me will show up. If you thought this was bad, you should check my Twitter feed. You can check me there. Patreon slash gold goats and guns, where you can sign up for, um,

What we do twice weekly, rants like this one, along with market analysis, as well as a monthly newsletter with a bespoke portfolio. And my business partner and I, Dexter White, do a deep dive as to where we think we're going in the future, be it from an investment perspective, cultural, political, we do it all.

as well as the website at goldgoatsandguns.com where the podcast gets thrown out. And every once in a while, I still write a blog post here or there. And there you go. Well, thanks again for joining us, Tom. It's always great having you on. Lots of fun. Appreciate it, Dave. Thank you. Have a great week.

Bye.