Podcasts about cpi

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang and senior leaders from Investment Management Andrew Slimmon and Jitania Kandhari unpack new investment trends from supportive monetary and fiscal policy and shifting market leadership. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Today we're revisiting the 2026 global equity outlook with two senior leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Andrew Slimmon: I am Andrew Slimmon, Head of Applied Equity Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Jitania Kandhari: And I'm Jitania Kandhari, Deputy CIO of the Solutions and Multi-Asset Group, Portfolio Manager for Passport Strategies and Head of Macro and Thematic Research for Emerging Market Equities within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.It's Tuesday, February 3rd at 10 am in New York. So as investors are entering in 2026, after several years of very strong equity returns with policy support reaccelerating. As regular listeners have probably heard, Mike Wilson, who of course is CIO and Chief Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley – his view is that we ended a three-year rolling earnings recession in last April and entered a rolling recovery and a new bull market. Now, Andrew, in the spirit of debate, I know you have a different take on valuations and where we are at in the cycle. I'd love to hear how you're framing this for investment management clients. Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I mean, I guess I focus a little bit more on the behavioral cycle. And I think that from a behavioral cycle we're following a very consistent pattern, which is we had a bad bear market in 2022 that bottomed down 25 percent. And that provided a wonderful opportunity to invest. But early in a behavioral cycle, investors are very pessimistic. And that was really the story of [20]23 and really 2024, which were; investors, you know, were negative on equities. The ratios were all very negative and investors sold out of equities. And that's consistent with a early cycle. And then as you move into the third-fourth year, investors tend to get more optimistic about returns. Doesn't necessarily mean the market goes down. But what it does mean is the market tends to get more volatile and returns start to compress, and ultimately, bull markets die on euphoria. And so, I think it's late cycle, but it's not end of cycle. And that's my theme; is late cycle but not end of cycle.Serena Tang: And I think on that point, one very unusual feature of this environment is that you have both monetary and fiscal policy being supportive at the same time, which, of course, rarely happens outside of recession. So how do you see those dual policy forces shaping market behavior and which parts of the market tend to benefit? Andrew Slimmon: Well, that's exactly right. Look, the last time I checked, page one of the investment handbook says, ‘Don't fight the Fed.' And so, you have monetary policy easing. And what we; remember what happened in 2021? The Fed raised rates and monetary policy was tightening. Equities do well when the Fed is easing, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's not end of cycle. And then you layer in fiscal policy with tax relief coming, it is a reason to be relatively optimistic on equities in 2026. But it doesn't mean there can't be bumps along the way – and I think a higher level of optimism as we're seeing today is a result of that. But I think you stick with those more procyclical areas: Finance, Industrials, Technology, and then you move down the cap curve a little bit. I think those are the winning trades. They really started to come to the fore in the second half of last year, and I think that will continue into 2026. Serena Tang: Right. And we've definitely seen some bumps recently, but I think on your point around yields. So, Jitania, I think that policy backdrop really ties directly to your idea of the age of capped real rates. In very simple terms, can you explain what that means and what's behind that view? Jitania Kandhari: Sure. When I say age of real rates being capped, I mean like the structural template within which I'm operating, and real rates here are defined by the 10-year on the Treasury yield adjusted for CPI.Firstly, I'd say there was too much linear thinking in markets post Liberation Day. That tariffs equals inflation equals higher rates. Now, tariff impacts, as we have seen, can be offset in several ways, and economic relationships are rarely linear.So, inflation may not go up to the extent market is expecting. So that supports the case for capped rates. And the real constraint is the debt arithmetic, right? So, if you look at the history of public debt in the U.S., whenever there was a surge in public debt during the Civil War, two World Wars, Global Financial Crisis, even during COVID. In all these periods, when debt spiked, real rates have remained negative.So, there can be short term swings in rates, but I believe that markets not necessarily central banks will even enforce that cap. Serena Tang: You've described this moment, as the great broadening of 2026. What's driving this and what do you think is happening now after years of very narrow concentration? Jitania Kandhari: Yes. I think like if last decade was about concentration, now it's going to be about breadth. And if you look at where the concentration was, it was in the [Mag] 7, in the AI trade. We are beginning to see some cracks in the consensus where adoption is happening, but monetization is lagging. But clearly the next phase of value creation could happen from just the model building to the application layer, as you guys have also talked about – from enablers to adopters.The other thing we are seeing is two AI ecosystems evolve globally. The high cost cutting edge U.S. innovation engine and the lower cost efficiency driven Chinese model, each of them have their own supply chain beneficiaries. And as AI is moving into physical world, you're going to see more opportunities. And then secondly, I think there are limitations on this tariff policies globally; and tariff fears to me remain more of an illusion than a reality because U.S. needs to import a lot of intermediate goods And then lastly, I see domestic cycles inflecting upwards in many other pockets of the world. And you add all this up; the message is clear that leadership is broadening and portfolio should broaden too. Serena Tang: And I want to sort of stay on this topic of broadening. So, Andrew, I think, you've also highlighted, you know, this market broadening, especially beyond the large cap leaders, even as AI investment continues, I think, as you touched on earlier. So why does that matter for equity leadership in 2026? And can you talk about the impact of this broadening on valuations in general? Andrew Slimmon: Sure. So I think, you know, I've been around a long time and I remember when the internet first rolled out, the Mosaic browser was introduced in 1993. And the first thing the stock market tried to do is appoint winners – of who was going to win the internet, you know, search race. And it was Ask Jeeves and it was Yahoo and it was Netscape. Well, none of those were the winners. We just don't know who's ultimately going to be the tech winner. I think it's much safer to know that just like the internet, AI is a technology productivity enhancing tool, and companies are going to embrace AI just like they embraced the internet. And the reason the stock market doubled between 1997 and the dotcom peak was that productivity margins went up for a lot of companies in a lot of industries as they embraced the internet. So, to me, a broadening out and looking at lower valuations, it is in many ways safer than saying this is the technology winner, and this is technology loser. I think it's all many different industries are going to embrace and benefit from what's going on with AI. Serena Tang: You don't want to know where I was in 1993. And I don't recognize most of those names. Andrew Slimmon: Sorry. I was 14! Serena Tang: [Laughs] Ok. Investors often hear two competing messages now. Ignore the macro and buy great companies or let the big picture drive everything. How do you balance top-down signals with bottom-up fundamentals in your investment process? Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I think you have to employ both, and I hear that all the time; especially I hear, you know, my competitors, ‘Oh, I just focus on my stock picks, my bottom up.' But, you know, look statistically, two-thirds of a manager's relative performance comes from macro. You know, how did growth do? How did value do? All those types of things that have nothing to do with what stock picks... And likewise, much of a return of an individual stock has to do with things beyond just what's happening fundamentally. But some of it comes from what's happening at the company level. So, I think to be a great investor, you have to be aware of the macro. The Fed cutting rates this year is a very powerful tool, and if you don't understand the amplifications of that as per what types of stocks work, because you're so focused on the micro, I think that's a mistake. Likewise, you have to know what's going on in your company [be]cause one third of term does come from actual stock selection. So, I'm a big believer in marrying a top down and a bottom up and try to capture the two thirds and the one third.Serena Tang: Since that 2022 bear market low that you talked about earlier. I mean, your framework really favored growth and value over defensives. But I think more recently you've increased your non-U.S. exposure. What changed in your top-down signals and bottom-up data to make global opportunities more compelling now? Is it the narrative of the end of U.S. exceptionalism or something else? Andrew Slimmon: No, I really think it's actually something else, which is we have picked up signals from other parts of the world, Europe and Japan. That are different signals than we saw really for the last decade, which is namely that pro-cyclical stocks started to work. Value stocks started to work in the first half of 2025. And you look at the history of when that happens, usually value doesn't work for a year and peter out. So that's been a huge change where I would say, a safer orientation has shown the relative leadership, and we have to be – recognize that. So, in our global strategies, we've been heavily weighted towards, the U.S. orientation because we didn't see really a cyclical bias outside. And now that's changing and that has caused us to increase the allocation to non-U.S. exposure. It's a longwinded way of saying, look, I think what the story of last year was the U.S. did just fine. But there were parts of the world that did better and I think that will continue in 2026. Serena Tang: Andrew, Jitania thank you so much for taking the time to talk. Andrew Slimmon: Great speaking with you, Serena. Jitania Kandhari: Thanks for having us on the show. Serena Tang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

This week's episode of Wealth Formula features an interview with Claudia Sahm, and I want to share a quick takeaway before you listen — because she's often misunderstood in the headlines. First, a quick explanation of the Sahm Rule, in plain English. The rule looks at unemployment and asks a very simple question:Has the unemployment rate started rising meaningfully from its recent low? Specifically, if the three-month average unemployment rate rises by 0.5% or more above its lowest level over the past year, the Sahm Rule is triggered. Historically, that has happened early in every U.S. recession since World War II. That's why it gets cited so much. And to be clear — it's cited a lot. The Sahm Rule is tracked by the Federal Reserve, Treasury economists, Wall Street banks, macro funds, and economic research shops globally. When it triggers, it shows up everywhere. That's not by accident. Claudia built one of the cleanest early-warning indicators we have. But here's the part that often gets lost. The Sahm Rule is not a market-timing tool and it's not a prediction machine. Claudia emphasized this repeatedly. It was designed as a policy signal — a way to say, “Hey, if unemployment is rising this fast, waiting too long to respond makes things worse.” In other words, it's a call to action for policymakers, not a command for investors to panic. What makes this cycle unusual — and why talking to Claudia directly was so helpful — is what's actually driving the data. We're not seeing mass layoffs. Layoffs remain low by historical standards. What we're seeing instead is very weak hiring. Companies aren't firing people — they're just not expanding. That distinction matters. And this is where I think the big picture comes in — not just for understanding the economy, but for investing in general. When you step back, the big picture includes a government with massive debt loads that needs interest rates to come down over time. It includes fiscal pressures that make prolonged high rates politically and economically painful. And it includes the reality that if the current Fed leadership won't ease fast enough, future leadership will. History tells us that governments eventually get the monetary conditions they need — even if it takes time, even if it takes new appointments, and even if it takes a shift toward a more dovish Federal Reserve. That doesn't mean reckless money printing tomorrow. But it does mean that structurally high rates are unlikely to be permanent. And when you combine that with investing, the question becomes less about this month's headline and more about what's positioned to benefit when the environment normalizes. That's why I continue to focus on real assets that are already deeply discounted — things like multifamily real estate — assets that were repriced brutally during the rate shock, but still sit at the center of a growing, rent-dependent economy. This conversation with Claudia reinforced something I've been talking about for a long time:The biggest investing mistakes usually happen when people zoom in too far and forget to zoom back out. I've made this mistake myself. If you want a thoughtful, non-sensational, data-driven discussion about where we actually are in this cycle — and what the indicators really mean — I think you'll get a lot out of this episode. Transcript Disclaimer: This transcript was generated by AI and may not be 100% accurate. If you notice any errors or corrections, please email us at phil@wealthformula.com. Welcome everybody. This is Buck Joffrey with the Well Formula Podcast coming to you from Montecito, California. Before we begin today, I wanna remind you, uh, listen, we’re back in, uh, back in the saddle in here in, uh, 2026. I know it’s takes some time to get used to it, but we’re, gosh, we’re at the end of the month actually by the time this plays. I think we’re in February. It’s time again to start thinking about investing. And so if you are interested in potentially using this year, which I believe and which many believe to potentially be the last year, uh, big discounts, uh, in real estate and, uh, various other types of offerings. Make sure. To sign up for the Accredit Investor group, our investor club, as we call it wealthformula.com. You do need to be an accredit investor and then you get onboarded. An accredit investor is just defined by who you are. If you make over $300,000 per year filing jointly, or 200 by yourself, every reasonable expectation to do so in the future. Or you have a net worth of a million dollars outta your personal, outside of your personal residence, you’re an accredit investor. Congratulations. Join the club wealthformula.com. Interesting podcast. Today we have, uh, Claudia Sahm She’s a Big Deal, Claudia Sahm. You may recognize that last name som, for this som rule. And what is a som rule in plain English. You actually have heard of the som rule multiple times from other economists who’ve been on the show. The som rule looks at unemployment. And asks a very simple question. Now, has the unemployment rate started rising meaningfully from its recent low? So specifically, if the three month average unemployment rate rises 0.5% or more above its lowest level, over the past year, this som rule is triggered. Now, historically, that has happened early in every US recession since the World War ii. That’s why it gets cited so much. It gets cited a lot. By the way, the sum rule is tracked by the Fed treasury economists, wall Street Banks, macro funds, economic research shops globally, and when it triggers, it shows up everywhere, and that’s not by accident. Uh, Claudia has built one of the cleanest early warning indicators we have, but here’s the part that often gets lost. The som rule is not a market timing tool, and it’s not a prediction machine. Claudia, uh, emphasized that repeatedly. It was designed as a policy signal, a way to say, Hey, if unemployment’s rising this fast, wait, waiting too long to respond makes things worse. In other words, it’s call to action for policy makers, not a command for investors to panic per se. So what makes this cycle unusual and why talking to Claudia directly was so helpful? Well, it’s what’s actually driving the data. We’re not seeing mass layoffs. Layoffs remain low by historical standards. Um, what we’re seeing instead is very weak. Hiring companies aren’t firing people, they’re just not expanding, and that distinction matters. This is where the big picture comes in, not just for understanding the economy. For investing in general and when you step back, the big picture includes a government with massive debt loads that need interest rates to come down over time. It includes fiscal pressures that make prolonged high rates politically and economically painful. I’ve mentioned this before and it includes the reality that have to fed, fed, uh, if the current Fed leadership won’t ease fast enough. I am likely the case that future leadership appointed by. Donald Trump himself, uh, will, so history tells us that governments eventually get the monetary conditions they need, even if it takes time, even if it takes new appointments. And even if it takes a shift towards a more dovish federal reserve. Uh, that doesn’t mean, uh, reckless money printing tomorrow, but it does mean that structurally. High interest rates are unlikely to be permanent. Okay? And when you combine that with investing, the question becomes less about this month’s headline and more about what’s positioned to benefit when the environment normalizes. Okay? That’s really, really important, and that’s why I continue to focus on things like real estate, right? Real estate is currently. Not for long, in my opinion, but deeply discounted things like multifamily real estate, um, that were repriced brutally during the rate shot, uh, but are still at the center of a growing and, and rent dependent economy. And again, uh, this conversation with Claudia reinforced something that I’ve been talking about a long time, which is the biggest investing mistakes usually happen when people zoom in too far and forget to zoom back out. I’ve made that mistake myself. I am not immune. I have made lots of mistakes, and that’s one of them. So this is a great conversation. Hopefully you’ll enjoy it, especially if you want a thoughtful, nons sensational data-driven discussion. Where we are actually at in this cycle and what these indicators really mean. I think you’ll get a lot of this episode and we will have this conversation for you right after these messages. Wealth formula banking is an ingenious concept powered by whole life insurance, but instead of acting just as a safety net. The strategy supercharges your investments. First, you create a personal financial reservoir that grows at a compounding interest rate much higher than any bank savings account. As your money accumulates, you borrow from your own bank to invest in other cash flowing investments. Here’s the key. Even though you borrowed money at a simple interest rate, your insurance company keeps. Paying you compound interest on that money even though you’ve borrowed it at result, you make money in two places at the same time. That’s why your investments get supercharged. This isn’t a new technique. It’s a refined strategy used by some of the wealthiest families in history, and it uses century old rock solid insurance companies as its backbone. Turbocharge your investments. Visit Wealthformulabanking.com. Again, that’s wealth formula banking.com. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Today my guest on Wealth Formula podcast is Dr. Claudia Sahm. Uh, she’s an American, uh, macroeconomic expert, uh, known for her work, uh, on monetary and fiscal policy and real-time economic indicators. She developed this som rule, which I think, uh, people have mentioned on this show before, so this is a great opportunity to talk to her about that. Uh, it’s a widely, uh, followed recession signal based on unemployment. She’s also a former Federal Reserve economist and senior policy advisor in government. Um, so welcome, uh, Dr. Sahm. Great. Happy to be here. Thank you. Well, let’s, let’s kind of start out with this som rule because, uh, you know, it’s funny, we, we have had a few different people, uh, at various times bring up the SOM rule, and I think one had actually said that it was triggered, but I don’t don’t think it was at any rate, let’s, let’s start with that. What is the som rule? Lemme start with why is there a som rule, and then we’ll then we’ll get to specifically what the, what the rule is itself. So when I started out on the project, it wasn’t so much about. Calling a recession, like there are some really fancy technical ways that economists like look at the tea leaves and the data and either try to forecast a recession, which is incredibly hard, or even just say we’re in a recession in real time. So like that’s a useful endeavor. But what actually was behind the development of my recession indicator was more of a call to action. How do we develop policies that, that the Congress can put into place very quickly if a recession comes? So these kind of what are referred to as automatic stabilizers, so they’re decided upon ahead of time, but then you do need a trigger that says a recession is here. So now that enhance the unemployment benefits, send out the stimulus checks, whatever it is that we kind of have as our typical tools that are used in recessions, we could have those ready to go as kind of guardrails. Then like you, you turn the policy on. So that was really my emphasis was on how do we do better policy and recessions, get the support out quickly. ’cause that’s the best chance of kind of stabilizing the situation. And then it’s like, well it was in a, it was in a policy volume that they asked for, like a really concrete proposal. So if I’m gonna say an automatic stabilizer, I need to have a proposal for what a trigger could be. So that’s really where the som rule came. So I think it is important. It’s definitely important to me to, I always remember like what the kind of reason for it’s sure. Now that also guided what the indicator itself looks like. So again, it was gonna be in, in fiscal policy. It needs to be simple, it needs to be something that we track it and it needs to, I felt it was important that it capture the reason that we. Fight recessions, why there’s such a bad, uh, you know, outcome. And so it looks at the, the unemployment rate. I use the national unemployment rate, take a three month average. ’cause we wanna smooth out, like there’s bumps and wiggles in the data from month to month. So you kind of, you know, three month average. One way to smooth it out. So you take that series of three month averages, you look at the current value, you compare to the lowest value over the prior 12 months, if you’ve seen an increase of a half, a percentage point or more. Which is really pretty modest, but half a percentage point or more. Historically, we have been in the early months of a recession, so it’s not a forecast. It’s supposed to be like we’re in it. Let’s go. It’s an empirical pattern. It’s one that’s worked in the United States. It reflects kind of our labor market institutions, the way unemployment rate moves and recessions. It historically is the case that once you get past a certain threshold of increased unemployment rate, it tends to build on itself. And in a typical recession, we see increases of. Two, three or more percentage points in the unemployment rate. Uh, so that’s, that’s what the summer rule is. And in fact, it did trigger in the summer of 2024. At that time I had said like, look around, we are not in a recession. GP is still expanding. Job creation is still happening. We don’t see the other hallmarks of a recession. And pointed to the fact that we’d had a very disrupted labor market after the pandemic in particular. You know, there had been a lot of immigration at that point. The unemployment rate is the total number of unemployed. So people who don’t have a job but are actively looking for one out of the labor force, right? And so these people that have to either be employed or looking for jobs, and so we actually saw from the pandemic. Both with the pandemic and then later with the surge and now the reversal in immigration. We’ve seen a lot of movement in the, in the labor force, which makes unemployment rate a little tricky to interpret. And then I’d also argue, we saw early in the pandemic, the unemployment rate dropped very rapidly. We even had labor shortages. So in some ways unemployment rate rising and it has risen over. I mean, it continued to rise last year in 2025. A lot of that’s also normalization. We’d had a very low unemployment rate. So I think the, the pandemic recession has a lot of features that were very unusual. We’ll talk probably more about the labor market continued to be kind of unusual. So the, you know, the somal was not the only recession indicator to fall flat on its face in the cycle. Um, but I think it’s still a useful, useful guide and I, and. You know, even if it’s not a recession, the, the unemployment rate is a full percentage point above, its low in 2023. So, I mean, that, that could, that could be a reason for policymakers to respond, even if it’s not responding to a recession. Right. That was the first time that it, that triggered and, and actually didn’t. End up in a recession, right? There’s some back in the 1950s, earlier, but it’s, it’s the first time where there’ve been some false positives in the past or, or near false positives. Like in 2003. It was kind of close, uh, is like the unemployment rate rises a little bit and then it falls back down. What we saw after it triggered in 2024 is it stabilized. Then last year it continued to rise. So this the pattern that we’ve seen since the pandemic of rapid recovery dropping unemployment rate and then it’s like gradually rising and yet has risen a full percentage point that you go all the way back in the post World War II period. We don’t see anything that looks like that. So that is a very unusual. Paris. So something’s more is going on in the labor market than just our typical business cycle, boom, bust, recession type dynamics. So what is that? What is the thing that’s happening that’s unusual right now in the labor market? Right? So the thing that is driving the unemployment rate up, I think this is a good lesson, a reminder to all of us. It’s not about layoffs. The rate of layoffs in the United States is really quite low. You look at unemployment insurance claims, they’re also quite low. What’s been pushing the unemployment rate up over the last two and a half years has been a very low rate of hiring and, and it’s, and it is something that over time will at least gradually put upward pressure on the unemployment rate and frankly. Until hiring picks up and we really don’t have many signs of it. Even as we enter 2026 unemployment rate’s gonna probably keep drifting up ’cause we’re not keeping job creation’s, not keeping up with, you know, people coming into the, into the labor market and, and that what’s, I think the puzzle right now is that hiring has been very low. But what we’ve seen in terms of consumer spending, business investment, so the kind of the big pieces of GDP, they’ve really held up pretty well, so. Business. It’s not, again, not that recession of the customers have disappeared. And so we’re not hiring, or we may even be firing workers. The customers are there for the businesses, but they’re choosing in this environment not to add, uh, to their payrolls. And that’s slowly pushing up down point rate. Yeah. Um, you know, it, it’s interesting what you’re, you’re talking about, but essentially you’re, people aren’t getting fired. They’re just, when they retire or leave, they’re just not replacing those. Individuals, you know, makes me think a little bit about what’s going on in the big, you know, in the tech push with artificial intelligence and that kind of thing, and increased in efficiency. Certainly you see that in the larger companies like Amazon and all that, where they’re just becoming massively more productive and cutting expenses essentially by, you know, using tech. Do you think that this is sort of an early indication, potentially of that kind of movement? So it. It’s possible, but I think we’re at the very front end of AI disrupting the labor market. This low hiring rate that we’ve talked about. You see this across all kinds of industries, including ones that don’t show high levels of AI adoption, and frankly, a AI adoption is pretty low. I mean, there are some sectors like tech and increasingly finance and some professional services have higher adoption rates. Uh, but in terms of it being able to explain the low hiring. I think it’s pretty tough ’cause the low hiring is such a, such a broad based, um, phenomenon. Now, AI might be, I think, indirectly contributing in that one of, one of the hypotheses about why, um, businesses have been, uh, not hiring despite, you know, economic activity. Continuing to push ahead could be that there’s a lot of uncertainty. Now there is a long list that we could draw of, of factors that might be causing businesses to be uncertain and hesitant to add to their payrolls. Uh, a lot of times you talk about things with tariffs or, you know, economic policy, regulations changing, you know, so there’s a lot going on there. But it could also be, there’s a lot of uncertainty about what this technology means for the future. Maybe you don’t need to bring on more workers because your ability to kind of use and adapt this technologies coming online. And so like that could be part of it. I think there’s another piece, you know, we have a lot of discussion about ai, but I do think that there’s, there could be a, a technology angle to this that’s, that is. Not in the AI technologies, but maybe just some of the more basic kind of automation is again, right after, you know, the, the pandemic recession as we came out of a, you know, very rapid recovery, uh, there was, there was a lot of hiring or that, ’cause businesses had done a lot of firing and they needed to bring back workers really rapidly and we actually had a period of labor shortages. There were workers moving around a lot and there were, that also put a lot of pressure on some employers, particularly in service sector, to automate more ’cause they just couldn’t get the workers, so they needed to bring technology. Online to help, you know, fill the gap. And over time, you know, businesses though, they haven’t done as much hiring, they have been firing. So the workers, they have longer tenures, have more experience, they’re probably more productive. So maybe businesses can kind of, you know, get away with not doing more hiring. ’cause the people they have there can kind of keep up with it. Um, and they’ve done some more automation. I don’t think those are sustainable. I think we’re going to need to see hiring pickup in terms of, of staying with, um, you know, as expanding, uh, demand from customers. But I won’t pretend to know what AI means for the future of the labor force. Right. So like there could be, I think that’s a big conversation about we’re headed, where we’re headed. I think it’s probably a pretty small slice of explaining. Where we’re at right now. You know, it’s interesting because obviously there was a lot of concerns about rising inflation, and particularly in the context of, you know, tariffs and, and among those types of things that were, were, um, coming down the pipe. And as it turns out, inflation seems to be coming down. How do you explain that from where you sit? Because it, it, it seems sort of to contradict a lot of what, you know, many economists believe to be likely. So when thinking about the effects of tariffs on inflation and this, this idea that it didn’t end up being as much of a factors we had really feared, uh, you know, a year ago. I think there’s a few things to keep in mind. One, the announced tariffs, uh. Didn’t come to pass fully. Right? So there’s a big difference between some of the, the, the initial announcements, whether it was on Liberation Day, April 2nd, or the initial kind of retaliation tit for tat with China, where we ended up with some triple digit, uh, tariff numbers. Those didn’t end up being where we, we ended now tariff, the effect of tariff rate. Is much higher than it was before. Right. Uh, president Trump came into office for the second time, so like, I don’t wanna minimize the, the, the increase in tariffs and the US government collected about $200 billion last year in, in additional tariffs. But there is a, there’s a good bit of daylight between what was announced and where we actually ended up. Businesses also proved very capable of trying to avoid those tariffs and not in like a. Illegal kind of way of avoiding them, but, but using inventories like trying to get ahead of them. We know the tariffs are tariffs. There’s been some evidence that, that it’s businesses are gonna start passing on the tariff cost increase when it’s actually tied to the inventories that they’re putting out in front of customers. And for some of our goods, like say apparel or things that have long seasons or come from, you know, all across the world, it actually takes quite a bit of time from the inventories being what actually shows up in front of customers. So there’s been the ability to. Kind of get around the tariffs ’cause they were rolling in. And so do be smart in terms of your inventories. And then it just takes time for those inventories to be, you know, um, to come down. Mm-hmm. By, there’s been several studies at this place, at this point that, that demonstrate that the, the tariffs, the cost of the tariffs is coming into the us. So the, it’s always the importer that pays the tariff, like literally writes the check to the US government. But it’s possible that the foreign producer could say, reduce their prices on what they’re, you know, paying or what they’re asking to be paid for that, uh, imported good. And then that would be a way of the foreign producer sharing the cost of the tariff. But everything that we see from the M Court data suggests that a very small fraction, probably less than 10%. Of the total tariff burden is being born by, at least at this point, born by the foreign producers. So it’s coming into the us. It’s sitting with either US businesses that are importing the goods or have the goods at some point in their, you know, in their supply chains and, and with us customers, the consumers we have, we’ve seen. I think you can really look at the inflation data. You can see the goods prices, which often are kind of a drag on inflation that they did turn around. They’re, they’re putting upward pressure on inflation. It’s not massive. It doesn’t explain all of these, you know, 200 billion in tariff costs, but then it is, it’s sitting with businesses. The effects still, it’s still just not that long enough to really understand. You know what, what the implications. It’s possible. I, I think that’s true with any, with any big policy change. Like it doesn’t happen overnight. I think that’s one thing that a lot of, a lot of economic models that, like, they’re, they’re very sensitive, right? Like as soon as a policy change happens, the models will kind of tell us something pretty dramatic in terms of adjustments. But this last year was a reminder, like when there’s, when there’s a big cost, there’s gonna be a lot of attempts to adjust around it to try to minimize that cost and then. It takes time, like in the real world, like the interactions are much more complex. You know, inventory lags all of the, like, it takes time to move its way through. So I think we’re not done with the pass through. I think we’ll probably still see more come to consumers, but businesses could decide to bear that cost. They, they could, you know, with profit margins. I mean some of, some of the inflationary environment in the pandemic did allow. There were very broad base increases in prices. You did see some companies be profitable from that because it was, there was a, you know, some of the costs were more targeted, but the, you know, the, the price increases were broad. So it could be a time where businesses see that, you know, consumers are more price sensitive now than they were in 21, 20 21, 20 22, so they’re not passing as much on it. Could be that that’s part of where. Like the cost businesses are dealing with that cost by maybe doing less hiring as opposed to passing it on to consumers. Uh, you know, they could be taking a hit with their profits. They, you know, so like, it doesn’t have to go all the way through to consumers. There are different levers that can be pulled. I do think we’ll still see some pass through in the, in probably the first half of this year, and that’s assuming that our whole tariff regime. Sit still, right? It looks like once again we might be, uh, increasing those tariffs, but, um, so yeah, I think it’s just tracing, you know, the tariffs through the system is really complicated. And one last thing I’ll say about the tariffs is they’re not just tariffs on goods that go to consumers. These tariffs have been broad enough that we’re also taring imported goods that are used by our manufacturers used for our, by our businesses in their production. So then it can take a really long time for that to end up with the, you know, the end customer could be a business to start with, and then it moves its way down. So I think these are just, you know, the costs are real. We can see the tariffs have been collected, the costs are there. We can see in the import data, there haven’t been import price data, there haven’t been a lot of adjustments by the foreign suppliers. So then it’s just a question of, we have these costs. Where did the cost go? I believe the last GEP was 4.3% and, uh, inflation was around 2.6, 2.7, or at least core. You’ve obviously, uh, worked at the Fed. Um, give us a sense of the situation that the Fed is trying to figure out here. Like what do they do with these numbers and, you know, all of the issues that surround them. The work at the Fed, I mean, it, it’s laser focused on the, the response, the mandates that the Fed has. So with maximum employment and price stability and with maximum employment, that’s not something that can be easily defined. It’s not like it’s a particular unemployment rate, it’s not a particular payroll number. But I mean, broadly speaking, it’s, you know, do, are, you know, the people who wanna work, are they working? In such a way that it’s not putting pressure on inflation, right? Like labor shortages that end up with wage increases that just, you know, end up with inflation. Like that would be a situation where the Fed would actually want to kind of help restrain some of the. Uh, employment growth. And we, we saw that in this cycle. I mean, the Fed raised rates a lot in 2022 and 2023. Uh, so that’s the maximum employment on the stable prices. The Fed has set a target of the 2%, uh, year over year PCE inflation. So a little different than the CPI inflation, but very much related. And, and it’s one, I mean, that’s, that’s the goal, right? And it, uh. So it starts with those two pieces and, and what’s been, I think what’s been challenging in say the last year as the Fed was, you know, trying to figure out what it was gonna do with interest rates was the fact that it, there was pressure on both sides of the mandate. Mm-hmm. Um, and not necessarily the, well, I mean, inflation itself has, was above the 2%. It continues to be above the 2%. Target has been. Since 2021. Now the Fed’s policy doesn’t have a look back, but I mean, they do worry that the longer inflation stays closer to three than two businesses. Consumers are gonna start to kind of embed three into their actions, their expectations. Then you kind of get stuck there. So like that, that both, you know, they were missing on the inflation mandate and there were, there were concerns that the, that we might see inflation get stuck above the mandate and the way you dislodge it if it gets stuck. Could end up risking a recession, right? So the Fed doesn’t want that to happen. So that’s a real concern. But then on the employment side, you know, we started out talking about the small rule, the rising unemployment rate. We’ve seen the unemployment rate rising. And then last year in particular, it wasn’t just the unemployment rate rising, we saw job creation just really take a leg down. Um. Some of that probably is less immigration population aging, so less supply of workers, which isn’t something the Fed would react to. ’cause that, I mean, if you don’t have as many people that wanna work, you don’t need to create as many jobs. But the unemployment rate was rising, so it’s clear, like there just wasn’t, there wasn’t enough job creation to keep up with, um, the workers who were there, uh, to work. And, and there was a concern that this could, could spiral out. Those small increased unemployment rate that, that very low level of job creation. And frankly, if you look at, I mean the, I mean, we have multiple months and probably more after revisions of declines in payroll employment. Mm-hmm. Like if you looked at the labor market data, you’d be like, aren’t we in a recession or like on the edge of one? Again, that’s not where we’re at, but it, it certainly gave that, that risk. Things could be slowing down. And, and the, the last piece that was really important in the Fed’s decisions was where, where’s the federal funds rate? Where are the interest rate, the policy interest rate they control? And it was still relatively high. For, for recent history, right. Not in the long history of the Fed, but mm-hmm. And so, like the Fed had raised, they’d raised interest rates quite aggressively to fight the inflation in 2022. They’d very gradually lowered it. Some was taken out in 2023 because made some pro, made quite a bit of progress on inflation in, or in 2024, they lowered the rates in 2025, the 75 basis points of cuts that the Fed did. It was out of concern. Of the labor market unraveling a risk, not a, not saying, hey, the labor market is unraveling, but saying the risk that the downside risk to employment are larger and more worrisome than the upside risk to inflation. So this inflation getting stuck, is that still the case as a going into 2026 here? So, you know, even, even last year we saw, we listened to Fed officials, there’s quite a bit of disagreement. Because it was a tough situation to read. There are some Fed officials that were more focused on inflation, some that were more focused on the employment side. Uh, and it really was just a matter of kind of reading the economy and trying to figure out this, a very unusual situation, like where, where was this headed? What did the Fed need to do? In the end, the consensus on the Fed was to do the rate cuts, kind of front load them. They talked a lot about it as insurance. They’re taking out insurance against the labor market deteriorating. And I think with that approach, in all likelihood, and there’s been certainly signaling of this, that when they meet at the end of January, it’ll, they’re unlikely to move again. That this is, this will be an opportunity to hold steady, be patient the Fed has, has taken out their restriction. So they don’t have the higher rates, so they’ve pulled rates down. We also know that early this year there’s various kinds of fiscal support that are coming online or tax cuts to households and to businesses that should give a little extra lift, uh, to the economy. So I think it’s a period of the Fed waiting to see what the effects of their policy changes are, seeing what the effects of the fiscal policy with the expectation this will be enough to stabilize the labor market. Even help get it back on track and really what the Fed would like. I mean, we’ll see what they get, but they’d really like the next cut to be a good news cut. Like inflation. Oh look, it’s moving back down again. We’re making clear progress back to 2%. I think that’s probably gonna take maybe even till the middle of this year to build that case. A strong case for the disinflation. Mm-hmm. But that’s, that’s what they would, would like to do. But they’re gonna keep an eye on the labor market. But nothing we’ve seen in the most recent data suggests that they gotta get moving like that. There’s some, you know, real pressure building. Um, in fact, the labor market looks a little bit better probably than when they met in December and inflation. Showing some signs of progress, but it, it’s pretty bumpy in terms of, there’s a lot of noise in the data at the moment. You mentioned, um, the Fed’s mandate and you know, certainly that’s something, um, that, uh, you know, that, that we know the Fed looks at these unemployment numbers that look at inflation. I’m curious though, that there’s, you know, there is this push and pull with the treasury. In particular, you know, looking at the amount of, of, of, of bonds that need to be refinanced, that kind of thing. I mean, presumably that’s one of the reasons why the Trump administration is pushing so hard, uh, on the Fed to reduce, um, you know, to reduce rates so that you know, this sovereign debt can be refinanced at a, something a little bit more palatable. How much of that actually. I know it’s not supposed to play a part in the Federal Reserve’s actions, but in reality is there, is there that kind of, you know, thinking that, you know, they have to, they, they may try to play ball a little bit with the, with the situation, with the debt. Yeah. There, the, the Fed is not playing ball right now with the administration. Uh, but, but there have been, there have been times in our past. So during World War II, there was an explicit cooperation between the Fed and the Treasury. The Fed kept interest rates low. Both the federal funds rates, so the short term interest rates, they also did, uh, some purchases of longer term to help keep longer term rates down. Right. So I mean, the, the Fed really, they, their policy was oriented exactly on this objective, keeping the borrowing cost of the US government low because it was financing the war effort. So, so there have been times where the Fed has cooperated with treasury. Now, when they came out of World War ii. What happened is, you know, treasury wants to keep interest rates low. This is good for, you know, the economy, good for growth, but it was, it really was creating a lot of inflationary pressures and it took until the early 1950s for the Fed to kind of regain its kind of operational independence from treasury and then go back to pursuing, you know, inflation as a key goal. And then also in the late seventies and maximum employment was added as an explicit goal. So we’re in a place now where. It’s employment, it’s inflation, it, there was quite, um, I mean, president Trump and some other officials have been, you know, very open about saying rates should be low to help with the deficit, with funding the gov. So like, it’s, it’s been in the discussion in the air. But that’s not, that’s not a mandate that Congress has given the Fed. That’s not what they’re pursuing. It does, you know, but things can change at the Fed. We’re gonna see a change in leadership this year with a new Fed chair. Um, the Fed always, I mean, Congress created the Federal Reserve. It’s changed its abilities, its responsibilities over time. I don’t wanna say that we’ll never get back to a place where the Fed thinks about. Its effect on the deficit. I mean, they’re watching it, they know, right? They’re tracking all these aspects of the economy. But in terms of what’s driving the Fed’s decisions about what the, the federal funds rate should be, that’s not part of the calculus right now. Yeah. Um, you know, another, just another question is for clarity. You know, the, the, um, officially right now there’s, there’s no quantitative easing. However, there is. Uh, you know, I’ve been reading, uh, about even, I think even today, there was a, a fair amount of liquidity, uh, being injected in by the Fed. Can you, for people who don’t understand the mechanics of this and what the difference in terminology is, can you explain to us maybe what the difference is between quantitative easing and what’s being done right now? So just as for context, where quantitative easing even came from. So if we go back to the global financial crisis in 2008, the Federal Reserve, in response to that recession, pulled the federal funds rate all the way to zero. Cut rates to zero And as sure many of us remember that that recession was a very deep and long recession. So, and the unemployment rate was, you know, 10% and inflation was not a problem. So the, the Fed would want in that environment to do more to support the economy. But when the federal funds rate is at zero, that’s, its, that has been its primary tool. Well, that’s, that’s. Stepped out. So then as a question of, well, what else could we do to help support the economy? And, and there, there were. Different possibilities. Uh, some European central banks looked at, you know, they actually did negative interest rates or tried to pull their policy rates, and that’s not what the US did. What was done was to do purchases of, uh, treasuries. Uh, there’s also been purchases of mortgage backed securities, and this is where the Fed is. I mean, and, and they’re creating reserves. So the fed, I guess, secretary, uh. Treasury doesn’t refer to it as magic money. Um, you know, they create reserves and then they’re going out and they’re buying tr so they’re pushing that liquidity, that demand into markets. And if you’re, if there’s a lot more demand for treasuries, well, the price of the treasuries will go up. The yield comes down. Interest rates go down. Yep. Interest rates go down. So they. They were, the Fed wanted to support the economy more. That was the tool that they used to do it. So when, when the Fed talks about quantitative easing, it’s not just the tool, the asset purchases, it’s also the intent, right? They wouldn’t do quantitative easing right now. ’cause if the Fed thought they really need to stimulate the economy more, they’ve still got like. More than three percentage points they could cut from the federal funds rate. Like if the issue were right now, we need to like get the economy going, they’re gonna like cut the funds rate and do it that way. They wouldn’t be pur like purchasing assets, purchasing treasuries to do that. But what what happened is between the global financial crisis, the Great recession, so all the asset purchases done then. There was some, some runoff of the balance sheet, but then again, in the pandemic there were a lot of asset purchases. Uh, the Fed has a really big balance sheet, and it has, uh, it, it kind of changes the way that the Fed can even just move around the federal funds rate. Like, I don’t wanna get too much into the, the technicals, but it’s, it’s just, you know, when the Fed says, well, we wanna lower the, the funds rate to 3.5%. In the old days, they could kind of do, you know, with the bank reserves and they could like, make these small purchases and it would, it would make that stick. Now with, there’s, uh, banks have a lot of reserves, so they’re not as responsive. And so just to kind of, there’s like the, the technical, the tools, the Fed has to just make it happen. In terms of operationally, it means that they have to do some purchases now and then they call their, I mean the new name they have for these are reserve management. Purchases. So it’s really about operations. It’s not about, but it does mean they’re purchasing assets. So if you’re just focused on like the Fed’s purchasing assets, they’re putting liquidity into the system. Yes, they are doing that, but it’s not with the intent to kind of push the economy to run harder. It’s just enough liquidity to keep. The federal funds rate stable at the level that they wanted to be at, to just make sure that all these operations are short in the very short term lending markets amongst banks, that it’s all kind of working as mm-hmm. As it should be. So it’s more about operations and it’s about stimulus policy. Right. A lot of our, um, a lot of our listeners are real estate owners, investors, and they’re, you know, they think about, um. Mortgage rates and that kind of thing. There was recently a, a pretty significant, well, I don’t know how significant it really was. I think it was about, was it maybe $250 billion worth of mortgage backed securities purchased by Fannie Mae. Um, that ca can you talk about the purpose of that and really the, you know, what kind of effect that would actually, we could actually expect from that. It’s certainly been, I mean it’s, it is clear. You know, we talked about one reason that the administration would want interest rates down. It’d be like financing the deficit. Right. Another reason that very much pulls into kind of the affordability debate is we want interest rates lower, one of them lower for consumers. Now the White House has put a lot of pressure on the Fed for them to lower rates even faster than they have. Has not played ball with that. But then the Fed has lowered its rates. The Feds rates are very short term rates, and the federal funds rate is like an overnight rate with between banks. Right. So it, and it has an effect on, you know. Credit card rates, short term rates, but it’s not one, it, it has an effect, but it’s really not like driving necessarily 30 year mortgage rates or you know, some of the longer term rates. There’s a lot of other factors that go into that, and so in this kind of, you know, push for lower mortgage rates. Pushing on the Fed is not the only lever to pull, right? The administration has other levers that they could potentially pull, um, in trying to influence mortgage rates. Now, there, I’d argue the administration’s tools here, like the, the $200 billion, Fannie and Freddie purchase that you mentioned. That really is about trying to reduce the spread. Between mortgages and treasuries. So in some ways it sounds similar, like, oh, fed and Franny, which are, you know, GSEs. So part, part of the, you know, government right now, at least they were privatized during the global financial crisis. You think, oh, they’re going out and purchasing this Sounds a lot like the Fed going out and purchasing. There are there, there’s some parallels, but we need to remember, Fannie and Freddie don’t create money. The Fed, when they start, when they start the process of their quantitative easing, they’re creating reserves like they’re actually creating liquidity and money supply. Fannie and Freddie have authorization to be able to make these purchases, but they’re not like the fed. They’re not creating reserves, but they can, so I don’t wanna think about them like bringing down the whole set of interest rates, but they can affect this spread between mortgages and say treasuries. Right? And so, because again, if you’re, if the. If the GSEs are going out, they’re purchasing mortgage backed securities, well that’s increasing demand for those, and that can push down the rates, that can like squeeze that spread. And, and while the announcement has been made, you know, I mean they’re, they’re in the early stages of putting that in place, but we even on the announcements, saw a response in financial markets and you’re seeing some movement down, uh, in mortgage rates now. It was. Pretty modest, right? And, and 200 billion while, you know, not nothing, uh, really pales in comparison to like the scale of say, the quantitative easing that the Fed did. Um, and there are probably other, but the, you know, the administration’s not done. It doesn’t necessarily have to be that Fannie and Freddie do more purchases. The the spread between mortgage rates and treasuries is pretty substantial. There’s other places where, you know, the fees that go into getting a mortgage are quite a bit larger than they were before the, the global financial crisis. So maybe they go in and try to chip away at the fees and, you know, so there’s, there’s different levers. And I fully expect, and I think we’re gonna get some announcements here again soon on the White Houses. Housing affordability agenda. So there may be other, other ways that they’re trying to, uh, influence, uh, the mortgage spreads. But that’s, that’s what that is all about. And it, it should have, and it looks like, you know, it’s having some effect in terms of bringing rates down, but it likely, it’d be modest, like in the 10 basis points, maybe 20 if they ramp up the program some. But like, it, you know, it’s, it, it, you know, every, every bit counts. But this is not a. Uh, this won’t be enough to, you know, move rates down, dramatic mortgage rates down dramatically, uh, when you, when you look at the economy. Um, and I, I, I think just, you know, one last question. I mean, I just in terms of, you know, the people listening to this are. They’re, they’re people, you know, with jobs and who are trying to invest their money, and they’re trying to, you know, build long-term wealth, but they’re, you know, everybody’s worried about what’s happening with the economy. What, what, what do you think, like, just as, um, um, you know, perspective for people to understand or try to have some framework for how to look at what’s going on in the economy. How they should judge it. Like what would you suggest, like just for mom and pop investors trying to, what is happening with the economy? I’m not an economist. What, what are the, what are the things that you think they should consider studying up on, looking into a little bit? One challenge for a lot of investors, I mean, frankly, it’s, it’s been a challenge that I try to deal with too. Uh, we’re, we’re in an environment where there’s just. There’s so much news coming out of DC uh, with the White House and policies and the Fed, and you know, I mean, like, there’s just, there’s a lot. The headlines are big. And like I talked about with the tariffs, we had like really big tariff announcements. The really scary numbers were, and then it like dialed back and then we pushed through it and it’s like, and it’s this remembering that, um. There’s always a tendency to have this idea that the, the president really runs the economy. I mean, that’s not just about this administration. That’s like a longstanding, you know, the president gets, uh, blame or credit for the economy when really, right. Like we have a over 33, $30 trillion economy, hundreds of millions of workers, tens of millions of businesses. Like this is not about one administration. And so we always need to be careful about. Putting too much weight on the policies coming out of dc. Uh, and you know, last year if you really just listened to all the, you know, we’re cutting immigration, we’re raising tariffs, we’re doing, you know, all, there’s a lot of uncertainty in Doge. Well then you might have missed, like, there’s a bunch of AI investment happening and we’ve got a lot of growth in the economy and while consumers are still pretty resilient, so you, it’s kind of like. Tuning down the volume, some coming out of Washington, especially the like every twist and turn. Uh, and then kind of focusing in on the fundamentals. I will say, you know, you don’t wanna turn down DC too far because we, we do have some like big picture events that could play out over many years. Right. So kind of keeping an eye on it, but for the long game. As opposed to reacting to every twist and turn, every policy announcement, because a lot of this clearly is more of a negotiation than it is like, we’re gonna actually do this. So, you know, as investors, you don’t wanna get whipped around by the latest headline, but you also can’t put your head in the sand. Like you gotta kind of try and find a way to pull the signal out of the noise. And it is really. It’s really hard. Yeah. Like this has been a challenging time and the, the US economy’s been doing things that are not typical. We talked about some of the things with the labor market and we are running some policy experiments that haven’t been run in a long time, so things could change pretty dramatically. But I think it’s just trying to absorb the information, not get too wound up about it, but like also keep an eye on like what’s good for long-term growth. Yeah. Because it’s good for long-term productivity. Thank you so much Dr. Sahm. It’s uh, it’s been a pleasure talking to you on, uh, wealth Formula Podcast today. Great. Thank you so much. You make a lot of money but are still worried about retirement. Maybe you didn’t start earning until your thirties. Now you’re trying to catch up. Meanwhile, you’ve got a mortgage, a private school to pay for, and you feel like you’re getting further and further behind. Now, good news, if you need to catch up on retirement, check out a program put out by some of the oldest and most prestigious life insurance companies in the world. It’s called Wealth Accelerator, and it can help you amplify your returns quickly, protect your money from creditors, and provide financial protection to your family if something happens to you. The concept. Here are used by some of the wealthiest families in the world, and there’s no reason why they can’t be used by you. Check it out for yourself by going to wealthformulabanking.com. Welcome back to the show everyone. Hope you enjoyed it. It was Claudia Sahm. She is, uh, she’s a very, very smart lady. And, uh, just a reminder, if you have not done so, uh, I, I don’t frequently ask to do, do this, but, uh, make sure you give the show. Five stars and a positive review because that’s how we’re getting, you know, really high quality people like Claudia on the show, I’ve been around for a long time. It helps that the show is, you know, like over a decade old and all that stuff too. But, uh, anything you can do to support would be very helpful. And also one more reminder, uh, if you have not done so and you weren’t a credit investor, make sure you sign up for that investor club. At Wealth formula.com. That’s it for me. This week on Wealth Formula Podcast. This is about Joffrey signing out. If you wanna learn more, you can now get free access to our in-depth personal finance course featuring industry leaders like Tom Wheelwright and Ken m. Visit wealthformularoadmap.com.

Peter Schiff is the Chief Economist of Euro Pacific Asset Management and the Chairman of Schiff Gold. In this conversation, we discuss the state of the U.S. economy, inflation, tariffs, the weakening dollar, and the outlook for gold, silver, and bitcoin. We also dive into global trade, monetary policy, and engage in a heated debate over whether tariffs and a weaker dollar help or hurt the economy.====================BitcoinIRA: Buy, sell, and swap 80+ cryptocurrencies in your retirement account. Take 3 minutes to open your account & get connected to a team of IRA specialists that will guide you through every step of the process. Go to https://bitcoinira.com/pomp/ to earn up to $1,000 in rewards.As markets shift, headlines break, and interest rates swing, one thing stays true — opportunity is everywhere. At Arch Public, we help you do more than just buy and hold. Yes, our dynamic accumulation algorithms are built for long-term investors… but where we really shine? Our arbitrage algos — designed to farm volatility and turbocharge your core positions. The best part of Arch Public's products is they are free! Yes, you heard that right, try Arch Public for free! Take advantage of wild moves in assets like $SOL, $SUI, and $DOGE, and use them to stack more Bitcoin — completely hands-free. Arch Public is already a preferred partner with Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini, and Robinhood, and our team is here to help you build smarter in any market. Visit Arch Public today, at https://www.archpublic.com, your portfolio will thank you.====================0:00 – Intro2:31 – Why metals are ripping9:41 – Tariff fight: who pays + price examples20:02 – Inflation data debate (CPI vs real-time metrics)23:29 – AI: deflation vs inflation argument28:15 – Can the U.S. rebuild manufacturing fast?39:44 – Gold vs Bitcoin debate49:44 – Peter Schiff's portfolio breakdown52:56 – “If inflation is low, why buy bitcoin?”56:56 – Schiff plugs: gold, funds, newsletter1:00:45 – Closing thoughts

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets discusses key market metrics indicating that valuations should stay higher for longer, despite some investors' concerns.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about key signposts for stability – in a world that from day to day feels anything but.It's Friday, January 30th at 2pm in London.A core theme for us at Morgan Stanley Research is that easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy in 2026 will support more risk taking, corporate activity and animal spirits. Yes, valuations are high. But with so many forces blowing in the same stimulative direction across so many geographies, those valuations may stay higher for longer.We think that the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan, all lower interest rates more, or raise them less than markets expect. We think that fiscal policy will remain stimulative as governments in the United States, Germany, China, and Japan all spend more. And as I discussed on this program recently, regulation – a sleepy but essential part of this equation – is also aligning to support more risk taking.Of course, one concern with having so much stimulative sail out, so to speak, is that you lose control of the boat. As geopolitical headwinds swirl and the price of gold has risen a 100 percent in the last year, many investors are asking whether we're seeing too much of a shift in both government and fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy.Specifically, when I speak to investors, I think I can paraphrase these concerns as follows: Are we seeing expectations for future inflation rise sharply? Will we see more volatility in government debt? Has the valuation of the U.S. dollar deviated dramatically from fair value? And are credit markets showing early signs of stress?Notably, so far, the answer to all of these questions based on market pricing is no. The market's expectation for CPI inflation over the next decade is about 2.4 percent. Similar actually to what we saw in 2024, 2023. Expected volatility for U.S. interest rates over the next year is, well, lower than where it was on January 1st. The U.S. dollar, despite a lot of recent headlines, is trading roughly in line with its fair value, based on purchasing power based on data from Bloomberg. And the credit markets long seen as important leading indicators of risk, well, across a lot of different regions, they've been very well behaved, with spreads still historically tight.Uncertainty in U.S. foreign policy, big moves in Japanese interest rates and even larger moves in gold have all contributed to investor concerns around the potential instability of the macro backdrop. It's understandable, but for now we think that a number of key market-based measures of the stability are still holding.While that's the case, we think that a positive fundamental story, specifically our positive view on earnings growth can continue to support markets. Major shifts in these signposts, however, could change that.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Confira os destaques de Os Pingos nos Is desta quarta-feira (28):Apesar da tentativa do governo de se afastar do caso, a pressão pela CPI do Banco Master ganhou apoio de parlamentares da base e da oposição. O movimento no Congresso indica consenso para investigar o escândalo em meio ao avanço na coleta de assinaturas. A ministra Gleisi Hoffmann (PT) intensificou a pressão para que Fernando Haddad dispute as eleições em São Paulo em 2026. O ministro da Fazenda resiste à candidatura e avalia deixar o cargo para atuar apenas na coordenação da campanha do PT. Após a mudança para o PSD, o governador de Goiás, Ronaldo Caiado, participou do primeiro evento representando a sigla em São Paulo. No encontro, ele confirmou ter conversado com Flávio Bolsonaro sobre o cenário eleitoral de 2026. O presidente do PL, Valdemar Costa Neto, defendeu a união da centro-direita e da direita já no primeiro turno das eleições presidenciais para enfrentar Lula. Segundo ele, a estratégia mais viável é concentrar apoio em Flávio Bolsonaro desde o início da disputa. O Comitê de Política Monetária (COPOM) decidiu manter a taxa Selic em 15% ao ano, maior patamar em quase duas décadas. Apesar disso, o Copom sinalizou a possibilidade de iniciar cortes a partir da próxima reunião, diante da expectativa de controle da inflação. Durante o Fórum Econômico Internacional da América Latina, no Panamá, o presidente Lula (PT) criticou o que chamou de “intervenções militares ilegais” na região. Sem citar nomes, o discurso foi interpretado como um recado direto aos Estados Unidos, em meio às tensões geopolíticas no continente. O governo estuda enviar ao Congresso um projeto único para unificar propostas sobre o fim da escala 6x1. Comentaristas alertam para riscos de desemprego, aumento da informalidade e impacto negativo na economia, enquanto defendem um debate baseado em dados. Após ser criticado por integrantes da própria direita, o deputado Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG) minimizou as cobranças e afirmou que se trata de uma “parcelinha” do campo político. O parlamentar também reiterou apoio a Flávio Bolsonaro em 2026. A morte do cachorro Orelha, atribuída a adolescentes, gerou forte comoção e levantou questionamentos sobre responsabilização penal no Brasil. O caso reacendeu o debate após a Suécia anunciar planos para reduzir a maioridade penal em crimes graves. Você confere essas e outras notícias em Os Pingos nos Is.

 Presidentes da Câmara e do Senado temem instaurar CPI para investigar Banco Master sob receio de que resultados são imprevisíveis.Meio-Dia em Brasília traz as principais notícias e análises da política nacional diretode Brasília.Com apresentação de José Inácio Pilar e Wilson Lima, o programa aborda os temas mais quentes do cenário político e econômico do Brasil.Com um olhar atento sobre política, notícias e economia, mantém o público bem informado.Transmissão ao vivo de segunda a sexta-feira às 12h.Apoie o jornalismo Vigilante: 10% de desconto para audiência do Meio-Dia em Brasíliahttps://bit.ly/meiodiaoaSiga O Antagonista no X:https://x.com/o_antagonistaAcompanhe O Antagonista no canal do WhatsApp.Boletins diários, conteúdos exclusivos em vídeo e muito mais.https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va2SurQHLHQbI5yJN344Leia mais em www.oantagonista.com.br | www.crusoe.com.br

Meio-Dia em Brasília traz as principais notícias e análises da política nacional diretode Brasília.Com apresentação de José Inácio Pilar e Wilson Lima, o programa aborda os temas mais quentes do cenário político e econômico do Brasil.Com um olhar atento sobre política, notícias e economia, mantém o público bem informado.Transmissão ao vivo de segunda a sexta-feira às 12h.Apoie o jornalismo Vigilante: 10% de desconto para audiência do Meio-Dia em Brasíliahttps://bit.ly/meiodiaoaSiga O Antagonista no X:https://x.com/o_antagonistaAcompanhe O Antagonista no canal do WhatsApp.Boletins diários, conteúdos exclusivos em vídeo e muito mais.https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va2SurQHLHQbI5yJN344Leia mais em www.oantagonista.com.br | www.crusoe.com.br

Join Peter Tuchman, the 'Einstein of Wall Street,' in this insightful episode filmed on the balcony of the New York Stock Exchange. With 137 years of combined market experience, Tuckman navigates the complexities of Fed Day—a day that turned out to be less eventful than anticipated. He discusses key indicators like CPI and PPI, and dives into insights from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's latest announcements on inflation and job creation. The episode also highlights significant earnings reports from major companies like Microsoft, Meta, and Tesla, offering a glimpse into the close of 2025. Additionally, Tuckman teases an emotional interview with 97-year-old Holocaust survivor Nate Leipziger. Tune into Money News Network for daily, weekly, and monthly market breakdowns. 00:00 Welcome to Trade Like Einstein 00:37 Fed Day Insights 01:26 Earnings Reports and Market Outlook 01:47 Special Interview Highlight 02:06 Closing Remarks and Future Plans All investing involves the risk of loss, including loss of principal. This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making any financial decisions or investments.

Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of the Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of the Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

Confira os destaques do Jornal da Manhã desta quinta-feira (29): O presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, afirmou nesta quarta-feira que o próximo ataque contra o Irã “será muito pior” caso o país não aceite negociar um acordo sobre armas nucleares. Em publicação nas redes sociais, Trump pediu que Teerã se sente rapidamente à mesa para firmar um entendimento que impeça o desenvolvimento de armamento nuclear, alegando que o tempo está se esgotando. O Irã reforçou o embate com os Estados Unidos após novas ameaças do presidente americano e respondeu nesta quarta-feira (28) avisando que qualquer ação militar de Washington será considerada o início de uma guerra. O conselheiro sênior do líder supremo iraniano afirmou em publicação nas redes sociais que um “ataque limitado” é uma ilusão e que a resposta de Teerã seria imediata, abrangente e sem precedentes. A Polícia Federal abriu um inquérito para investigar a atuação de influenciadores digitais no chamado caso Master, com foco em duas principais suspeitas de crimes: difamação e obstrução de justiça. Segundo investigadores, há indícios de tentativas de atrapalhar o andamento das apurações ou de manipular o resultado das investigações criminais. A PF analisa provas já colhidas e busca identificar quais condutas criminosas podem ter ocorrido ao longo do caso. O relator da CPI do Crime Organizado, senador Alessandro Vieira (MDB-SE), afirmou que há indícios de crime organizado no caso Banco Master e estuda incluir a investigação no escopo da comissão. Segundo ele, há relatos de relações suspeitas do grupo controlador do banco com figuras dos três Poderes, o que pode levar a pedidos de quebra de sigilo fiscal, bancário e telemático dos envolvidos. O governador de São Paulo, Tarcísio de Freitas, terá nesta quinta-feira (29) seu primeiro encontro com o ex-presidente Jair Bolsonaro após o lançamento da pré-candidatura do senador Flávio Bolsonaro à Presidência da República, anunciado em dezembro. Tarcísio deve visitar Bolsonaro na Papudinha para conversar sobre as eleições. O presidente da CPMI do INSS, senador Carlos Viana, anunciou que o dono do Banco Master, Daniel Vorcaro, foi convocado para depor na comissão na próxima semana. Além dele, também foi chamado o ex-presidente do Banco BMG, Luiz Félix Cardamone Neto, ambos investigados no caso de fraudes envolvendo descontos irregulares contra aposentados e pensionistas. Os depoimentos estão previstos para a próxima quinta-feira (05). Empresários de São Paulo e parte do setor financeiro da Faria Lima passaram a tratar como concreta a pré-candidatura do senador Flávio Bolsonaro à Presidência da República. Antes vistos com desconfiança quanto à viabilidade e à continuidade do projeto político, esses grupos agora avaliam que terão de considerar Flávio no tabuleiro eleitoral. O governador do Rio Grande do Sul, Eduardo Leite, afirmou que a construção de uma candidatura presidencial da chamada terceira via para 2026 pode envolver um processo interno mais complexo, mas avaliou que isso tende a fortalecer o nome escolhido. Segundo ele, debates e negociações dentro do partido são positivos para consolidar uma candidatura competitiva. A declaração foi feita ao comentar a chegada do governador de Goiás, Ronaldo Caiado, ao PSD. O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva lidera as intenções de voto no primeiro turno da disputa presidencial, segundo levantamento divulgado pela Paraná Pesquisas. No entanto, em cenários de segundo turno, o petista aparece em empate técnico tanto com o senador Flávio Bolsonaro quanto com o governador de São Paulo, Tarcísio de Freitas. De acordo com a pesquisa, Lula registra 44,8% contra 42,2% de Flávio Bolsonaro e 43,9% frente a 42,5% de Tarcísio, indicando uma disputa acirrada. Essas e outras notícias você acompanha no Jornal da Manhã. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Confira os destaques de Os Pingos nos Is desta terça-feira (27):A pressão por uma CPI do Banco Master cresce no Congresso. O senador Alessandro Vieira afirmou que o caso pode atingir autoridades dos três Poderes e defendeu a quebra de sigilo de empresas e pessoas ligadas a contratos de alto valor. O presidente nacional do PSD, Gilberto Kassab, declarou apoio à candidatura de Tarcísio de Freitas à Presidência e desejou “boa sorte” a Flávio Bolsonaro. Kassab descartou a união da direita em torno do senador e citou outros nomes do partido como alternativas para 2026. O governador de São Paulo, Tarcísio de Freitas (Republicanos), afirmou em entrevista à Jovem Pan Sorocaba que não disputará a Presidência da República em 2026, mesmo se for convidado por Jair Bolsonaro. Tarcísio disse que seu compromisso é com o governo paulista e que a visita ao ex-presidente será apenas um encontro pessoal, sem pauta política ou eleitoral. O governador de Goiás, Ronaldo Caiado, pressionou o União Brasil para viabilizar sua candidatura à Presidência em 2026, mas a cúpula da sigla passou a tratar o projeto como inviável. Nos bastidores, a avaliação é que o partido deve abrir mão de uma candidatura própria ao Planalto e priorizar alianças com nomes da direita e centro-direita, como Tarcísio de Freitas e Ratinho Junior. Em palestra a policiais federais, Ricardo Lewandowski afirmou que agentes da PF não devem cumprir ordens ilegais e alertou para o risco de contaminação política ou ideológica na corporação. O ex-ministro destacou que governos passam, mas as instituições permanecem, defendendo uma atuação técnica do Estado. O Ministério Público alertou que o Primeiro Comando da Capital atingiu um nível de organização semelhante ao das máfias italianas, com domínio territorial, infiltração na economia formal, lavagem de dinheiro e atuação internacional. A cidade de São Paulo registrou em 2025 o segundo maior número de mortes no trânsito da série histórica, segundo dados do Infosiga. O levantamento aponta alta entre motociclistas e aumento nos atropelamentos, apesar das medidas adotadas para reduzir acidentes. Você confere essas e outras notícias em Os Pingos nos Is.

Meio-Dia em Brasília traz as principais notícias e análises da política nacional diretode Brasília.Com apresentação de José Inácio Pilar e Wilson Lima, o programa aborda os temas mais quentes do cenário político e econômico do Brasil.Com um olhar atento sobre política, notícias e economia, mantém o público bem informado.Transmissão ao vivo de segunda a sexta-feira às 12h.Apoie o jornalismo Vigilante: 10% de desconto para audiência do Meio-Dia em Brasíliahttps://bit.ly/meiodiaoaSiga O Antagonista no X:https://x.com/o_antagonistaAcompanhe O Antagonista no canal do WhatsApp.Boletins diários, conteúdos exclusivos em vídeo e muito mais.https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va2SurQHLHQbI5yJN344Leia mais em www.oantagonista.com.br | www.crusoe.com.br

O senador Alessandro Vieira (MDB-SE), relator da CPI do Crime Organizado, pretende apresentar uma série de requerimentos para quebrar os sigilos bancários e telemáticos de empresas e pessoas ligadas aos ministros do STF Alexandre de Moraes e Dias Toffoli.Madeleine Lacsko, Dennys Xavier e Edson Aran comentam:Papo Antagonista é o programa que explica e debate os principais acontecimentos dodia com análises críticas e aprofundadas sobre a política brasileira e seus bastidores.Apresentado por Madeleine Lacsko, o programa traz contexto e opinião sobre os temas mais quentes da atualidade.Com foco em jornalismo, eleições e debate, é um espaço essencial para quem busca informação de qualidade.Ao vivo de segunda a sexta-feira às 18h.Apoie o jornalismo Vigilante: 10% de desconto para audiência do Papo Antagonistahttps://bit.ly/papoantagonistaSiga O Antagonista no X:https://x.com/o_antagonistaAcompanhe O Antagonista no canal do WhatsApp.Boletins diários, conteúdos exclusivos em vídeo e muito mais.https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va2SurQHLHQbI5yJN344Leia mais em www.oantagonista.com.br | www.crusoe.com.br

2026年1月28日下午：消费者价格指数（CPI）在截至2025年12月的一年内上涨3.8%，高于预期，加剧了加息预期。储备银行（RBA）将于下周二公布2026年首次利率决定（收听播客，了解详情）。

No 3 em 1 desta terça-feira (27), o destaque foi a reação do presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal, Edson Fachin, às críticas sobre a condução do caso Master, atualmente sob relatoria do ministro Dias Toffoli. Fachin afirmou que não ficará “de braços cruzados” diante dos questionamentos. Em meio às oitivas conduzidas pela Polícia Federal, três depoimentos foram cancelados, e a apuração avançou com novas alegações apresentadas pelos investigados. Reportagem de Janaína Camelo. Ainda sobre o caso Master, o senador Alessandro Vieira (MDB-SE), relator da CPI do Crime Organizado, afirmou que pretende incluir o tema na investigação em andamento no Senado. Segundo o parlamentar, há conexões que justificam a apuração, incluindo pedidos de quebra de sigilo de empresas, pessoas envolvidas e parentes de ministros do STF. No Palácio do Planalto, o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) escolheu Olavo Noleto, atual secretário-executivo do Conselho de Desenvolvimento Econômico Social e Sustentável, para substituir Gleisi Hoffmann no Ministério das Relações Institucionais. A mudança ocorre porque Gleisi deixará o governo para disputar uma vaga no Senado e faz parte da estratégia do Planalto de substituir ministros candidatos por secretários. Ainda no campo político, a ministra Simone Tebet afirmou que espera um convite do presidente Lula para disputar uma eleição em São Paulo. Segundo a reportagem, Lula e Tebet devem viajar juntos ao Panamá, o que reforça as articulações políticas para o cenário eleitoral de 2026. Parlamentares da oposição intensificaram a pressão sobre o Supremo Tribunal Federal para tentar converter a prisão preventiva do ex-presidente Jair Bolsonaro (PL) em prisão domiciliar humanitária. A articulação envolve conversas com o ministro Gilmar Mendes e pode chegar à análise do ministro Alexandre de Moraes. No tabuleiro eleitoral, o presidente Lula segue sem um palanque definido em Minas Gerais para a disputa presidencial. O senador Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG) ainda não decidiu se concorre ao governo do estado e aguarda um projeto considerado sólido por parte do Planalto, o que mantém o impasse no segundo maior colégio eleitoral do país. No cenário internacional, o prefeito de Minneapolis anunciou que parte dos agentes do ICE começará a deixar a cidade após um telefonema com o presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump. A retirada ocorre em meio a protestos, críticas de autoridades locais e a uma ordem judicial que determinou que o chefe da agência de imigração compareça ao tribunal para explicar falhas em operações no estado de Minnesota. Reportagem de Eliseu Caetano. Ainda na agenda externa, o presidente Lula conversou por telefone com o presidente da França, Emmanuel Macron, sobre o Conselho da Paz proposto por Donald Trump, a situação da Venezuela e o acordo entre Mercosul e União Europeia. Os dois líderes defenderam o fortalecimento da ONU e criticaram a ação militar dos Estados Unidos em território venezuelano, classificada como violação do direito internacional. Tudo isso e muito mais você acompanha no 3 em 1. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

No 3 em 1 desta quarta-feira (28), o destaque foram os registros do Gabinete de Segurança Institucional (GSI) que indicam que Daniel Vorcaro, dono do Banco Master, esteve no Palácio do Planalto ao menos quatro vezes entre 2023 e 2024. Apesar das entradas, o nome do empresário não aparece nas agendas oficiais das autoridades do Executivo, segundo apuração de Janaína Camelo. Ainda sobre o caso Banco Master, o relator da CPI do Crime Organizado, senador Alessandro Vieira (MDB-SE), afirmou que há indícios de crime organizado e que estuda incluir o tema no escopo da comissão. Segundo ele, há relatos de relações suspeitas do grupo controlador do banco com figuras dos três Poderes, o que pode levar a pedidos de quebra de sigilo fiscal, bancário e telemático dos envolvidos. No Congresso, governo e oposição articulam a criação de uma CPI ou CPMI para investigar o caso Banco Master. De acordo com Bruno Pinheiro, há consenso sobre a necessidade de apuração, embora persistam divergências quanto a requerimentos e convocações, em meio à troca de acusações entre aliados do governo e a oposição. No campo político, o governador de Goiás, Ronaldo Caiado, deixou o União Brasil e se filiou ao PSD após conversas com lideranças do campo bolsonarista, incluindo o senador Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ). Segundo Misael Mainetti, Caiado defende a pulverização das candidaturas presidenciais como estratégia para impedir um quarto mandato do presidente Lula. A mudança de partido gerou reação do presidente do Solidariedade, Paulinho da Força, que afirmou que Caiado abriu mão da candidatura presidencial ao se filiar ao PSD e declarou que o governador “caiu no conto de Gilberto Kassab”. A troca de legenda surpreendeu aliados e repercutiu nos bastidores políticos. No cenário internacional, o governo dos Estados Unidos elevou o tom contra a presidente interina da Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez. O secretário de Estado, Marco Rubio, afirmou que ela pode ter o mesmo destino de Nicolás Maduro, que está sob custódia americana, aumentando a tensão entre Washington e Caracas. Na agenda institucional, o ministro da Justiça, Wellington César Lima e Silva, se reuniu com o presidente da Câmara, Hugo Motta, e com o procurador-geral da República, Paulo Gonet, em busca de alinhamento sobre a pauta da segurança pública. Entre os temas discutidos estão a PEC da Segurança e o projeto de lei antifacção, que tratam do endurecimento contra organizações criminosas. Durante discurso no Fórum Econômico da América Latina e do Caribe, no Panamá, o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) defendeu maior integração entre os países da região e afirmou que a divisão torna o continente mais frágil no cenário internacional. Sem citar diretamente os Estados Unidos, Lula criticou operações militares e disse que o uso da força não resolve os problemas dos povos. No Legislativo, o líder do PT na Câmara, deputado Lindbergh Farias, afirmou que o acordo entre Mercosul e União Europeia pode ser votado antes do Carnaval. A declaração foi feita após reunião de líderes com o presidente da Câmara, Hugo Motta, que também definiu a votação de medidas provisórias e a organização da pauta econômica e social das próximas semanas. No Supremo Tribunal Federal, o ministro Alexandre de Moraes concedeu liminar retirando as despesas do Ministério Público da União (MPU) do teto de gastos. A decisão atendeu a um pedido da Procuradoria-Geral da República, que alegou a necessidade de paridade de tratamento entre o Judiciário e o Ministério Público em relação às receitas próprias dos órgãos. Tudo isso e muito mais você acompanha no 3 em 1. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of the Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

One of the biggest risks people face when trying to understand the economy, investing, or personal finance isn't a lack of information. It's the illusion of being informed—while quietly limiting the sources that shape your thinking. We live in a world where information is everywhere. Podcasts, X threads, YouTube clips, newsletters, reels. But abundance doesn't equal diversity. In fact, the algorithms behind social media are designed to do the opposite: they show you more of what you already agree with. Over time, your worldview narrows—not because you chose it to, but because it was curated for you. I noticed this years ago when I started listening to alternative asset podcasts. At first, it felt refreshing—new ideas, new language, new opportunities outside the mainstream. But after a while, something became obvious. Many of these shows were operating inside an echo chamber. Different hosts. Same conclusions. Same narratives. Same villains. Same heroes. It was as if they were all listening to one another and simply regurgitating the same ideas, reinforcing them in a closed loop until they felt like truth. And to be fair—knowing many of these hosts personally—that's often the business model. Audience reinforcement is rewarded. Dissent is not. Ever since then, I've made a conscious effort to study people I don't naturally agree with. Not because I want to adopt their views—but because I want to stress-test my own. This matters more now than ever because social media accelerates groupthink at scale. When an idea gains traction online, disagreement quickly becomes social friction. It's easier to conform, retweet, and nod along than to pause and ask, “What if this is wrong?” I once had a conversation with Robert Kiyosaki where he told me he actually gets worried when everyone in the room agrees about the economy. When viewpoints converge too neatly, it's usually a sign that critical thinking has been replaced by consensus comfort—and that's exactly where blindsides are born. If your goal is to get closer to the truth, you must seek out opinions that challenge your own. That includes people you disagree with—especially people you disagree with. Truth doesn't emerge from unanimity. It emerges from tension. And that applies to me as well. Daon't let me—or anyone else—be your sole source of information. No matter how much you trust someone, outsourcing your thinking is always a risk. I can tell you from personal experience that in economics and personal finance, narrow perspectives lead to surprises you only recognize in hindsight. Those are the moments people regret most—not because they lacked intelligence, but because they lacked perspective. Financial education is critical. But a real curriculum doesn't just confirm what you already believe. It exposes you to competing frameworks, conflicting data, and uncomfortable questions—and forces you to think for yourself. That's how you build conviction that actually holds up when the world changes. This week's episode of Wealth Formula Podcast examines this groupthink problem on a broader scale throughout society with an author who wrote a bestseller on our inherent appetite for misinformation. It's a fascinating conversation that will surely get you thinking about the way you view the world. Transcript Disclaimer: This transcript was generated by AI and may not be 100% accurate. If you notice any errors or corrections, please email us at phil@wealthformula.com.  You can imagine people who are conflict avoidant, probably not so likely to post online, as opposed to people who are conflict approaching who love a fight, right? If that’s, if those are the folks who are more likely to post, that’s gonna shape our information space in really, really important ways. Welcome everybody. This is Buck Joffrey with the Wealth Formula Podcast. Coming to you from Montecito, California today. Uh, wanna remind you before we begin, there is a website associated with this podcast called wealthformula.com. That’s where you go if you wanna get more involved with, uh, the show, with the community, uh, specifically, um, if you are interested. There is a sign up there for something called investor club, which if you aren’t a credit investor, you sign up basically, uh, you, uh, get onboarded and then you can see potential deal flow that’s not available to the public. And, uh, lots of things going on in there. Real estate, we’ve had stuff in the aircraft spaced, um, interesting stuff. You should check it out for sure. If you are, uh, enter credit investor. And again, that is wealthformula.com. Just click on investor Club. Now today, let’s talk a little bit of, you know, just let’s talk a little bit about one of the biggest risks that people face when trying to understand the economy of investing personal finance. It’s not lack of information, right? These days, there’s an enormous amount of information. It’s just the illusion of being informed while quietly limiting the sources that shape your thinking in the first place. So we live in this world. I live in this world too, where information is everywhere. You got podcasts, you got X, you got YouTube newsletters, reels, random emails. Abundance of information doesn’t really equal diversity. In fact, the algorithms behind social media are designed to do the opposite. They just show you more of what you already agree with, and that is a little bit of a problem because over time your worldview really starts to narrow. And not because you chose to narrow it necessarily, but because it was curated for you. You know, I noticed this myself, uh, several years ago when I started listening to podcasts like my own. Even before I started my podcast. And what happens is that you get, initially you get kind of interested ’cause the stuff resonates with you. You get some ideas, you get new language, new opportunities outside the mainstream. But after a while you start to realize, or I start to realize that, you know, these shows were sort of operating inside of an echo chamber. They’re saying the same thing, different house, same conclusions, same narratives, villain. Same heroes, you know, it was as, again, it was as if they were all listening to one another and, and simply regurgitating the same ideas and reinforcing them, uh, in a, in a closed loop. Um, and when you do that, it starts to feel like truth. And to be fair, knowing many of these hosts personally, that is kind of the business model. You know, audience reinforcement is rewarded, descent is not so ever since then. You know, I’ve actually made a conscious effort to study people. I don’t, uh, naturally agree with. I actually don’t listen to any other personal finance podcasts, uh, that are sort of in this alternative space because I already know kind of what our narratives are. I wanna know what others think. I wanna, uh, I, it’s not necessarily that I’m looking to adopt their views, but because I wanna kind of, you know, challenge my own and this matters more now than ever. Again, because of social media. How that accelerates group think at scale. You know, when an idea gains traction online, um, you know, disagreement quickly becomes social friction. Now I think the thing to do is, you know, always be questioning yourself and asking the question really, what if I’m wrong? What if this narrative is wrong? And it reminds me actually once, uh, you know, I’ve had a chance to spend a little time with Robert Kiyosaki. Period, uh, different, different times, and I still. Kind of consider him a mentor. And I remember being at a table with him, a bunch of people talking about, you know, where the, where the economy was, what’s going on. And he looked at me and he says, this is what gets me nervous. I said, what, what gets you nervous? And he says, everyone here, everyone here, even people who normally disagree with one another, are agreeing with each other. Uh, the point is that when some of these, you know, viewpoints converge too neatly. Uh, it’s usually a sign, uh, that, you know, that critical thinking has kind of been replaced, and that’s exactly where you start to get blindside and where, you know, there’s a danger there that there’s something that no one’s, no one else has really even mentioning anymore. So if your goal is to get closer to the truth, you actually have to seek out opinions that challenge your own, and that includes. People you disagree with, especially people you disagree with. Because you know, truth doesn’t really emerge from unanimous thought. It emerges from sort of that tension and challenging, and that applies to me as well. You know, if I’m the only personal finance podcast you listen to, you probably shouldn’t be because I have, you know, made my own conclusions based on what I’m thinking and what I’m listening to. I try to get people. Um, you know, from different spaces talking about stuff, but the reality is that, you know, everyone’s biased. I’m biased too. So, um, you know, I can tell you from personal experience, uh, that in economics and in personal finance, the problem is that when you have these narrow perspectives, um, they often lead to. To prizes. Uh, you can’t, you know, they only recognize in hindsight, and those, uh, those are the moments that most people, I think, regret more than anything. Not because they lacked intelligence necessarily, but they lacked perspective, right? Listen, financial education is critical and we, we know that that’s the point of doing the show in the first place, but, you know, any real curriculum is, isn’t there, just to confirm what you already believe. I, I, if you, it should expose some competing frameworks. And, you know, different questions or different takes on things and, and that’s how you know, if you listen to those and you listen to those arguments, that’s how you can really build conviction that you can stand behind. And even if you’re wrong, you say, yeah, you know, I heard the other argument too. I didn’t buy it, but I guess I was wrong. Believe me, I’ve been wrong, uh, more than once myself. So the reason I bring that all up is because this week’s, uh, episode of Wealth Formula podcast really examines. Greater than just the idea of, you know, personal finance and macro economics and that type of thinking, but a greater problem, which is group think in general on a broader scale throughout society. And my, uh, my guest is a, a woman who wrote a best seller on this topic. It’s fascinating stuff. I think it’ll get you think. Make sure to listen in and we’ll have that interview right after these messages. Wealth Formula banking is an ingenious concept powered by whole life insurance, but instead of acting just as a safety net, the strategy supercharges your investments. First, you create a personal financial reservoir that grows at a compounding interest rate much higher than any bank savings account. As your money accumulates, you borrow from your own. Bank to invest in other cash flowing investments. Here’s the key. Even though you’ve borrowed money at a simple interest rate, your insurance company keeps paying you compound interest on that money even though you’ve borrowed it. At result, you make money in two places at the same time. That’s why your investments get supercharged. This isn’t a new technique. It’s a refined strategy used by some of the wealthiest families in history, and it uses century old rock solid insurance companies as its backbone. Turbocharge your investments. Visit Wealth formula banking.com. Again, that’s wealthformulabanking.com. Welcome back to the show everyone. Uh, today my guest on Wealth Formula podcast is Professor Dana Young, who’s a professor of communication and political science at the University of Delaware, where her research explores how media psychology and identity shape belief systems she’s the author of Wrong, how media politics and Identity drive our appetite for misinformation and examines why people clinging to false narratives, and how understanding identity can improve persuasion. Our work helps decode the emotional and cognitive forces behind how we process risk, truth, and decision making. Welcome, professor Young. Great. Thanks so much for having me. Thanks for that intro. Someone has done their homework. I like that. Well, I try to, uh, well, let’s start with this. You know, one of the central arguments, uh, that you have is that people often believe things, not because they’re true, but because those beliefs serve as an identity function. Interesting concept, which I can kind of see in, uh, when you watch TV these days, can you, can you talk a little bit about that? Sure. And, and realize this is not happening at a conscious level. This isn’t something that we are thinking about. We’re not thinking, I wanna believe things that are untrue, but make me feel like I’m a part of my team. It doesn’t work that way. It is the, the truth, value of the things that we perceive is contingent on how those beliefs serve our team. Mm-hmm. So if there are things that our team believes. Those are the things that sort of historically, based on evolutionary psychology, those are the belief systems that would’ve made us probably really good members of our, of our tribe. Mm-hmm. That would’ve, um, if we had embraced those beliefs that would have. Give an indication to the shared members of our team that we are a good team member and therefore they should protect us. They should protect me, I will protect them. There’s a reciprocity there. So that belief sharing with our teammates is something that historically has served us well. And when it comes to survival, we really prioritize our social motivations above all else, because that is such a huge predictor of what allows us to survive and thrive. Is being a part of a community. And so, yeah. So the empirical validity of those claims is a little bit beside the point. The obvious, uh, the, the things that I think about there, I guess the, the sort of analogy there is like, you know, being a a, like I’m a big football fan, right? So I’ve been a big fan of the Minnesota Vikings for my entire life, although I’ve not lived there in from, you know, three quarters of my life. I grew up as a kid and that was my team. People come in, right? People go out. They’re people who, you know, were never there at the beginning, but I still root for them. Yeah. Yeah. And I still believe in them. And so, yeah, it, it reminds me of the sort of a, uh, you know, this tribal thing you’re talking about. The other place you see it, uh, is, is in politics. Uh, you know, when I, when I think about like, the way the parties have changed without getting political at all here. The, the, there’s some very, very significant changes that have happened in the ideologies, uh, or maybe not in the ideologies, but in the actuality of these parties and what they believe. They’ve changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years, yet the same people believed, uh, or identify as those party members. Is that kind of what you’re getting at? Yes, and, and because I’m a political scientist and political communication scholar, a lot of my interest in this area was born out of my concerns about our political, the political moment that we’re in, and how we really lack. A shared reality that’s necessary for democratic governance. Um, we, and we are seeing that literally there are dozens of examples every single day of different perceptions of reality across the left and the right. And so, so that was sort of why I tried to understand this, um, in the first place. But the. What you can glean from these theoretical dynamics, um, extend far beyond politics, right? To, as you were saying, and everything from economics to health, to the environment. Um, but because the shift that I think has been most impactful in this area regarding political identity is that in the United States, the. How the parties, what the parties are made up of, who the parties are made up of has changed dramatically over the last half century. And so rather than being these sort of loose coalitions of interest groups that would kind of come together and perhaps share a platform on specific policies, the way that the parties have shifted, especially sort of after the Civil Rights Movement made it that. Individuals began to identify with political parties based on like fundamental characteristics of who they are. Things like race, religion, geography, and, and fundamental aspects of culture. And so you have two political parties that actually look very different from one another in their racial and ethnic and religious and geographic sort of composition that is not good for democracy. Because we actually do not want our political parties to map onto such primal aspects of identity. ’cause it creates sectarianism and opens the door for dehumanization and violence, all kinds of bad stuff. But it also really tends to fuel some of these identity-based processes that we’re talking about because when you look around and everyone on your, in your political party. Lives like you do. They look like you do they worship like you do? They have the same hobbies as you. They drive the same kind of car. You know, those kinds of things. Like there’s a lot of that overlap that really makes your political identity take on a life of its own, and that life is increasingly. Um, unrelated to policy and more about kind of culture and aesthetics. So all of these caricatures that we think about of the left and the right, the, there’s. Stereotypes for a reason. They exist for a reason and they are so exaggerated through as a result of this political party shift over time. And, um, uh, as I talk about in the book, these differences are also exploited by our media environment. It’s really good for targeting and target marketing to have these kinds of divisions, uh, not great for democracy. Um, but they, these identities become further exacerbated. The more media we consume that tends to play into these identities. Yeah. It, it’s interesting to me, I think sometimes when you, when you think about what people believe mm-hmm. And then, you know, and then. Identifying those beliefs with like a, a political party or something like that. It’s interesting to think of the actual identification of the party coming first. Yeah. And then the beliefs following. Based on the identification. So that’s almost like religion, right? Exactly. Exactly. Right. And that’s a lot of the, the metaphors that we’ve been drawing from in political science. A lot of political scientists have been writing about this, really drawing upon the sociology of religiosity and how it operates because it, it, you’ll notice there’s another similarity too, that people will. Have this large identity as like a Catholic, right? Like I was raised Catholic. It’s, it’s part of who I am. Now. Do I believe everything that they say at church? No, but my identity as a Catholic is still very big. I, I, I will let it drive certain things, but I’m gonna write off other things as like. Not as important as my overarching identity. In the same way that we will find people who have a Democrat or Republican identity, and they live like a Democrat. They live like a Republican. However, when it comes to their actual policy positions. They don’t necessarily agree with their party platform. And that actually is where I get a little more optimistic because even though these caricatures seem so distinct when you drill down to actual policy positions, Americans have a lot in common. Those divides are not as giant as we think they are. I’m curious in terms of understanding the United States versus other countries, um, we, we seem to have a certain polarity which. It’s relatively new. I would say that, you know, even compared to, um, being a kid in, in the eighties, um, feeling like, you know, there was these two parties, but they seemed to get along pretty well. Mm-hmm. And for the most part, they were both kind of near the center. Yeah. And, um, but there’s this, there’s a much bigger division now. Um. What, I guess what drives the, the changes and when you look at different countries, like if you can compare and contrast like Sure. Are there certain specific variables Yes. That about our culture that that makes us who we are. Yes. Yeah. So that first question, um, I, I think that what’s really important is that when you think about how our political parties used to operate, um, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the two parties. We’re kind of in agreement when it came to racial issues in a way that was not good for African Americans in this country. Once the great migration happened and you had blacks from, from former slave states moving north and west, there was real pressure on leaders in those cities to advance or civil rights. Platforms, civil rights legislation, and to advance the rights of African Americans. That really put pressure on the parties in such a way that then it was the Democratic Party who became the party of championing civil rights. Then there was a response from the Republican party that was framed in terms, right, in terms of. State’s rights. That really drove the sorting of different kinds of people into the parties. It’s also fascinating to look at how religiosity and religion. Play a role here because during this very moment under the Nixon administration, there were efforts to revoke the tax exempt status of certain Christian schools that were sort of defacto segregated schools that were in violation of the policy at the time, which was to integrate those, the school system well. Those Christian parents were very unhappy with this, you know, revoking their tax exempt status. And there was a man named Paul Wyrick who came in and said, you know what, this is a moment to really bring together these two issues regarding race and religion. And he mobilized and created a grassroots movement out of this effort to sort of like protect our schools. And that actually became the conservative group, the Heritage Foundation. So that, that bringing together sort of the, the project of evangelical Christianity with this sort of move in opposition to integration that has a long history in our country. To your second piece though, about why the United States is, is. Special. Um, one, we have our, our history of slavery is not fundamentally unique, right? There are many countries that also practice slavery. I think the role that slavery already p played in the founding of our nation was important to keep in mind in terms of how the, the issue of race played into these shifts across political parties. And two, probably the biggest thing of all is that we have a. Two party system in countries that are dealing with some of these same pressures related to race and ethnicity, immigration, right? Where you see some of this polarization happening on ideology and a lot of those places they have multi-party systems. Which play a real amazing role at buffering some of these dynamics. So it’s not black or white, yes or no left, left or right. Uh, so we are uniquely positioned to have a hell of a time with polarization. When I, um, uh, I, you already sort of referenced, um, media. Mm-hmm. Um, you know, like when you think about polarization or you think about like. Re um, sort of constantly, um, emphasizing the things that you already suggest that you believe, uh, social media in particular is, I mean, is just pounding away at that, right? Yeah. I mean, sure. I just think about like my own feed, the things that I Yeah. You know, respond to or the things that I, you know, show affirmative, uh, reactions to the next thing. You know, like on x, you know, on Twitter, which I’ve been in. You know, doing more of, that’s all I get. Right? Sure. And it’s interesting because the next thing you know, you feel like. Everybody agrees with you. Sure, sure. And you’re like, oh, this is, this is amazing. I’m so Right. Right. No one has, right. No one believes the opposite of me. Right. Yeah. And it feels amazing. What role is that playing? Uh, I guess in, in your view? Social media dynamics are, are really fascinating because let’s, let’s realize, talk for a second about why it is that a lot of the content that we’re exposed to on social media is so divisive and identity evoking. Um. The reason that that happens is because the algorithms really just want us to be more and more engaged, obviously, because the only way that they’re able to, to micro target us with ads, et cetera, is by making use of the data points, the breadcrumbs that we have left behind. The only time that we leave those data points that we leave those breadcrumbs is when we do things. So if we’re just lurkers, we are not serving them at all. If we’re just hanging out looking at stuff, if we are actively liking or doing an angry thing, or writing or sharing, that’s what they need. So the algorithm is going to prioritize the content that is sort of outrage inducing, especially because negative emotions are exceptionally sticky. And there’s been some amazing work by um, uh, Jay Van Beil and his team who studied the sort of virality of different kinds of content online. And they found that the kind of content that is especially suited to virality is content that is both moral. Emotional that makes claims about what ought to be and what ought not to be, but is also like really emotionally and effectively evocative. And the kinds of content that tends to check those boxes is the content that is identity activated. Us versus them. They are doing this awful thing to us. Our way of life is under threat. Um, they are the bad guys. We are the good guys. So that’s how that happens, right? So that’s the kind of content that tends to be privileged across these platforms. That’s a piece of the puzzle. Another piece of the puzzle is that the kinds of people who tend to produce the most content online. Are weird, uh, as someone who posts online, uh, I, I just offended myself, but that’s fine. Um, the people who post a lot online tend to be more ideologically extreme. They also tend to have certain kinds of personality traits that maybe aren’t great is some of my work is looking at the, the trait of conflict orientation. You can imagine people who are conflict avoidant. Probably not so likely to post online as opposed to people who are conflict approaching who love a fight, right? If that’s, if those are the folks who are more likely to post, that’s gonna shape our information space in really, really important ways. Well then you get responses that are much more aggressive too, right? Like sure. In either direction. Sure. Something that’s kind of lukewarm. No one really cares to respond to it. Right. That’s exactly right. And then, and then those, those particular posts are rewarded by the media companies themselves because they’re getting all sorts of attention rising the top and those influencers who getting paid for that. So yeah, I mean, that’s the thing that really, that’s where I, I, I get to the point sometimes with this work where I, I’ve, I do feel a bit demoralized because I don’t necessarily see. Where there are really empowered agents to who can work within the system, we have to try to dismantle the incentive structure. So you know, if there are entrepreneurs out there who can think about ways to incentivize different kinds of content, I applaud that kind of development there. There are some, of course, who, who do the sort of, um. Positivity posts, you know, posts for good and viral videos about people help helping other people, and there is some indication that those also, they’re people love those. Those do go viral, but they don’t have the immediacy of the outrage, I guess, that when you think about, you know. The implications of this is really just, you know, I guess polarization, maybe some misinformation. Even misinformation is difficult because Sure. You don’t even actually know what is real information anymore. You don’t have like, sure. You know, when I was a, again, going back to being a kid in the eighties, it’s like you had one set of. Set of facts, you know? That’s right. But now that’s, there’s lots of different sets of facts, and in reality it’s hard to know what’s real. You just, you know, you just, you, you believe something and the next thing you know, something comes out and it, boy, that wasn’t real at all. Um, yeah. And, and let’s just, I’ll pause you for a second because, you know, as someone who studies misinformation, I, I have been through quite a journey with how I’ve thought about digital technologies, right? Yeah. Whereas. When I first started in this field 20, 25 years ago, I really lamented the fact that there were these voices on high at the news organizations who got to gatekeeper. They were the ones who decided what was true and what was not. And because of the way that they produced the news, that tended to reinforce certain kinds of official narratives. You know, there were times when conspiracies were exposed later on, when we learned that Wow. They did not tell us the truth, right? So early on I thought, oh wow, digital technologies are gonna be revolutionary, citizen journalists and iPhones. Mm-hmm. And in 2011, we saw the Arab Spring and we watched all these, these, you know, dictatorships. Topple. And then we saw the real tide shift with misinformation, with and disinformation deliberate efforts to exploit those. The lack of gatekeepers to exploit the, the lack of professional, quote unquote truth tellers, and really just make hay of our information space. And now sometimes it’s amazing, right? Because sometimes. The official account is not true, and other times the official account not only is true, but belief in the official account is necessary for us to sort of make progress as a society, right? So. The trouble is we don’t know which time is which. Well, well that, that’s, that’s what I was gonna say. I mean, I, I used to actually kind of in my own rein, have this narrative that, you know, certain sources were true and certain not, but even, yeah. You know, even after, you know, things that happened during COVID, for example. Yeah. Um, um, you know, the Wuhan Laboratories and, and things like that, that, you know, everybody looked at as a. A conspiracy theory and all this stuff, right? A tinfoil hat theory, a tinfoil hat, and you brought it up and you were crazy and everybody, you know, and, and the next thing you know, that’s the truth. That’s what happened. Yeah. So it, I think you’d even take people, um, it, it makes people who, uh, believe in the system, not believe in the system anymore. And, and I think that’s kind of where a lot of people are headed. That’s where the huge danger is. Yeah. And, and I think one area of research that is so. That is empowering and is hopeful. I have a, a doctoral student who is doing her dissertation on this. It’s a, it’s a concept called intellectual humility, which is just the extent to which we acknowledge that our beliefs and our perceptions of the world could be wrong. And what happens is when you operate in an intellectually humble way when you have beliefs, but you also are open to the fact that new information could come in at any moment, that could tell you that the things that you thought were true are not true. When you live that way, you tend to. Be closer to empirical truth than the people who are intellectually arrogant because the people who are intellectually arrogant, they’re so sure they’re right and they’re never looking to update their views. Yeah. You know, curiously on that too, like what, what does a research show about like highly educated or quote unquote intelligent people? Are they just as vulnerable? Are they more vulnerable? Because of this. And you know, in some ways I would think they’re almost more vulnerable. Yeah. And, and I think that it depends. So when we look at individual level factors and how they interact with susceptibility to MIS and disinformation, all of these different, so there’ll be psychological traits that interact with education level, that interact with what kinds of things you then are exposed to. So it is complicated. It’s complicated. So it tends to be the case that people who are. Perhaps more educated are more likely to seek out information from more like legacy journalistic sources. Yeah, yeah. Right. Yeah. Right. So, and on average, those sources tend to have more things that are empirically true than if you’re just sort of like looking on the internet for whatever you can find. Um, in fact, there’s also some research that shows that the people who report, um, quote unquote doing their own research. They are statistically more likely to believe misinformation, which actually makes sense because when you think you’re doing your own research, you’re actually doing what we call selecting on the dependent variable, which is you are looking for the information that confirms what you think is true. That is just what we tend to do. Unless you’re doing a controlled experiment. Yeah. You’re not actually looking for information that contradicts your beliefs. So, you know, we do this, this is, uh, a lot of times, um, you know, we talk about, uh, personal finance and mm-hmm. And macroeconomics and stuff. How does this translate over to like, beliefs about. Economy, the, you know, ’cause these are, these are important things that, again, there is incredibly different, uh, views on. Sure. You know, um, an example now, uh, an example is that everyone, you know, whether, whatever you believe the pol policy or not, that, that, that, that tariffs were going to drive inflation, a hundred percent inflation was gonna skyrocket. The last CPI number comes under like under three right? 2.7%. Yeah. Like what, what, tell me how this all applies to that kind of news, that information. Yeah, so, so I, I’m going to make a, a couple points that I think will, will get to your question. Yeah. Because, you know, a, a lot of what I have landed on is this role of social identity, right? In shaping belief systems and. One thing that I’m sure you’re familiar with is that when the party in the White House switches overnight from Democrat to Republican, people’s perception of how the economy is doing as a function of political party flips over. So when the White House went from Biden to Trump in January, 2025, overnight, Republicans went from thinking the economy was in the trash to thinking the economy was doing excellent, and Democrats did the opposite. So is that an actual empirical observation of the world, or is that an expression of their. Perception that their team is in charge. Therefore, things must be better. Or now my team is no longer in charge, so now things must be worse. Right. That’s the big one. We see that. You know, I’m. Every election back to who, however long this has been tracked, we see this. Um, another thing that I think is interesting is in terms of people’s perceptions of whether or not the economy is good or bad, that is very much shaped by who we’re talking to and what information we’re exposed to. So this, this in invites a whole host of questions about how should elites talk about. Economic health, right? You had under Biden, Biden trying to tell people, the economy is doing really well, the economy is doing great. Look at all these metrics. The economy is doing great. And so you have Democrats saying, oh yeah, the economy is doing well, and Republicans saying, I am looking at how much things cost. I am looking at, you know, various things in my bank account. I’m gonna say the economy is not doing well. I also think that Biden is not a great president, so I tend to think that things aren’t going well when the other party’s in charge. And then you look now under Trump. Trump is in a bit of a pickle, right? Because he is saying the economy is doing well. He’s saying, look at these metrics, look at these numbers, and you have this sort of. Viral perception among people that we are in a stagnant economy. I even heard my 15-year-old, we were at Costco and we got, you know, their pizza slices are like $2. We got pizza slices and she said, well. You can get a whole dinner for $8 in this economy, Rick. I was like, what? Economy? But, but those perceptions are so, and it, it’s also very, very difficult to figure out where did that perception come from? Yeah, yeah. How do we isolate the source of that perception that this economy is, is not good. Yeah. Well then certainly like behaviors follow, right. And yeah. So I guess, yeah. I guess that’s like, I mean, I’m sure that’s a completely different thing. Like, I mean, how do, how do these, you know, different perceptions. Party based perceptions Sure. Ultimately influence the economy because of the way people think of the economy. Exactly. Right. And how, how do mm-hmm. When it comes to what have tariffs done, right? Mm-hmm. Like I’m not an economist. I do not know what tariffs have done. My understanding from my media exposure is that there are, on some certain kinds of items, prices have gone up a bit, but that some of the other. Like at the grocery store, for example, some of the price increases that we see there are not the result of tariffs. So then what are they the result of when it comes to how we attribute responsibility and blame, that is also very much shaped by our social identity. So if it helps me to think my grapes are expensive because of Donald Trump, then that’s what I’m going to think. Give us your sort of final thought here. Mm-hmm. Just in terms of, you know, what’s, what’s the learning. Here and how can we apply this to our own thinking? So, so I, I like to leave things on, on a kind of positive note because there is a lot to be concerned about in such a fractured information space. Um. One of the things that has been bringing me some, some hope that I think we could carry with us into how we think about what it is that people yearn for, what it is that people want. Even in this, this very splintered environment, I am convinced that even though all of our technology is creating atomized spaces for us to become our most exaggerated version of our self. I think what we really crave as human beings are shared experiences, opportunities for us to share experiences together, whether that be media content that we then want to talk about, whether those be events. There is a reason why football is still such a successful, um. Kind of entertainment. Right? And there’s also a reason why when there are cultural stories that allow us to all talk about them, like the couple at the cold play concert that was outed or whatever, there are reasons why those moments just catch fire. And I think it is because despite the fact that our technology platforms are trying to give us. Atomized, individualized, discreet spaces. At the end of the day, we really do want to share things with one another. Good stuff. Uh, professor Young, uh, uh, Dana Young, it, the book again is Wrong. How Media, politics and Identity Drive Our Appetite for Misinformation. Thank you so much for being on Wealth Formula Podcast. Great. Thanks so much. It was fun. We’ll be right back. You make a lot of money, but are still worried about retirement. Maybe you didn’t start earning until your thirties. Now you’re trying to catch up. Meanwhile, you’ve got a mortgage, a private school to pay for, and you feel like you’re getting further and further behind. Now, good news, if you need to catch up on retirement, check out a program put out by some of the oldest and most prestigious life insurance companies in the world. It’s called Wealth Accelerator, and it can help you amplify your returns quickly, protect your money from creditors, and provide financial protection to your family if something happens to you. The concepts here are used by some of the wealthiest families in the world, and there’s no reason why they can’t be used by you. Check it out for yourself by going to wealthformulabanking.com. Welcome back to the show everyone. Hope you enjoyed it. Again, just make sure that you are getting multiple sources of information. Whether that comes to, you know, this show really is about personal finance and macroeconomics and only politics and all that is not what I’m into, but the point is. That, uh, when it comes to, uh, when it comes to anything including personal finance and microeconomics, make sure you have multiple sources of information. Listen to the arguments and, uh, you know, make a decision that you can live with, whether you’re right or wrong. That’s it for me this week on Wealth Formula Podcast. This is Buck Joffrey signing up. If you wanna learn more, you can now get free access to our in-depth personal finance course featuring industry leaders like Tom Wheel Wright and Ken McElroy. Visit wealthformularoadmap.com.

Keith Paul of Good Egg Dining discusses the challenges and strategies of navigating the modern hospitality landscape, particularly in the Tulsa and Oklahoma City markets. Keith shares insights on the resilience of the restaurant industry, his philosophy of hands-on coaching and management, and the necessity of prioritizing human connection over "clunky" AI and automation in service. They also examine the economic pressures facing the industry, from minimum wage hikes in California to the rising Consumer Price Index (CPI), emphasizing that slow, intentional growth and a picky hiring process are key to long-term stability.Key Takeaways Industry Resilience: Despite revenue problems and national chaos, the restaurant industry remains one of the most resilient sectors. Coaching as Management: Keith's approach to leadership involves understanding the court (the business) and coaching people rather than just managing silos. Local Market Focus: Keith emphasizes the value of a deep local presence in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, managing multiple successful concepts within a specific neighborhood. Recruiting for "Smiles": Hiring should focus on innate hospitality traits—like a genuine smile and comfort with people—rather than just technical server skills. The AI Disconnect: Many current AI and robotic solutions in restaurants are still "clunky" and risk devaluing the human experience. Picky Growth: Success often comes from having no desire for rapid, uncontrolled expansion; instead, being picky about the team and locations ensures quality. Economic Pressures: External factors like the $20 minimum wage in California and general CPI increases are creating "scary" new realities for hospitality margins. Deep Customer Conversations: Moving beyond surface-level interactions to "deeper conversations" is essential for high-value enterprise wins. High-Fidelity Service: In an era of mobile apps and digital exposure, the fastest way to lose a customer is to neglect the "human" element of the mission

Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of the Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of the Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

Extorsión creció en 20 estados del país durante 2025: Coparmex  Baja California, Tamaulipas y Quintana Roo ofrecen mejores salarios a chefs  CPI fija audiencia contra Rodrigo Duterte por crímenes de lesa humanidad  Más información en nuestro podcast

Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of the Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of the Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of the Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of the Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.In this video, I show you how to run the real math behind refinancing and mortgage decisions, including:✔ Your true refinance costs✔ Your break-even point✔ How long it takes to recover fees✔ Whether refinancing actually saves you money✔ If using equity to pay off high-interest debt makes sense✔ Which option puts you in the strongest financial positionNo guessing.No pressure.Just real numbers.00:00 Why Most Refi Decisions Are Wrong01:40 Understanding True Costs04:20 Finding Your Break-Even07:10 Comparing Options10:00 Debt & Equity Strategy12:45 Tools & Resources14:30 Final Thoughts

＜ヘッドライン＞高市首相、23日召集の通常国会冒頭で衆院解散　総選挙、27日公示・来月8日投開票／トランプ米大統領、グリーンランド領有意欲表明に反発する欧州８カ国に対する追加関税の見送り表明　自身のSNSに「NATOとの間でグリーンランド・北極圏全体に関する将来の合意の枠組みを構築した」／米ブルームバーグ通信「米トランプ政権が紛争解決を目的とした新たな国際機関の設置を検討」「初代議長にトランプ大統領が就き参加国の選定権持つ」「意思決定は参加国の多数決とするが議長の承認が必要」　全権をトランプ大統領に委ねる構想、各国の反発を招く／米連邦最高裁、トランプ米大統領によるクックFRB理事の解任巡る訴訟で口頭弁論　複数の判事が解任に慎重な見方示す／日銀、金融政策決定会合で政府の経済対策・賃上げ継続ふまえ経済成長率と物価の見通しを上昇修正　2026年度実質GDP成長率見通しを0.3ポイント引き上げ1.0％に、2026年度実施CPI上昇率見通しを0.2%引き上げ2.2%に　政策金利の誘導目標水準は0.75％に据え置き、昨年12月に実施した 利上げの経済・物価への影響を見極め／スイスフラン相場、対円で急伸し初の1フラン＝200円大台乗せ　世界各地の紛争の火種・日本を中心とする財政悪化への警戒感の高まりから、政治的中立性高く財政基盤強固なスイスに資金振り向ける動き／2025年訪日外国人客数、4270万人と前年の3687万人上回り過去最多の見通し　訪日客全体の消費額も9.5兆円程度と過去最大に　観光・宿泊業、人口減少する日本にとり貴重な成長産業／12月中国産レアアース磁石輸入量、280トンと前年同月比プラス32%　前月比はマイナス8%　日本政府関係者「ジスプロシウムなど重希土類を使う高性能製品は、申請の半分ほどしか輸出許可が下りない状況」／中国、不動産不況長期化で地方政府が独自のてこ入れ策　江蘇省常州市、マンション購入に補助金　湖北省武漢市、住宅ローン元本の1%・2万元上限に2年間補助／習近平・中国国家主席とカーニー・カナダ首相、北京・人民大会堂で会談し貿易拡大・関税引き下げで合意 ＜ポイント＞　（１） 総選挙の注目点（２） 世界のリスク要因「トランプのエゴ」（３） 今週のマーケット ＜ここ／これを見てきた＞世界で増えるアパートメントホテル

In the aftermath of President Trump's Davos speech, we discuss his aims, the response from others and potential constraints. We also welcome guest speaker, Samira Fazili, Managing Director, US Public Policy and Government Affairs, to share her views on the latest geopolitical developments. In addition, we preview the FOMC decision where we see rates remaining unchanged albeit with some voting dissents. In Australia, we look to crucial CPI data ahead of the RBA decision in February.

Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of the Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

Confira os destaques do Jornal da Manhã desta sexta-feira (23): O governador Tarcísio de Freitas (Republicanos) confirmou sua pré-candidatura à reeleição em São Paulo em meio a episódios de tensão com os filhos de Jair Bolsonaro (PL). Tarcísio reafirmou que ainda pretende visitar o ex-presidente na Papudinha. Reportagem: Matheus Dias. O presidente do STF, Edson Fachin, manifestou apoio público à conduta do ministro Dias Toffoli no processo do Banco Master. Fachin afirmou que a atuação do colega respeita o processo legal e as normas vigentes da Suprema Corte. Reportagem: Janaína Camelo. O Congresso Nacional articula a abertura de uma Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito (CPI) para investigar o caso envolvendo o Banco Master. O objetivo principal dos parlamentares é apurar possíveis ligações e influências de ministros com a instituição financeira. Reportagem: André Anelli. O ministro da Saúde, Alexandre Padilha, defendeu o Enamed (Exame Nacional de Avaliação da Formação Médica) após a polêmica com os resultados dos cursos de medicina. O ministro também fez um alerta para as instituições de ensino que tiveram notas 1 e 2 na avaliação. Reportagem: Rodrigo Viga. Consumidores na Dinamarca estão deixando de comprar marcas norte-americanas após as recentes ameaças feitas pelo presidente Donald Trump. O movimento de boicote ganhou força após o líder dos Estados Unidos reafirmar o interesse do país em adquirir o território da Groenlândia. Reportagem: Luca Bassani. Líderes do Centrão afirmam que não existe uma divisão interna na direita e trabalham para dissipar rumores de racha. Os parlamentares minimizam a rixa com o senador e pré-candidato à Presidência Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) e veem a permanência de Tarcísio de Freitas (Republicanos) na disputa pela reeleição em São Paulo. Bastidores: Beatriz Manfredini. A Polícia Federal deflagrou nesta sexta-feira (23) a Operação Barco de Papel para apurar fraudes em investimentos na Previdência. A investigação prevê um risco elevado de aposentadorias e pensões. Os agentes cumprem mandados de busca e apreensão no Rio de Janeiro para desarticular o esquema de desvios. O acordo comercial entre o Mercosul e a União Europeia deve entrar em vigor de forma provisória a partir do mês de março. Alan Ghani explica sobre o andamento do tratado e os próximos passos. Reportagem: Luca Bassani. Durante entrevista para a Fox News, o presidente Donald Trump afirmou que está negociando o “acesso total” ao território da Groenlândia. Apesar da declaração, o líder dos Estados Unidos não forneceu detalhes específicos sobre como pretende executar os planos para a região. Reportagem: Eliseu Caetano. O premiê da Groenlândia, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, reforçou que o território não vai ceder às investidas do governo de Donald Trump. O líder descartou abrir mão da soberania da ilha, embora tenha sinalizado que cogita negociar uma parceria estreita com os Estados Unidos. Reportagem: Luca Bassani. Essas e outras notícias você acompanha no Jornal da Manhã. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe world is continually paying the [CB]s more and more of their hard earned labor. In Germany the people are taxed 42%, almost half of their income. Fed inflation indicator reports no inflation, Truinflation reports inflation is at 1.2%.BoA and Citibank are in talks to offer 10% credit card. Trump says US will the crypto capital of the world. Globalism/[CB] system has failed, the power will return to the people. The patriots are sending a message, DOJ 2.0 is not like DOJ 1.0, same with the FBI, you commit a crime you will be arrested. The message is clear, the protection from these agencies are gone. Bondi arrest the Church rioters. Trump’s message at DAVOS is clear, the [DS] power and agenda is no more. Trump is now in control and the world will begin to move in a different direction, either you are on board or you will be left behind. The power belongs to the people.   Economy https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/2014289396112011443?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Fed’s Favorite Inflation Indicator Refuses To Show Any Signs Of Runaway ‘Trump Tariff’ Costs The Fed’s favorite inflation indicator – Core PCE – rose 0.2% MoM (as expected), which leave it up 2.8% YoY (as expected), slightly lower than September’s +2.9%…   Bear in mind that this morning’s third look at Q3 GDP printed a +2.9% YoY for Core PCE. Under the hood, the biggest driver of Core PCE remains Services costs – not tariff-driven Goods prices…   In fact, on a MoM basis, Non-durable goods prices saw deflation for the second month in a row…   Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/truflation/status/2014322072286302619?s=20 – Food – mostly Eggs – Household durables – particularly housekeeping supplies – Alcohol & tobacco – mostly alcoholic beverages Our number is derived by aggregating millions of real-time price data points every day to calculate a year-over-year CPI % rate. It is comparable but not identical to the survey-based official headline inflation released monthly by the BLS, which was 2.7% for December. Bank Of America, Citigroup May Launch Credit Cards With 10% Rate Two weeks after Trump shocked the world by demanding lenders cap credit card interest rates at 10% for one year, Bank of America and Citigroup are exploring options to do just that in an attempt to placate the president.  Bloomberg reports that both banks are mulling offering cards with a 10% rate cap as one potential solution.  Earlier this week, Trump said he would ask Congress to implement the proposal, giving the financial firms more clarity about what exact path he's pursuing. Bank executives have repeatedly decried the uniform cap, saying it'll cause lenders to have to pull credit lines for consumers.  Source: zerohedge.com Trump sues JPMorgan Chase and CEO Jamie Dimon for $5B over alleged ‘political’ debanking The lawsuit claims JPMorgan’s decision ‘came about as a result of political and social motivations’ to ‘distance itself’ Trump and his ‘conservative political views’  President Donald Trump is suing JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon in a $5 billion lawsuit filed Thursday, accusing the financial institution of debanking him for political reasons. The president's attorney, Alejandro Brito, filed the lawsuit Thursday morning in Florida state court in Miami on behalf of the president and several of his hospitality companies.  “ Source: foxnews.com https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2013984082640658888?s=20  WEF Finance/Banking Panel – If Independent National Economies Continue Rising, Global Trade Drops and We Lose Control Globalism in its economic construct is a series of dependencies. If those dependencies are severed, if each country has the ability to feed, produce and innovate independently, then the entire dependency model around globalism collapses. Within the globalism model that was historically created there was a group of people, western nations, banks, finance and various government leaders, who controlled the organization and rules of the trade dependencies.  The action being taken for self-sufficiency, in combination with the approach promoted by President Trump that each nation state should generate their own needs, then the rules-based order that has existed for global trade will collapse. If nations are no longer dependent, they become sovereign – able to exist without the need for support from other nations and systems. If nations are indeed sovereign, then globalism is no longer needed and a threat of the unknown rises. How will nations engage with each other if there is no governing body of western elites to make the rules for engagement?  The need for control is a reaction to fear, and it is the fear of self-reliance that permeates the elitist class within the control structures.   If each nation of the world is operating according to its individual best interests, the position of Donald Trump, then what happens to the governing elite who set up the system of interdependencies. This is the core of their fear. If each nation can suddenly grow tea, what happens to the East India Tea Company.  Who then sets the price for the tea, and worse still an entire distribution system (ships, ports, exchanges, banks, etc.) becomes functionally obsolescent. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com  Political/Rights TWO-TIERED JUSTICE: Conservative Journalist Kaitlin Bennett Charged and Fined for Interviewing Democrats in Public — While Don Lemon Storms Churches With Zero Consequences The United States now operates under a blatantly two-tiered justice system, where conservative journalists are criminally charged for speech in public spaces, while left-wing media figures face zero consequences for harassing Americans and disrupting religious services. Conservative journalist Kaitlin Bennett revealed this week that she was charged with a federal crime and fined by the National Park Service in St. Augustine for the so-called offense of asking Democrats questions on public property. According to Bennett, federal agents targeted her while she was conducting on-the-street interviews, a form of journalism protected by the First Amendment. Despite being on public land, Bennett says she was cited and punished simply for engaging in political speech that the Left finds inconvenient. Bennett addressed the incident directly in a post on X, writing: https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/2014174254799958148?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2014174254799958148%7Ctwgr%5Ef4a6650cd0c60d38edfea018c5665c2cc2fe5199%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Ftwo-tier-justice-conservative-journalist-kaitlin-bennett-charged%2F When asked by another local journalist exactly what “lawful order” Bennett had disobeyed, the ranger reportedly could not provide a straight answer. WATCH: Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2014322865848406370?s=20   Alexander Conejo Arias, fled on foot—abandoning his child. For the child's safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Conejo Arias.   Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children, or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates. This is consistent with past administration's immigration enforcement. Parents can take control of their departure and receive a free flight and $2,600 with the CBP Home app. By using the CBP Home app illegal aliens reserve the chance to come back the right legal way. https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/2014049440911303019?s=20   inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. An immigration judge issued him a final order of removal in 2019. In a dangerous attempt to evade arrest, this criminal illegal alien weaponized his vehicle and rammed law enforcement. Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired defensive shots. The criminal illegal alien was not hit and attempted to flee on foot. He was successfully apprehended by law enforcement. The illegal alien was not injured, but a CBP officer was injured.  These dangerous attempts to evade arrest have surged since sanctuary politicians, including Governor Newsom, have encouraged illegal aliens to evade arrest and provided guides advising illegal aliens how to recognize ICE, block entry, and defy arrest. Our officers are now facing a 3,200% increase in vehicle attacks. This situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming.   https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2014063905413177637?s=20  CNN Panelist Issues Retraction and Apology After Going Too Far in On-Air Trump Attack    footage of CNN's “Newsnight with Abby Phillip” was posted to social media platform X featuring 25-year-old leftist activist Cameron Kasky alongside panel mainstay Scott Jennings. A moment between the two went viral when Kasky casually declared that President Donald Trump had been involved in an international sex trafficking ring. Jennings wasn't going to let that remark go unchallenged by host John Berman. The topic of conversation had been Trump's interest in Greenland and the Nobel Peace Prize, but Kasky threw in a jab at Trump with an allusion to the president's relationship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — an allusion Kasky's now trying to walk back. “I would love it if he was more transparent about the human sex trafficking network that he was a part of, but you can't win 'em all,” he blurted out. https://twitter.com/overton_news/status/2013455047288377517?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2013455047288377517%7Ctwgr%5E20edbbd712c7076d1aafdac2d1e39d7eb8307263%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fcnn-panelist-issues-retraction-apology-going-far-air%2F   Berman asked Jennings a follow-up question about Greenland, but instead of addressing that, Jennings circled back to Kasky's remark. “You're gonna let that sit?” Jennings asked Berman. “Are we going to claim here on CNN that the president is part of a global sex trafficking ring or …?” After assuring Jennings that he would do the fact-checking, Berman asked Kasky to repeat what he'd said about the global sex-trafficking ring. “That Donald Trump was … probably … very involved with it,” the arrogant young man replied, with perhaps a touch less confidence. To Berman's credit, and the CNN legal team's, he immediately said, “Donald Trump has never been charged with any crimes in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.” https://twitter.com/camkasky/status/2013760245298864477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2013760245298864477%7Ctwgr%5E20edbbd712c7076d1aafdac2d1e39d7eb8307263%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fcnn-panelist-issues-retraction-apology-going-far-air%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2014189561002291385?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/brentdsadler/status/2014311942119137584?s=20  important as these agreements cover the entirety of the Chagos group of islands/features. Critical as future third party presence in those areas proximate Diego Garcia could in practical terms render those U.S. military facilities operationally impractical (ie useless). The current deal under consideration in the UK parliament in a rushed vote as soon as 2 February is ill advised. And it likely would break the decades long understanding with the U.S. government. See: Active U.S. treaties: https://state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Treaties-in-Force-2025-FINAL.pdf 1966 Foundational Understanding: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20603/volume-603-I-8737-English.pdf 1972 Understanding regarding new facilities on Diego Garcia: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20866/volume-866-I-8737-English.pdf 1976 Understanding and concurrence on new communications facilities on Diego Garcia and references as foundational the 1966 Understanding: https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/data/Library2/pdf/1976-TS0019.pdf?utm_source https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/2014150131247874267?s=20 The EU-Mercosur deal is a major free trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay). Negotiated for over 25 years, it aims to create one of the world’s largest free trade zones, covering more than 700 million people and reducing tariffs on goods like cars, machinery, pharmaceuticals, and agricultural products.  It includes commitments on sustainability, labor rights, and environmental protections, but critics argue these are insufficient to address issues like Amazon deforestation and unfair competition for European farmers. The agreement was politically finalized in 2019 but faced delays due to environmental concerns and opposition from countries like France and Austria. It was formally signed on January 17, 2026, after EU member states (with a qualified majority, despite opposition from five countries including France) greenlit it on January 9.  The Stupidity of Davos Explained Using an Example of Their Own Creation China is manufacturing a product to create a carbon credit certificate in response to the demand for carbon credits from all the world auto-makers.  Any nation that has a penalty or fine attached to their climate goals is a customer. Those are nations with fines or quotas associated with the production of gasoline powered engines if the auto company doesn't hit the legislated target for sales of electric vehicles. In essence, EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies buy Chinese car company carbon credits, to avoid the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN fines.  The Chinese then use the carbon credit revenue to subsidize even lower priced Chinese EVs to the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car markets, thereby undercutting the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies that also produce EVs. China brilliantly exploits the ridiculous pontificating climate scam and has an interest in perpetuating -even emphasizing- the need for the EU/AU/RU/ASEAN countries to keep pushing their climate agenda.  China even goes so far as to fund alarmism research about climate change because they are making money selling carbon credit certificates on the back end of the scam to the western fear mongers.  This is friggin' brilliant.   The climate change alarmists are helping China's economy by pushing ever escalating fear of climate change.  You just cannot make this stuff up. What does the outcome look like? Well, in this example we see hundreds of thousands of unsold BYDs piling up in countries that emphasize climate regulations with no restrictions on the import of EVs (which most don't even manufacture), which is almost every country.  Big Panda doesn't care about the car itself; they care about generating the carbon credit certificate to sell in the various carbon exchanges. Put this context to the recent announcement by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney about his new trade deal with China to accept 49,000 EVs this year. Prime Minister Carney bragged about getting the Chinese to agree to only super low prices for the Canadian market.  Mark Carney was very proud of his accomplishment to get much lower priced vehicles for Canadian EV purchasers.   No doubt Big Panda left the room laughing as soon as Carney made his grand announcement. 1. China sells EV's in Canada, creating credits available on the carbon exchange scheme. Europe et al will purchase the carbon credits because Bussels has fines against EU car companies. 2. With a foothold already established in Europe, China will then take the money generated by the carbon credit purchases and lower the prices of the Chinese EV cars sold in Canada. It's gets funnier. 3. Carney bragged about forcing China to only sell low price EV's as part of the trade agreement. The low price of the EV's in Canada will be subsidized by Europe. China doesn't pay or lose a dime. But wait…. 4. Carney can't do anything about the scheme he has just enmeshed Canada into, because Canada has a Carbon Credit exchange in law.

Deputado federal Marcel Van Hattem defende ampla investigação sobre o caso Master e que CPI se debruce sobre caso Dias Toffoli.Meio-Dia em Brasília traz as principais notícias e análises da política nacional direto   de Brasília.     Com apresentação de José Inácio Pilar e Wilson Lima, o programa aborda os temas mais quentes do cenário político e econômico do Brasil.     Com um olhar atento sobre política, notícias e economia, mantém o público bem informado.   Transmissão ao vivo de segunda a sexta-feira às 12h.   Apoie o jornalismo Vigilante: 10% de desconto para audiência do Meio-Dia em Brasília   https://bit.ly/meiodiaoa   Siga O Antagonista no X:  https://x.com/o_antagonista   Acompanhe O Antagonista no canal do WhatsApp. Boletins diários, conteúdos exclusivos em vídeo e muito mais.  https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va2SurQHLHQbI5yJN344  Leia mais em www.oantagonista.com.br | www.crusoe.com.br 

Today, Chris sits down with Joe Schaeppi, co-founder & CEO of Solsten—a deep-tech company mapping human psychology and turning it into actionable AI for creative, targeting, and product personalization. After 8 years of R&D, Solsten's “human context layer” helps enterprises and SMBs understand why people act the way they do—then adapt ads, products, and AI agents to match. Clients like LEGO and Peloton report creative wins and 3× conversion lifts, while a new self-serve product opens the stack to smaller teams.Highlights include...• Building a cognitive-behavioral AI model from clinical-grade psychometrics and authentic behavior data• Why “creative is the new targeting” (Meta's Andromeda) and how psychology-matched creative cuts CPI/raises LTV• Personalization beyond demographics—training AI agents to speak in users' thinking and communication styles• Go-to-market shift: from years of R&D to scale (>$35M raised; investors incl. RedBird & Galaxy)• Use cases across gaming, fintech, health/fitness, hospitality, and more

Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of the Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

The Rate Update — Live Mortgage Rates & Market BreakdownStop guessing from headlines.Every day we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

In this conversation, Dan Rochon, a realtor and sales coach, discusses the importance of understanding the emotional state of distressed sellers and how to effectively communicate with them. He introduces the CPI communication model, which emphasizes building rapport, asking adept questions, and actively listening. Dan also shares insights on lead generation strategies for investors, the significance of building a team in real estate, and the transition from being a doer to a leader in the business. He concludes with resources for further learning and development in sales and real estate.   Professional Real Estate Investors - How we can help you: Investor Fuel Mastermind:  Learn more about the Investor Fuel Mastermind, including 100% deal financing, massive discounts from vendors and sponsors you're already using, our world class community of over 150 members, and SO much more here: http://www.investorfuel.com/apply   Investor Machine Marketing Partnership:  Are you looking for consistent, high quality lead generation? Investor Machine is America's #1 lead generation service professional investors. Investor Machine provides true 'white glove' support to help you build the perfect marketing plan, then we'll execute it for you…talking and working together on an ongoing basis to help you hit YOUR goals! Learn more here: http://www.investormachine.com   Coaching with Mike Hambright:  Interested in 1 on 1 coaching with Mike Hambright? Mike coaches entrepreneurs looking to level up, build coaching or service based businesses (Mike runs multiple 7 and 8 figure a year businesses), building a coaching program and more. Learn more here: https://investorfuel.com/coachingwithmike   Attend a Vacation/Mastermind Retreat with Mike Hambright: Interested in joining a "mini-mastermind" with Mike and his private clients on an upcoming "Retreat", either at locations like Cabo San Lucas, Napa, Park City ski trip, Yellowstone, or even at Mike's East Texas "Big H Ranch"? Learn more here: http://www.investorfuel.com/retreat   Property Insurance: Join the largest and most investor friendly property insurance provider in 2 minutes. Free to join, and insure all your flips and rentals within minutes! There is NO easier insurance provider on the planet (turn insurance on or off in 1 minute without talking to anyone!), and there's no 15-30% agent mark up through this platform!  Register here: https://myinvestorinsurance.com/   New Real Estate Investors - How we can work together: Investor Fuel Club (Coaching and Deal Partner Community): Looking to kickstart your real estate investing career? Join our one of a kind Coaching Community, Investor Fuel Club, where you'll get trained by some of the best real estate investors in America, and partner with them on deals! You don't need $ for deals…we'll partner with you and hold your hand along the way! Learn More here: http://www.investorfuel.com/club   —--------------------

In this episode, recorded on Friday, January 16, we examine the inflation outlook and the growing influence of geopolitics on financial markets. A superficially benign headline CPI reading obscures a firmer underlying inflationary trend that is likely to assert itself later in the year. Other inflation gauges are already running hotter, raising questions about whether the CPI is understating price pressures. We also consider the economic drag from the resumption of student loan payments, the withdrawal of health care subsidies, the inflationary impulse from tariffs, and recent developments in Venezuela. Taken together, these forces point to a more challenging backdrop for equity markets in the months ahead.

The Rate Update — Live Mortgage Rates & Market BreakdownStop guessing from headlines.Every day we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

The Rate Update — Live Mortgage Rates & Market BreakdownStop guessing from headlines.Every day we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

Confira os destaques do Jornal da Manhã desta terça-feira (20): A União Europeia se reúne nesta quinta-feira (22) para discutir as ameaças do presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, de impor tarifas a países europeus que se oponham aos planos americanos envolvendo a Groenlândia. Mais tropas da Dinamarca chegaram à Groenlândia na noite desta segunda-feira (19), enquanto o presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, reforça seu desejo de anexar o território. O ministro da Justiça, Wellington César Lima e Silva, quer encontrar o presidente do Senado, Davi Alcolumbre (União), e o presidente da Câmara, Hugo Motta (Republicanos). O objetivo da reunião com as cúpulas do Legislativo é destravar a tramitação do texto da PEC da Segurança Pública. O senador Eduardo Girão (Novo-CE) entrou com uma representação na Procuradoria-Geral da República contra o ministro do STF Dias Toffoli. O parlamentar questiona a atuação do magistrado no inquérito que apura uma suposta fraude bilionária envolvendo o Banco Master, levantando suspeitas de possível conflito de interesse. Durante discurso no Fórum Econômico Mundial, em Davos, nesta terça-feira (20), a presidente da Comissão Europeia, Ursula von der Leyen, afirmou que os ataques na Ucrânia precisam acabar e reforçou a posição da União Europeia em defesa do país. O presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, afirmou que pretende impor uma tarifa de 200% sobre vinhos e champanhes franceses como forma de pressionar o presidente Emmanuel Macron a aderir ao chamado “Conselho da Paz”, iniciativa proposta por Trump para a resolução de conflitos globais. A oposição no Senado atingiu, nesta segunda-feira (19), 42 assinaturas para a instalação de uma Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito (CPI) com a finalidade de investigar o caso do Banco Master. O requerimento, apresentado pelo senador Eduardo Girão (Novo-CE), tem o apoio de mais da metade do Senado. O ministro da Fazenda, Fernando Haddad (PT), afirmou nesta segunda-feira (19) que “a economia não vai derrotar nem eleger” nenhum candidato, ao comentar o peso dos indicadores econômicos na disputa eleitoral de 2026. O primeiro-ministro do Canadá, Mark Carney, afirmou que o sistema multilateral criado após a Segunda Guerra Mundial passa por um processo acelerado de erosão. Em entrevista após visita à China, Carney avaliou que organismos como FMI, Banco Mundial e OMC perdem influência, enquanto surge uma nova ordem internacional baseada em acordos setoriais entre países e blocos, com menor protagonismo dos Estados Unidos. Segundo ele, o cenário aponta para mudanças profundas na governança global, no comércio e nas relações diplomáticas. O Tribunal Superior Eleitoral propôs uma mudança relevante na interpretação das regras eleitorais ao indicar que críticas a governos, mesmo com impulsionamento pago, não devem ser consideradas propaganda eleitoral antecipada negativa, desde que não façam menção direta ao processo eleitoral ou a candidatos. A proposta sinaliza uma possível guinada no entendimento do TSE, já que a legislação atual proíbe o impulsionamento de propaganda negativa. Essas e outras notícias você acompanha no Jornal da Manhã. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Rate Update — Live Mortgage Rates & Market BreakdownStop guessing from headlines.Every day we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders to show what you actually qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance and a clear breakdown of Fed, CPI, Jobs, MBS, and the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven. No hype.

This week's market update dives into several key economic signals, including the latest readings on inflation through CPI, PPI, along with the kickoff of fourth-quarter earnings season. Major banks are among the first to report, offering early insight into both the health of the economy and the broader market backdrop.A timely listener question also sparked a deeper discussion about how we evaluate market-moving headlines—and why news alone doesn't automatically trigger changes to a well-constructed portfolio. Using recent developments involving Venezuela as an example, we walk through the critical distinction between short-term trading and long-term investing. While geopolitical events can drive near-term volatility, our investment decisions are grounded in a disciplined, research-driven process. We explain how Henssler evaluates stocks using multi-point criteria and in-depth fundamental analysis, and why that approach aligns with our long-term financial planning philosophy, the Henssler Ten Year Rule.We're also unpacking a developing story that's drawing attention on Wall Street and in Washington. Reports indicate the U.S. attorney's office is reviewing testimony from Fed Chair Jerome Powell, a move that's quickly become part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to pressure the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. We'll discuss what this could mean for the Fed's independence, why markets are paying close attention, and why—despite the headlines—monetary policy is intended to be guided by data, not politics.Finally, we take a closer look at today's auto market, where new car prices have jumped more than 30% since 2020, pushing average sticker prices past $50,000. We break down what's driving record-high monthly payments now averaging well over $750, the growing use of eight-, nine-, and even 10-year loan terms, and why these trends matter well beyond the dealership.Join hosts Nick Antonucci, CVA, CEPA, Director of Research, and Managing Associates K.C. Smith, CFP®, CEPA, and D.J. Barker, CWS®, and Kelly-Lynne Scalice, a seasoned communicator and host, on Henssler Money Talks as they explore key financial strategies to help investors navigate market uncertainty. Henssler Money Talks — January 17, 2026  |  Season 40, Episode 3Timestamps and Chapters9:43: Markets, Inflation, and the Earnings Pulse16:12: Investing vs. Trading: Why Headlines Don't Drive Our Portfolios36:46: The Fed Under Fire45:23: The Real Cost of Driving NewFollow Henssler:  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HensslerFinancial/ YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/c/HensslerFinancial LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/henssler-financial/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hensslerfinancial/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hensslerfinancial?lang=en X: https://www.x.com/hensslergroup “Henssler Money Talks” is brought to you by Henssler Financial. Sign up for the Money Talks Newsletter: https://www.henssler.com/newsletters/ 

President Trump calls for revoking citizenship and deporting naturalized immigrants convicted of fraud (especially Somalis), cutting payments to sanctuary cities/states; Supreme Court oral arguments on state bans for males competing in girls' sports feature Ketanji Brown Jackson and Samuel Alito; CPI shows 2.6% annualized inflation (lowest since March 2021); Iran updates: Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi on regime defections and collapse, protester deaths at 12,000-20,000, China delaying $400B deal over sanctions; Secret Service agent Thomas Scotto leaks VP Vance travel plans in Project Veritas sting, admits voting Biden and hating ICE; Columbus, Ohio daycare fraud exposed; U.S. designates Muslim Brotherhood branches as terrorist organizations; Rand Paul on Joe Rogan discusses Fauci dismissing IV steroids for COVID; reflection on Scott Adams' final message accepting Jesus Christ.   The A.M. Update, Trump naturalize deport, Somalia fraud, sanctuary cities, Supreme Court Title IX, girls sports, CPI inflation, Iran regime collapse, Reza Pahlavi, China Iran deal, Secret Service leak, Project Veritas, Thomas Scotto, Columbus daycare fraud, Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, Rand Paul Joe Rogan, Fauci steroids, Scott Adams death, Scott Adams conversion

In this episode of Money Moves, Matty A and Brian break down why a “nothing burger” CPI print might actually be more important than it looks, what falling core inflation really means for rate cuts in 2026, and why ignoring the headlines may be the smartest investing move right now.They dig into the rise of gamification in markets, the impact of crypto as a real-time sentiment gauge, and why today's investors behave nothing like those from previous decades. From tariffs and Supreme Court rulings to silver's parabolic run and renewed strength in housing and real estate, this episode connects the dots between policy, psychology, and price action.If you're wondering why markets keep defying expectations — and how to position yourself without chasing hype — this episode is for you.Topics Covered:CPI at 2.7% and what it means for future rate cutsWhy markets ignored “good” inflation dataHeadline risk vs. reality in investingThe gamification of markets and “Degen” cultureCrypto as a real-time risk appetite indicatorInstitutional vs. retail money behaviorTariffs, Supreme Court rulings, and market reactionsSilver's surge vs. gold's long-term valueReal estate, housing demand, and falling ratesWhy being invested beats sitting on the sidelinesEpisode Sponsored By:Discover Financial Millionaire Mindcast Shop: Buy the Rich Life Planner and Get the Wealth-Building Bundle for FREE! Visit: https://shop.millionairemindcast.com/CRE MASTERMIND: Visit myfirst50k.com and submit your application to join!FREE CRE Crash Course: Text “FREE” to 844-447-1555FREE Financial X-Ray: Text  "XRAY" to 844-447-1555

1. Sigue la incertidumbre sobre la propuesta reforma contributiva 2. Reviven en la Asamblea Legislativa medidas para eliminar escoltas- END- Cámara se entrega a JGo 3. CPI tiene que volver a los tribunales para exigir se entregue información pública. Ahora datos sobre cabilderos 4. Martes de Energía con Ramón Luis Nieves 5. Presentan medida en el Congreso para convertir a Groenlandia en el estado 51 6. Datos oficiales dicen inflación continúa en Estados UnidosSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver and U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder discuss a North America Big Debate for 2026: Whether investments in efficiency and productivity will spark a transformation of U.S. manufacturing. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Chris Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst. Michelle Weaver: Today: Will 2026 be the year of U.S. Manufacturing's transformation? It's Tuesday, January 13th at 10am in New York. U.S. reshoring has been an important component of our multipolar world theme, and manufacturing is one of those topics we have always had our eyes on. We've been making some big predictions about a transformation in this sector, so it makes sense that it features prominently in the big debates we've identified for North America in 2026. In the last few years, there's been a steady stream of investments in automation controls and upgrades across U.S. manufacturing. And this is happening against a backdrop of shifting global supply chains and lingering policy uncertainty. Now, the big market debate is whether these investments will generate a whole wave of greenfield projects – that is brand new, multi-year construction initiatives to build facilities, factories, and infrastructure from the ground up. Chris, what exactly is driving this current wave of efficiency and productivity investment in U.S. manufacturing? And how long term of a trend is it? Chris Snyder: I think what's driving the inflection is tariffs. The view that has underpinned my U.S. reshoring call is that I believe companies have to serve the U.S. market. The U.S. accounts for 30 percent of global consumption – equal to EU and China combined. It is also the best margin region in the world. So, companies have to serve the market, and now what they're doing is they're going back and they're looking at their production assets that they have in the U.S. and they're saying, how can I get more out of what's already here? So, the quickest, cheapest, fastest way to bring production online in the U.S. is drive better productivity and efficiency out of the assets you already have. And we're seeing it come through very quickly after Liberation Day. Michelle Weaver: And you think these investments are an on ramp to larger greenfield projects. What evidence do we have that this efficiency spend is setting the stage for a ramp up in new factory builds? Chris Snyder: I think this is absolutely the leading indicator for greenfields because this is telling us that the supply chain cost calculation has changed. What all of these companies are doing are saying, ‘Okay, how can I get products into the U.S. at the cheapest cost possible?' What we're seeing is the cost of imports have gone higher with tariffs, and now it's more economically advisable for these companies to make the product in the United States. And if that's the case, that means that when they need a new factory, it's going to come to the United States. They might not need a factory now, but when they do, the U.S. is at least incrementally better positioned to get that factory. Other data that we're seeing; I think the most interesting data that's come out of all of this is the bifurcation in global PPI or producer price data. If you look at it on a regional basis, North America markets saw PPI go higher in 2025. They were all the tariff exempt regions – U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Every other region in the world saw PPI down year-to-date. That means that these companies and factories are having to lower prices to stay competitive in the global market and sell their products into the United States. That tells us also where the next factory is going. If you have a factory in the U.S. and a factory in Malaysia, and your U.S. factory is pricing up, that means the return profile is getting better. If your factory in Malaysia is pricing down, it means the returns are getting worse and you're pricing down because it's over-capacitized. That's not a region where you're going to add a factory. You know, what I like to say is – price drives returns, and supply is going to follow returns. And right now, that price data tells us the returns are in the United States. Michelle Weaver: And, for people that might not be familiar with PPI, can you explain it to everyone? It's sort of like CPIs cousin, but how should people think about it? Chris Snyder: Yeah, yeah, so PPI, Producer Price Inflation, it's effectively the prices that my companies, the producers of goods are charging. So maybe this is the price that they would then charge a distributor, who then the distributor ultimately is selling it to a store. And then that's, you know, kind of factoring its way into CPI. But it starts with PPI. Michelle Weaver: And what are some of the key catalysts investors should be looking for in 2026 that could confirm that this greenfield ramp is underway? Chris Snyder: The number one, you know, metric I think the market looks at is manufacturing project starts. Every month there's data that comes out and says how many manufacturing projects were announced in the U.S. that month. And what we've seen coming out of Liberation Day is that number on a project value has gone higher. You know, it hasn't totally inflected, but it has pushed higher. The thing that has inflected is the number of announcements. So, this is not like two or three years ago where we had these mega projects. What we're seeing right now is very broad. And to me that's more important because that shows that there's durability behind it. And it shows that this is because the economics are saying it makes sense. It's not necessarily just because, okay, I got an incentive and I'm trying to follow alongside that. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. The market seems skeptical though, pointing out that the ISM manufacturing purchasing managers index has been shrinking. This could be a sign that demand isn't strong enough to justify building new factories right now. How would you address that concern? Chris Snyder: Yeah, no, I mean, you're definitely right. Like the biggest pushback on the reshoring theme is the demand for goods is not very strong. Consumers are not in a good place. So why would companies add capacity in this backdrop? That's never happened before. Companies only add capacity when they're producing a lot and the utilization goes up. This is not a normal cycle. Throughout history, the motivation to add capacity was when your production rates go higher, your utilization hits a certain level, and then you add capacity. So, it always started with demand to your point. The motivation right now is tariff mitigation. And you do not need higher demand to support that. The U.S. is a $1.2 trillion trade deficit. So, that more than anything gets me confident in the theme and the duration behind it. And I think it's a very different outlook when you look across the international markets. They're the ones that need to find incremental demand to justify investment. Michelle Weaver: And given the scale of U.S. purchasing power and the shift in global capital flows, how do you see these manufacturing trends impacting broader performance in 2026? Chris Snyder: We published our outlook and we're calling for the U.S. Industrial Economy to hit decade high growth levels in the back half of [20]26 and into [20]27. And this is a big reason why. We think about this a lot from a CapEx perspective. And we're seeing the investment, we think that ramps into larger greenfields. But we're also seeing it in the production economy. If you look at the delta between U.S. consumer spend and U.S. manufacturing production, that has really narrowed in recent months. And that tells us that we're increasingly serving U.S. demand through domestic production. So that's another factor that's going to drive activity higher and it doesn't need a cycle. And I think that's what's really important. And I think that is what creates this as a more secular and also durable opportunity. So obviously reassuring is something that's, you know, very close to me and important for the industrial economy. But as you think about the multipolar world theme more broadly, how do you think that evolves in 2026? Michelle Weaver: Yeah, absolutely. Last year the multipolar world was an incredibly powerful theme. And when investors were thinking about the multipolar world last year, it was largely about how are companies going to mitigate the risk of tariffs in the near term. We had the policies come out and surprise everyone in terms of the breadth and the magnitude of the tariffs we saw. We had a lot of policy uncertainty around what is that final level of tariffs going to look like. And a lot of the reaction was really short term. It's how can we use our inventory buffers to try and preserve our margins? How much of these additional tariff costs can we pass off to the end customer? How can we insulate ourselves in the near term? I think this year it's going to turn to more longer-term strategic thinking. Reshoring and a lot of the greenfield projects you were talking about, I think will absolutely be an important component of the multipolar world this year. I think we're also likely to see a greater emphasis on U.S. defense. With the action we just saw in Venezuela. I think we're going to see more of that defense component of the multipolar world starting to be expressed in the U.S. It was a big part of the expression of the theme in Europe last year, but I think it will gain relevance in the U.S. this year. Chris Snyder: Yeah. And I think the next chapter in U.S. industrial growth is just getting going. It's taken 25 years for the U.S. to seed roughly 12 percentage points of global share in manufacturing. We don't think they take that much back. But we think this is a very long runway opportunity. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. And as we watch for the next wave of greenfields, it's clear that efficiency and productivity investments are more than just a stop gap. They're a longer-term theme and they're a foundation for a new era in U.S. manufacturing. Chris, thank you for taking the time to talk. Chris Snyder: Great speaking with you, Michelle. Michelle Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

We all love winners. We love hearing about the big wins and the perfect track records. It feels good. It feels safe. It instills us with a sense of trust. But I've been in business long enough to know that virtually all individuals who are long-term winners have had profound moments of failure from which they learned invaluable lessons. Those are the people I really want to hear from. They have the kind of knowledge we all need as we navigate through life. It's called wisdom. Surgeons have a saying: “If you've never had a complication, you haven't done enough surgery.” In my surgeon days, I had a handful of complications. Let me tell you—they are no fun. You stay up at night replaying things in your mind, trying to figure out how you could have done things differently—how you could have had a better outcome. Even when unavoidable, those complications teach you something you'll never get from textbooks. It's been no different for me when it comes to business and investing. But I take comfort in knowing that even the greatest investors of all time had their moments of failure and rose from the ashes stronger and wiser. Warren Buffett. Ray Dalio. Every big winner has a story of failure. And while it may be cliché to say that we learn best from mistakes, I truly believe it. The good news is that those mistakes don't have to be our own. Learning from other people's mistakes can be just as effective. This week's episode of the Wealth Formula Podcast is with Russell Gray—a guy many of you already know from his podcasting and radio career. Russ lived through 2008 up close. He took a beating, and he talks openly about what went wrong. But that period also changed the way he sees the world—in a good way. It changed how he thinks about risk, leverage, and what actually matters when things stop going up. That mindset is a big reason he's been successful since then. It's a conversation worth your time. Transcript Disclaimer: This transcript was generated by AI and may not be 100% accurate. If you notice any errors or corrections, please email us at phil@wealthformula.com.  If you let the debt run, at some point you fall into a debt trap where the interest on the outstanding debt consumes all of the available discretionary income, and then you’re borrowing just to service the debt. Welcome everybody. This is Buck Joffrey with the Wealth Formula Podcast coming to you from Montecito, California. Before we begin today, I wanna remind you there’s website associated with this. Podcast called wealthformula.com. It’s where you will go if you would like to, uh, become more, uh, ingrained with the community, including getting on some of our lists such as the Accredit Investor Club. Of course, it is a new year and there are new deal flows coming through. Lots of opportunities that you won’t see anywhere else if you are a, an accredit investor, which means you. Make at least $200,000 per year for the last couple years with a reasonable expectation of doing so in the future. That’s 300,000 if you’re filing jointly or you have a million dollars of net worth outside of your personal residence. If you, uh, meet those criteria, you are an accredited investor. Congratulations. You don’t have to apply for anything, whatever, but you do need to go to wealthformula.com. Sign up for the Accredited Investor Club, get onboarded. And all you do at that point is look at deal flow, and if nothing else, you’ll learn something. So check it out. And who doesn’t want to be part of a club? Now let’s talk, uh, a little bit about today’s show. You know, um, we all love winners, right? We love hearing about big wins, the perfect track record. It feels good. It feels safe, gives us a sense of trust. But the thing is, I’ve been in business long enough to know that virtually all individuals who are, what you would call long-term winners, have had profound moments of failure from which they learned, um, invaluable lessons. So those are the people that I really like to hear from. You know, they have the kind of knowledge we all need that as we navigate through all of life, and it’s called wisdom. Um, surgeons, as you know, I’m an ex surgeon. Have a saying, if you’ve never had a complication, you haven’t done enough surgery. Uh, in my surgery days, I certainly, you know, had a handful of complications just like anyone else who did a lot of surgery. And, and lemme tell you, there, there are no fun, right? So you stay up at night replying things in your mind, trying to figure out how you could have done things differently, how you could have had a better outcome. And sometimes you realize that those mistakes were unavoidable, but. You still learn something from them. And in these cases, you always learn something that you’re not gonna get from the textbooks, just from reading something. And you know what, it’s been no different for me when it comes to business and, and investing, but I, I take comfort in the fact, uh, that even the greatest investors of all time had their moments of failure and arose from the ashes stronger and wiser. All you have to do is look up stories of Warren Buffet and Ray Dalio. And Ray Dalio basically lost everything at one point, uh, because he, you know, he had a macro prediction that went completely south. But listen, uh, the, the point I’m trying to make here is that every big winner, every big winner I know of as a story of failure. And while it may be cliche to say, you know what we learned best from our mistakes, I, I truly believe that. But the good news is that those mistakes don’t have to be our own, right? So you can learn from other people’s mistakes as well, and that can be just as effective. Uh, so this week’s episode of Well, formula Podcast is featuring a guy that you may know. His name is Russell Gray. Russ, uh, has been around a long time, uh, in the podcasting world. And radio. You know, he talks a lot. He’s talked many times to me at least about living through 2008. And you know what that was like, the beating he took and, you know, what went wrong? Uh, you know, it’s, it’s something that he talks about because, you know, he’s a successful guy and that period in time changed. You know, the way he sees the world, the way in which he behaves in that world. How he thinks about things like risk and leverage and you know, what actually matters when things stop going up. Uh, it’s a mindset thing and it’s important. Um, and we also obviously talk about other things as well, such as, uh, Russ’s current take on the economy. Uh, so anyway, it’s a, a good conversation and it’s one that you’re gonna wanna listen to, and we’ll have that for you right after these messages. Wealth formula banking is an ingenious concept powered by whole life insurance, but instead of acting just as a safety net, the strategy supercharges your investments. First, you create a personal financial reservoir that grows at a compounding interest rate much higher than any bank savings account. As your money accumulates, you borrow from your own. Bank to invest in other cash flowing investments. Here’s the key. Even though you’ve borrowed money at a simple interest rate, your insurance company keeps paying. You compound interest on that money even though you’ve borrowed it at result, you make money in two places at the same time. That’s why your investments get supercharged. This isn’t a new technique, it’s a refined strategy used by some of the wealthiest families in history, and it uses century old rock solid insurance companies as its back. Turbo charge your investments. Visit www.wealthformulabanking.com. Again, that’s wealth formula banking.com. Welcome back to Show Everyone. Today my guest on Wealth Formula podcast is Russell Gray. He’s a second generation financial strategist and, uh, you may know him from being a, the former co-host of the Real Estate Guy Radio Show, which is one of the longest running, uh, uh, radio shows of its time, uh, in the United States. He’s, he’s a founder of. Raising Capitalist project, which is an initiative focused on helping aspiring investors and entrepreneurs how to better understand how wealth is actually created and how uh, economic systems really work. Uh, he’s best known for his emphasis on real assets, cash flow, economic cycles, and preserving wealth and what he views as an increasingly fragile financial system. Welcome, Ross. How are you? Good buck, happy to be here. And, uh, proud of your success on your show. I remember way back at the beginning you were like, Hey, I wanna start a podcast. Yeah. Yep. You’ve done a great job. Yeah, it was an idea. I was like, here’s the idea. Start a podcast, build a community, all that kind of stuff. But it’s interesting. Uh, well, and let’s talk about what’s going on now. You’ve spent decades teaching people about, you know, real assets and cash flow. But lately your writings feel more focused on systems and and macro forces. So what’s changed? Has something finally become too big to ignore? Well, I think there’s two things you know personally, uh, most people who have heard of me or followed me know that 2008 wasn’t kind to me. I was in the mortgage business. I was very leveraged into real estate all over the place. Had my businesses for cash flow, had the real estate for equity growth. Believed that real estate was hyper resilient and gonna be the beneficiary of inflation. Didn’t understand the dependency on credit markets in both my business and my portfolio. And so that was a big mess, not doing, uh, a real SWOT analysis and understanding. And the third part of that, that was tough, is that I operated the business primarily on credit lines as well. So I had virtually no cash. And so when the credit markets seized up. Canceled my income, it canceled my credit lines and it evaporated my equity. And now all I had was negative cash flow on debt, on real estate. I couldn’t control. And so I looked at that and I said to myself, you know, I’m a pretty smart guy. I. Pride myself on paying attention. So obviously I’m not paying attention to the right thing. So I became obsessed with the macro, uh, picture and, and the financial system, which, you know, to me it’s, it’s the macro economy is what’s going on with, uh. Geopolitics and the energy and, you know, even policy, uh, that affects, uh, how well money can flow through the system. Both monetary policy from the Federal Reserve and fiscal policy from the government now today in the Trump administration trade policy. And so I began to pay attention to all those things, but from the standpoint of not how it was gonna affect the stock market, but how it was gonna affect the bond market and interest rates and the availability of credit, and how it was gonna affect Main Street. Directly and specifically now in terms of jobs and job creation are real wages. And so when I started really looking at all that, um, I, I, I realized that there were some things happening that were gonna be really good, and there were also some things that we needed to pay attention to. And these things move very slowly. So in 2010. I saw that coming outta the financial crisis, the Chinese were very upset with the United States about how much the Fed Balance sheet was expanding, and they were concerned about their very large investment in US dollar denominated. Bonds, and so they began creating bilateral trade agreements with Russia and many other countries to where they could begin this large process of de Dollarizing. Well, that was the first time I’d seen that movie, because it was the same thing that the Europeans did after they saw the Nixon default. Right? They began working on the Euro, which took ’em from 71, 72 when they started, maybe 74 when they started, but it took ’em till 99 to get it done. But you know, once they got it in place, over time, the Euro, the Euro has taken over 20% of global trade. You know, that’s market share from the US dollar. And so I saw this BrickX thing beginning to form. Uh, and then I saw the other thing on the macro that I thought was gonna be really good was in the jobs act, something you’ve benefited from as a syndicator, we. I wrote that report, new law breaks Wall Street Monopoly. And so, uh, even though I, I can’t tell you I was a big fan of Barack Obama, but he signed that legislation that happened on his watch. And I think it was fantastic because now it allowed Main Street syndicators, main Street Capital raisers to advertise for accredited investors and began to really, uh, level that playing field and open up Main Street, uh, to invest directly in Main Street. And so I met you in the syndication program that we put together with the real estate guys to coach real estate investors on how to become capital raisers to, to capitalize on that trend. So that’s, you know, kind of how I kind of became doing what I’m doing. And then when I decided, uh, just about 20 months ago to depart the real estate guys, I wanted to take some of the things that I originally set out to do when I first met Robert Helms way back in the day. And, you know, as relationships go, you know, he has his interest in the things that he wants to do, and I had my interest in things I came to do. And for a long time we were aligned well enough to continue to work together. But it got to a point where, for me, I, I wanted to go off in a different direction, and part of that was driven. By the, the death of my late wife. Uh, you had me on the show right after that happened to me, and I was going through this like, who am I? Why am I here? What am I supposed to do next? What do I really want to get done before I die? And so all of those things kind of informed my personal decisions to, to make a switch. And then of course, what’s going on in the macro. Um, what I saw with Trump 1.0, what I saw in the Biden administration and those policies, and then what I thought would happen in Trump 2.0. And I did a presentation on this at the best ever conference in March of 2025, right after he’d been inaugurated. And, and so, uh, that, that’s kind of has me where I feel like there’s some real opportunity coming. Uh, there’s also some things we need to be aware of on Main Street. Yeah. So you’re bullish on Main Street in general, but you’ve been pretty cautious about the broader financial system. So, uh, what are the things that you’re worried about? Well, I, I think if you understand the way the financial system works, uh, it has a shelf life and that. It’s because it’s, it’s a system that is, depends upon ever increasing debt. Um, people say, I wanna pay the debt off, but if they, if they really understood the system, at least the way I think I understand it, uh, and I’m not alone in this, so it’s not something I just figured out on my own. But, um, you know. I, I don’t want to sit here and pretend like I’m the world’s foremost expert, but the way I understand the way the system works is that it, it requires ever increasing debt, and if we were to pay the debt off, it would collapse the system. So I think you waste a lot of time and energy and from a policy perspective, trying to argue about doing that. And I think that’s why it’s never, ever, no matter what administration, what politician, what mix of congress, what. Pressure there is everywhere globally. The system, the central banking system, the way it works globally, is designed to create ever increasing debt. So the, the flip side of that then is to let the debt run. And if you let the debt run, at some point you fall into a debt trap where the interest on the outstanding debt consumes all of the available discretionary income. And then you’re borrowing just to service the debt. Yeah, that’s about $1 trillion right now, by the way. Which is. Which is, uh, about the, the, the defense, uh, budget. Well, and I think that the bigger thing is when you look at, at the interest on the debt and mandatory spending, there’s virtually no room left after that. So if you’ve got, you’ve got the mandatory spending and you’ve got, um, debt service, you, you have very little room. So it’s not. Feasible either for two reasons. One is there’s just not enough discretionary room to be able to cut expenses enough to, to ever manage the debt. Number two, as I previously mentioned, if we were ever to effectively try to pay down the debt in any appreciable way, it would crash the the system. So the, the way I look at it is it’s, it’s, it’s got to be replaced. There’s going to be a great reset. I think the World Economic Forum was trying to set that up for the world, and they had an agenda. I’m, I’m not particularly fond of. Um, there’s been talk about creating a central bank digital currency, which I think is what, you know, the Federal Reserve and the, what I all call the wizards, uh, or the powers of B would prefer. Uh, but I think if you care about privacy and, and, you know, individual sovereignty, uh, and, and just personal freedom, um, I have a lot of concerns about a central bank digital currency. Um, I think the popularity of Bitcoin, uh, if it was, you know, and who knows what the. True origins were, but let’s just take it at face value. I think a lot of the people, at least that were the early adopters before it had the big price run up, was just a way to escape, uh, the system before it failed. And so you’ve got that. And then you’ve got, again, as I mentioned, the bricks and this global effort to de dollarize, which was I think really kicked off. After the great financial crisis and the massive expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet. And then I think picked up a little steam when we froze Russian assets and people began to see that the US might use the dollar and the dollar system, uh, for political instead of being neutral. And I think that picked up some steam. And, and so there’s, there’s both a geopolitical drive to. Uh, come up with a new system. There is, I think we’re at the end of a shelf life that some type of a new system is gonna have to be, uh, created. Uh, and, and then you look at what Donald Trump is doing and what he’s espousing. You know, let’s get rid of income taxes. Let’s get back to pulling in, uh, revenue from tariffs the way the country was originally founded. Uh, he’s talked about eliminating the IRS and going with an ERS, an external revenue service. There’s people that think that he might beat. Wanting to try to get back on some form of sound money, you know, coming out of, Hey, let’s audit the Fed, let’s audit the gold. I mean, let’s audit the gold. And, um, so, you know, we, you, you never know what what’s really gonna happen, but, but I think what we have to pay attention to are the signs that the system is beginning to break down. And one of those signs that I pay a lot of attention to is monetary, metals, gold and silver. I make a distinction between precious metals, which would also include platinum and palladium, and of course they’re strategic metals, but I just focus on monetary metals, which would be gold and silver, and gold and silver. We’re telling you that people would prefer to be the, the, the safe ha haven asset is no longer us treasuries, but, um, but, but gold and central banks have been driving a lot of it. This isn’t the retail market driving it yet. It, it’s really central banks have been accumulating. And so those are the ultimate insiders when it comes to currency. And if the insiders in the currency markets are repositioning into gold, uh, I’d, I’d call that a clue. Yeah, absolutely. Um. Yeah. You recently commented on the public criticism, president Donald Trump made toward, uh, uh, Peter Schiff. What stood out to you about that exchange? Maybe give us some background people. Not everybody knows who Peter is and, and, uh. And all that. So, yeah. Well, I mean, as you know, I’ve known Peter for 12 or 13 years and, uh, I had read his father’s work way back in the day. He is a very famous in the tax protestor world as somebody who just believed that income taxes were unconstitutional. And he resisted that and ended up going to jail for, died in jail as a matter of fact. And so that was, uh, I think sad. Um. But, but to me it felt like a little bit of being a political prisoner, but be that as it may, that’s how I got to know Peter. And so Peter is a guy that comes from the Austrian School of Economics and he believes in sound money. He believes in gold. He does not like Bitcoin. I’ve sat on panels the last two years with Peter, uh, in between him and Larry Lepard. And you know, Larry is a, a former gold guy. He’s still not opposed to gold, but he’s a hardcore sound money guy. But he likes Bitcoin. Peter hates Bitcoin and they get into it, and I usually sit in between ’em and try to keep things calm. Well, you know, so Peter ended up going on Fox and Friends, uh, I think on whatever it was, Friday the eighth I think it was, or whatever, whatever day that was. And he, he criticized Donald Trump’s spending. And, um, budget deficits and said that it would lead to inflation, and that’s a hot button for Trump. And so Trump, yeah. Uh, responded to him, uh, I think like four 30 in the morning on Saturday morning and called Peter, uh, a. Jerk and a total loser. Well, actually I saw it before Peter did, and so I took a screenshot and I texted it to him. I said, Hey, have you seen this? You know, maybe I’ll press is good press. And I think to a degree, maybe it has been me from, I understand Peter ended up on Tucker Carlson’s show as a result of that. So, but I made a video right after that because I, you know, there was a time when. I’m friends with Peter Schiff and I’m friends with Robert Kiyosaki. As you know, I, we introduced you to both those guys and, and at one point they didn’t like each other very much. They got into it ’cause, you know, and, and so we introduced ’em to each other and found that they had more in common than they, they didn’t. And I, I think that that would be true. Not that I’m in a position to introduce Peter to, to Donald Trump, but I think the way Peter is looking at it is true. Um, but there’s context and I think the context is super important. Now I’ve been studying Donald Trump as a businessman way before he was a presidential candidate or a politician, you know, before he was a polarizing guy, a pariah for some people. He, he was just this real estate guy. He’s good at marketing, he’s a real estate guy, and as you know. We got to know his longtime attorney, George Ross. And so I’ve had a chance to have conversations about what it was like working with Donald Trump, the real estate guy, and when he became a politician, I asked George, is he a crazy man? Does he shoot from the hip? And you know, I got a lot of reassurances that he is a sober sound. Methodical, self-disciplined guy and, and I think he uses the eroticism to keep people off balance as a negotiating tactic. And he writes about that in the art of the deal. So the context that I think that people need to have, and I’m not here to defend Donald Trump, the man. I’m not here to defend Donald Trump, the politician, but I look at the policies and what I think he’s up to in the context of realizing that we have a system that is fundamentally flawed and has to be remodeled. So to use a real estate, uh, metaphor, it would be like we have a hotel building that is very tired. It’s at the end of its life, it’s got to be remodeled, and so you can’t. Completely shut it down because it’s an operating business, so it’s gotta operate during the remodel. And so you begin to, um, reposition things and. You, you, you’re not gonna run optimally, so you’re gonna run some deficits while you’re doing the remodel. You’re gonna go into debt because you got a lot of CapEx to do, and during that period of time, your debt and deficits are gonna be a problem. But real estate guys look at debt and deficits not as a permanent condition. I think Peter is saying, Hey, you’re just running up debt and deficits. Well, in the short term he is. Honestly, I don’t think Trump is concerned about that. I think he’s focused on getting this remodel done, and part of that remodel was showed up in the last jobs report, right? We lost jobs to a degree, but they were government jobs, and what we got was a lot of gains in private sector jobs. Scott descent, his treasury secretary, has come out and overtly said, we are an administration for Main Street, not for Wall Street. So if you’re going to de financialize this economy and turn it back into a productive economy. You’re going to have to have policies that are gonna stimulate Main Street, and that’s, that’s the, the, the new units that you’ve rehabbed in your hotel that you wanna move people into. At the same time, you gotta move them outta the old units, which is people making money, trading claims on wealth instead of producing real goods and services, which is the financial ice economy. So it’s not about banking, it’s not about stocks, it’s not about Wall Street. You know, you need the stock market to stay up. But really what you need to do is you need to create production. And, and, and I think that’s fundamental. I think he understands we’re never gonna pay the debt off by cutting. We’ve got to keep the system running until we can get to some form of sound money. We’re actually paying the debt off as realistic, and then we have to earn so much money that the debt relative to our earnings shrinks. So it’s not paying down the debt, it’s paying down the percentage of GDP by growing GDP. And the presentation I did at best ever in March of 2025 was me explaining why I thought. His policies, were going to allow him to increase velocity and increase wages by cutting taxes, interest regulation, transportation costs, and, and again, that was six weeks into administration. That was theory. I’m gonna do a follow up in March of this year to say, okay, looking back when I gave the speech a year ago, what’s transpired, but I can already tell you a lot of the stuff that I thought he would do. He’s done. And I think that’s muting some of the inflation that his spending and deficits to Peter’s point are causing. And that’s why when this last CPI report came out, it wasn’t as ugly as everybody thought it would be. And, and this is when you don’t look at, when you look at it in the mono, you just look at one thing and Peter’s very fixated on this quantity of money theory. Then the expectation is that you print a bunch of money, you run a bunch of deficits, you’re gonna get inflation. And it’s just a. Equals B or A leads to B. But there are other nuances and I think Trump is looking at more like a real estate developer, which makes sense. ’cause that’s his background. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. It’s, I mean, and then the other just point to, to make there is that there is probably, um, now inflation’s a tricky thing, right? Like on the one hand you don’t want this riding up, but on the other hand, it actually helps with that debt. You’re, you’re basically eroding the debt by letting inflation ride a little bit higher at the same time. And I think the Trump administration knows that it’s a tricky thing to balance, but the goal is to, you know, get GDP pumping at, you know, four or 5%, but it’s gotta be real production buck. And that’s the difference, right? The old way of dealing with the debt was inflation. And, and I think people think that he’s using the old formula, but I don’t think he is. Well, I think it’s, I think, I think it’s definitely geared towards increasing real GDP, but I think in the process there’s probably, they probably care less a little bit. Of inflation riding up a little bit in the meantime. ’cause you’re still gonna have, I think he thinks he can mute it. I think he can mute it with lower taxes, lower interest expense, lower energy costs. And the energy is the economy. And from day one, that was the first policy. He’s, he’s aggressively gone after lowering energy costs because that has a, a, a ripple through, it just affects every area of the economy. And then the regulations in, in the last cabinet meeting. It was reported, the way I understood it, that for every regulation his administration passes, they’ve eliminated 48. So it’s actually, he’s removing the friction. And I think the bigger thing is, and I, and I was on a panel at Limitless, uh, this last summer, and TaRL, Yarborough was moderating the panel, asked the panelists what we were looking at that maybe other people weren’t looking at that. Um. You know, is, is a signal about maybe the direction it was. We, I, I can’t remember. This was a prediction panel and what I said was trade policy because everybody in finance spends all their time looking at the flow of money and trying to get in front of the flow of money. And we’re so used to the money coming from the Fed or coming from the treasury. So they’re gonna come from monetary policy or fiscal policy. And that’s what Peter’s doing. He’s looking at the Fed and he is looking at the treasury. And so what I’m looking at is not just the tariff income, which is relatively minor, but I’m looking at the trade deals, and those are published at the White House and there’s a couple trillion dollars of money that’s FDI, foreign Direct Investments coming right into Main Street. And it’s gonna build infrastructure. It’s gonna build factories. It’s good. And they tell you where it’s gonna be because they, they came back with the opportunity zones, which I thought they would do. Makes sense. It’s the way he thinks. And then taking those opportunity zones, the governors can say where in their state they want that money to go. Well, people on Wall Street don’t think geography ’cause they operate in a commodity world that trades on global exchanges. But real estate people. Geography matters a lot. So if I’m a Main Street person, I live on Main Street and I’m looking for Main Street opportunities, I wanna look where that money is going to be flowing in geographically. And then there may be opportunities in real estate or small businesses in those economies, and you can see it coming, but nobody talks about it. So I created Main Street Capitalist as a show to begin to talk about it. I still do the investor mentoring club, which is, you know. A premium thing where we get together every month and we talk about these things. And the point is, is that if you understand, I think what he’s doing, then you can, you can begin to paddle into position. And I think, again, I am really bullish if he loses inflation. If he loses to inflation, he’s cooked. He knows it. I think that that even the suggestion that Peter made that he was losing to inflation is what flared him up. And so I wasn’t trying to necessarily defend. Peter and I wasn’t trying to defend Trump, I was just trying to reconcile that it is possible that both guys could be right at the same time from their perspective. And so I, you know, I, I had one guy take exception because he felt like I was defending Trump, but for the most part, I got positive feedback on the video. I, I, I, you saw it. So you tell me. Did it make sense? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Absolutely. So when you look at today’s environment, everything going on, where do you think investors are most vulnerable? Um, I, I think that if you are very dependent upon, um, healthy credit markets, we could have a disruption. And that’s what happened to me. If Trump loses the inflation battle even for a little while, little be reflected in interest rates. And the challenge is right now that he is asked the Fed to quote unquote lower rates, but the Fed actually doesn’t like. Set rates, what they do is they set a target and then they manipulate markets to achieve those rates. And if, if people believe the fed, there’s a little bit of front running. So what’ll happen is the Fed will come out and go, oh, we’re gonna lower rates, which means bond prices are gonna go up. So they’re like, that’s great, let’s go buy a bunch of bonds, which drives rates down. So the Fed just by talking. Begins to move the market and then they hope that later on the Fed will buy those bonds from them at a profit to push rates down. Does that make sense? So, so when the last two times the Fed has raised rates in their target, the 10 year has responded in the opposite direction. Which means that the market is like not buying in, and the Fed is gonna have to step in. And when the Fed steps in, they do it by printing money out out of thin air. Now, the concern about that is that when they print the money out of thin air. If they’re replacing bonds on their own balance sheet, that’s kind of a circle and it doesn’t leak out into the economy. If they’re buying new issuance from the the treasury, then that money is gonna work its way through the government to to to main street. Now, the Trump administration can prevent some of that by keeping the money in the Treasury, for example, uh, Trump 1.0 left. The Biden administration with, I think over a trillion dollars in, in the treasury checking account, and Janet Yellen put that into the economy right away during the lockdowns, which immediately created extreme inflation because you muted production at the same time you goose. Uh. Purchasing power, you know? So anybody with like three ounces of economic understanding could have told you that that inflation was gonna come, it was gonna come hard, it was gonna come fast, and it was gonna be stickier than than you thought. ’cause once you let that money out in the economy, it’s out. It’s out and the only way to mute it is either to suck it back, which is very, very difficult, or to outproduce it, and it’s very hard to produce anything when everything’s in lockdown. So I think that, you know, those days are behind us. I think the policies that we’re embracing now are more. Pro productivity. And I think that even if the Fed does have to step in, as long as that money doesn’t leak out into the economy, and part of it is the treasury being able to throttle some of that, and the money that does go into the economy doesn’t go into stimulus, but goes into CapEx and infrastructure, that’ll actually, uh, create. Production. Then I think that, you know, this, this game plan that I think they’re trying to execute has a chance. And so I, I’m, I’m watching for it. And of course, to answer your question, what do we have to worry about that it doesn’t work? Right? If it doesn’t work, then inflation will show up. Interest rates will rise, credit markets will crash, it will take real estate values with it. And the hedge is really gonna be, what I’ve always talked about is gold. I started talking back in 2018 when we were the zero bound with interest rates. Hey, there’s only one way interest rates can go and that’s up. And if they go up fast, then that’s gonna crash bonds. So it would be smart, and that’s gonna take real estate equity with it. So it’d be smart when you have real estate equity and low rates to pull some of that equity out and move it into gold. And I called that my precious equity strategy. If I have a video I did at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference in January of 2022, explaining that when you could still really execute on that, and I’m not saying that you couldn’t do it today, but it’s harder, but the people who did it back then, I mean, you know, they’ve, they’ve seen their gold almost triple. And at the same time, they were able to lock in interest rates that are, you know, a half what they are today. So when you see those mega trends and you can begin, and that’s the stuff I didn’t know how to do in 2006, 2007. I didn’t understand any of this stuff. The, the, you know, losing everything in 2008 forced me to become a hardcore student and then try to apply that to Main Street strategy. And so I think gold and real estate and debt, they all work really well together depending on where you are in the cycle. Do you think that Main Street investors may actually have some advantages in periods like this? Yes, a ton because I think what’s gonna happen is if we have a, um, a, a, a restructure of the financial system into something more responsible, which I think is either gonna be forced upon us or it’s gonna be done by design, and I hope we do it by design. But when that happens, then the days of just buying low and selling high and riding the inflation wave that goes away. And so now it’s gonna be very, very important to understand how to invest for. Productivity. So I call it, you know, buy low sell high trading as an acronym, B-L-S-H-T you. You can sound it out for yourself phonetically. And then the other one is poo, which is productivity of others. And I think that if people focus on investing in the productivity of others, which is what Main street investors, especially real estate investors, focus on, I think cash flow, real profits on small businesses, not speculating on. Uh, exit price or a company that’s gonna take a company public, everybody trying to tap into this giant flood of money that gets pre created from thin air in the banking system and in Wall Street. If, if, if people on Main Street will just start investing. Kind of what Kenny McElroy was doing going through 2008, just focusing on sound assets and good markets with good fundamentals. That cash flow and, and are run by good managers, whether it’s a business, an apartment building, a mobile home park, a self storage, residential assisted living doesn’t really matter. Invest in real businesses that produce real profits where you’re not overpaying for that production of income and especially where there’s some upside. Not to flipping out of the stock, but to actually growing the market share and growing the income. That’s what investing really should be. Wall Street has perverted it into just placing bets and riding a wave and trying to figure out where the money is gonna flow from the Treasury or for from Fed stimulus. And I think Main Street is gonna pick up on the new game sooner. And the good news is if you get good at playing that game, even if the system stays the same, you’re probably gonna do better off anyway. When you talk about buying, buying or investing into productive businesses, I mean, what, what’s the difference in your mind between investing in a private business versus investing in a, you know, a publicly traded business that’s run off, you know, dividends? Yeah, so I, I, I think that it could be okay if the dividend yield makes sense, but anytime you have a publicly traded security, it’s a highly liquid market, which means it’s gonna be volatile and the stocks become chips in the casinos where professional traders are just gambling all day long. And some of that gambling can create an impact on the stock, and it doesn’t matter to you if you’ve only bought it for production of income. Um. And so, uh, you know, I, I don’t think it’s bad. I’ve, you know, Peter’s always been an advocate of, uh, dividend paying stocks, and I think if you’re gonna be in the stock market, that’s what you want to do. I think the opportunity in a private placement in a small business is the opportunity not to have to pay the high multiples because it’s not a perfect market. It’s, it’s the same reason there’s so much more opportunity in real estate. If real estate could trade on an electronic exchange where. You know, millions of buyers could find it, and you could have perfect price discovery. It’s very difficult to find a deal, right? It’s very difficult. But we, if you buy a private business, you know there’s gonna be considerations. You, you deal with a, a owner. Who cares about his customers, who cares about his team, maybe would be willing to carry back the way you would if you were buying a, a, a piece of property from somebody that cares about their neighbors or whatever. I mean, there’s, there’s, there’s a lot more humanity in it. There’s a lot more room for negotiation in it. And a lot of times there’s a lot more room to have control. So, you know, one of the adages with real estate that real estate investors like is, I’m gonna buy an asset, one that I understand, two that I can control. And so when you buy a stock, like a dividend paying stock, you, you might understand the business, you may not understand completely the. Uh, market dynamics that drive the stock price. But as long as the dividends are there, that can be okay, but you don’t have any control. When you actually go buy a small business, you have a, a degree of control. Now, if you’re a passive investor buying into a syndication, then you still have a little bit more, um. Relationship, you have a little bit more insight. You maybe have a voice. You may know the people that are making the decision and running the company personally. So it’s the same thing. You know, you Buck is a syndicator. When you go do a deal, your investors know you. They have a personal relationship with you. Go buy stuff in the stock market and mutual fund managers and investor. You don’t have a relationship with that fund manager and I think that’s worth something if you have a voice right. So we’ve, we’re talking a little bit about credit markets, um, volatility, you know, interest rates. Are they gonna go down like, you know, Donald Trump would like to see, and you know, we’ve got a new fed share coming, all that kind of thing. How should investors be thinking about leverage and risk right now? I, I think the adage with real estate, uh, I mean, sorry, with leverage is always the same, is, um, you know, manage cash flow. I, if, if you use leverage to speculate, that could be a real problem. And whether you did it. Do it for real estate like I did by having very thin or negative cash flow and making that up someplace else and believing that somehow, you know, rents or appreciation are gonna do it. Or buying a non-income producing asset with borrowed funds hoping it’s gonna go higher. I think that would be dangerous, but I think if you fundamentally use debt as a tool. Based on cash flows and you use conservative cash flows, you know, so the debt service coverage ratio, you know, if you have $10,000 a month going out in debt service, make sure you have at least, you know, $12,000 a month coming in on income or above. Then that’s how you begin to build resiliency into your portfolio. And the other thing is don’t borrow long to invest short, right? So your duration matters a lot. We were talking about this before we hit the record button, and I think what happens is people. Uh, make a mistake when they try to operate like a bank. ’cause banks lend short and invest long. And the only reason they get away with it is because they have the Federal Reserve Bank system backstopping them. But you don’t have that as an individual, so you better to do the opposite. Um, if you can match the durations, that’s perfect, right? ’cause then you know what your interest expense is for the, for the duration of the investment. And once you lock in the spread, then you just have the counterparty risk of the, whoever is responsible for creating that income stream that’s gonna service the debt you use to control the asset. And then it just comes down to underwriting and then recourse. And if you feel comfortable with the underwriting and you feel comfortable with the recourse, and you’ve got spread and you’ve locked in a, a duration. Um, that, that is compatible, then that can be a, a, a fairly safe way to use debt. And if interest rates work against you, then you’re okay. And if interest rates work for you, you might be able to refinance your debt and actually increase your spread, but you don’t need it to happen to be successful. Let’s talk a little bit more about what you’re doing right now. So in the past year, you’ve launched, um, several new initiatives. You had masterminds via platforms. Tell us a little bit about this and, and a little bit more what, what you’re trying to accomplish. Well, you know, after losing my wife, um, you, you go through this. Period of time of like figuring out, okay, life is short. What do I want to get done before I left die myself. And so, um, after thinking about that, I went back to really what I came to do when I first met Robert Helms and got involved in the real estate guys. And so I just kinda went back to home base and. Then the other thing is now I’ve got 17 grandchildren, and so I’m thinking a lot less like a father, more like a, a grandfather, a founding father. And, um, and so I’m thinking about what the world is gonna be like in 40, 50, 60 years, and what can I do to plant a seed that will make that world better for my grandchildren? And so I, I did a couple things. One is, um, after I left the real estate guys, we were going through a merger with Ken McElroy, George Gammon and Jason Hartman to create, um, a mastermind group, which we did. And I, I was CEO of that for the. The year during the merger. And that took up some time. And the second thing I decided to do, uh, ironically, it was after a conversation I had with Charlie Kirk. I had a conversation with Charlie Kirk. I said, Hey, I’ve got this idea to help, uh, K through 12 get involved in, in capitalism by starting businesses or working with businesses. Their parents start, and I explained to him the model. He goes, I love it. I want to help you. And so that encouraged me. And then I had a follow up meeting in January of 20. 24 with Mark Victor Hansen, and he really encouraged me. And so with the strength of those two endorsements, I go, you know, I’m gonna do this. And so, uh, I left the real estate guys in, um. March, late March of 2024, and in the summer of 2024, I, I launched the Raising Capitalists Foundation, and people can learn more about that by going to raising capitalists plural.org. And I, I literally launched it at Freedom Fest on July 13th, 2024 and five minutes before I took the stage, Donald Trump got shot. Always remember where I was and how distracting it was, but I did record that presentation and it’s on the website, and so it explains the model. But in, in short, it’s pairing, um, or it’s, it’s putting parents who are in what Kiyosaki, uh, rich Dad would call the E-Class employees. And, uh. Put them under a mentorship program with experienced entrepreneurs and investors to help them start a business, a side hustle. They need the money and they need a mentor. And so then they, um, it can create a situation where their children can come to work for them in the business. And today, information Society, you know, there’s a lot of things kids can do where they learn real life skills, um, working with their parents. So that’s what the Raising Capitalist Foundation is all about. Then I launched two shows. Uh, in 2025, uh, one is I literally just launched like a week ago, and that’s. That Donald Trump video was really the first one that I put out, the Donald Trump versus Peter Schiff video on YouTube. I haven’t even started the podcast side of it. Um, and in on September 27th, uh, on pray.com, I started, uh, another show that, that one’s called the Main Street Capitalist. So if you go to YouTube and look at the Main Street capitalist, you’ll, you can find me there. And then the other one I created was the Christian capitalist. And I kind of went back to, you know, my, my core roots of realizing when I started looking at. Where the country was at, John Adams said that, um. Our Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people and is really wholly inadequate for any other, and so I thought, you know what? I’m I, I’m going to do that because my experience as a, as a Christian businessman is that I find that sometimes the stuff I get in church is more consumer oriented, and it doesn’t, it’s more employee oriented. I, I don’t. And, and then the other part of that is I created a, a ministry called Fellowship, a Christian capitalist, which is really about helping people put purpose into their business and then, you know, express their faith. Love your neighbor. Through their business. And so I’ve got all these different initiatives going and then I created the Main Street Media Network because I wanting to reach youth. I hired a YouTube coach and I said, look, I want to create content to encourage youth. He goes, that’s great. You can’t do it. You’re too old, he said, so what you need to do is find young people you can mentor and teach them the things that you’ve learned and let them teach it in their own words and they’ll reach their generation better than you. So with Main Street Media Network, I’m I, I’ve got. Two guys that I’m apprenticing right now, but I’m gonna be adding a lot more. Um, one, one young man is 20 years old, the other one is 26 years old. And, uh, I just came back from the Turning Point USA event where we had a broadcast booth and they were conducting interviews and I did the New Orleans Investment Conference. And so these guys are sitting down with Peter Schiff, Robert Kiyosaki, Mike Maloney, Ken McElroy, you know, you, you know what that did for you, buck with your show. You know, you, you met all these people through us and then you. We’re able to build upon that and create a very credible show. So I’m doing that for these guys that are in their twenties with the idea that they will be able to reach a generation of people. Uh, I call it putting Boomer Wisdom in Gen Z mounts. I mean, they get to process it and it gets to be their own. And I’m helping them build financial podcasts that actually make the money and is the foundation of, in this case, they’re both capital raisers of their capital raising business. I got all these different things going, but I’m doing it through leaders, so I’m not trying to do all things myself. Yeah, yeah. Um, but I’m building out an ecosystem to accomplish all these goals and so far so good. It’s a lot. Sounds working like a young man, man, man. I’ll tell you that. I know, I know. Wow. I I thought you were gonna slow down after you. No, I’ve actually, I put my, I put, I put my foot on the gas. I, I’ve probably never worked, uh, harder. Um, but I, I think I’m working smart, you know, so I’m hiring coaches and I’m bringing in, um, leaders and going through all that EOS and organizing to scale stuff. Sounds good. Well, always a pleasure, Russ. Um, make sure not to be a stranger to have you on again, um, you know, in a few months and figure out where you’re going with all this stuff. All the new things that you’ve accomplished, but it’s, uh, it’s great to see you. Well, happy to be here, proud of you. Uh, keep up the good work and keep educating people. Thank you. You make a lot of money, but are still worried about retirement. Maybe you didn’t start earning until your thirties. Now you’re trying to catch up. Meanwhile, you’ve got a mortgage, a private school to pay for, and you feel like you’re getting further and further behind. Now, good news, if you need to catch up on retirement, check out a program put out by some of the oldest and most prestigious life insurance companies in the world. It’s called Wealth Accelerator, and it can help you amplify your returns quickly, protect your money from creditors, and provide financial protection to your family if something happens to you. The concepts here are used by some of the wealthiest families in the world, and there’s no reason why they can’t be used by you. Check it out for yourself by going to wealthformulabanking.com. Welcome back to the show everyone. Hope you enjoyed it. As always, Russ, uh, is, uh, you know, he’s, he’s got a lot of wisdom. He is the guy you really wanna listen to. And I would encourage you to follow his work anyway. Uh, just pivoting back, you know, to where this economy is and all that. I think for me personally, it’s about allocating capital in a market that is a, uh, is certainly losing value in its dollars. And, um, and I think that we’re gonna continue to see that. Speaking of that, make sure if you haven’t, as I mentioned before, sign up for the Accredited Investor Club. Go to wealthformula.com, go to investor club, as we have plenty of those types of things that are hedging against inflation, um, saving taxes in terms of tax mitigation strategies, that kind of thing. Check it out. That’s it for me This week on Well Formula Podcast. This is Buck Joffrey signing off. If you wanna learn more, you can now get free access to our in-depth personal finance course featuring industry leaders like Tom Wheel Wright and Ken McElroy. Visit wealthformularoadmap.com.

In this episode of Crypto Town Hall, the panel dives into the latest U.S. Senate draft amendments to the crypto market structure bill, exploring bipartisan compromises on stablecoin "rewards" (not yield), ongoing banking lobby influence, and the fluid markup timeline. Discussions cover the temporary protections banks may secure, and why many in crypto believe tokenization and automated sweeps will render much of the debate irrelevant in 5 years. The conversation also touches on Fed independence tensions, Powell's recent statements, CPI data quirks amid grocery affordability concerns, potential DeFi regulatory impacts, and why Bitcoin may be coiling for a breakout despite short-term chop.

Keith explores two big themes shaping real estate investors' futures: Why more Americans are becoming "forever renters"—and how long-term lifestyle and demographic shifts (not just today's prices and rates) are quietly reshaping the demand for rentals. The growing conversation around eliminating property taxes—which states are making the most noise, and why the real issue isn't whether property taxes go away, but what would realistically replace them. Keith also zooms out for a quick year-end tour of major asset classes—from stocks and real estate to metals and crypto—so listeners can see where real estate fits in the broader investing landscape and what these shifts might mean for their wealth-building strategy. Episode Page: GetRichEducation.com/588 For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com GRE Free Investment Coaching: GREinvestmentcoach.com Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  For predictable 10-12% quarterly returns, visit FreedomFamilyInvestments.com/GRE or text  1-937-795-8989 to speak with a freedom coach Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search "how to leave an Apple Podcasts review"  For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— GREletter.com or text 'GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Complete episode transcript:   Keith Weinhold  0:01   Welcome to GRE. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, the Forever renter trend keeps getting embedded deeper into American culture. What's behind it? It's more than just finances. Then there's been more talk about eliminating property taxes, if they go away, what replaces them? And we'll discuss more today on get rich education.   Keith Weinhold  0:27   Since 2014 the powerful get rich education podcast has created more passive income for people than nearly any other show in the world. This show teaches you how to earn strong returns from passive real estate investing in the best markets without losing your time being a flipper or landlord. Show Host Keith Weinhold writes for both Forbes and Rich Dad advisors, and delivers a new show every week since 2014 there's been millions of listener downloads of 188 world nations. He has a list show guests include top selling personal finance author Robert Kiyosaki. Get rich education can be heard on every podcast platform, plus it has its own dedicated Apple and Android listener phone apps build wealth on the go with the get rich education podcast. Sign up now for the get rich education podcast, or visit get rich education.com   Corey Coates  1:12   You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold  1:28   Welcome to GRE from Jamestown, New York to Jamestown, North Dakota and across 108 nations worldwide. I'm Keith Weinhold, and this is get rich education. Most investments reduce your income until you can start drawing on it and paying taxes on it in your 60s. That's a lot of decades of living below your means. Here learn how to grow your means and invest in vehicles that pay you when you're young enough to enjoy it and pay you five ways tax advantaged. Hey, there's a big misunderstanding about the housing market taking place right now. Yes, today's higher cost of home ownership contributes to Americans renting longer, for sure, but let's not make the mistake of thinking this is a new phenomenon just because home prices moved higher or mortgage rates began normalizing again a few years ago, that's not what it's about Americans renting longer. That is a trend decades in the making, and it has had and will continue to have major implications on the rental housing market decades into the future, buying your first home at 25 that was your grandparents or maybe your parents. Today, it kind of goes like this in life's journey for the wannabe homeowner, First comes the gray hair, then comes the mortgage. Last year, we learned that the average first time homebuyer age in America has moved up to 40. Back in 1981 it was age 29 per the NAR. More specifically one's real estate journey, it basically now goes like this, rent, rent, rent, have roommates again, go back to renting, chiropractor, Bank of mom and dad, then a mortgage maybe.   Keith Weinhold  3:34   Yeah, the home ownership rate, it keeps falling among every age group, most sharply among 30 somethings. The translation here is that more renters are coming. For those in their 30s, the home ownership rate maxed out at 69% in 1980 it's fallen to just 47% today. Those that are older, for those in their 40s, the homeownership rate maxed out at 78% in 1982 it has fallen to just 62% today and so on. Every 10 year age group all the way to those age 80 plus, the homeownership rate has fallen for all of them over the decades too, every single age cohort. The home ownership rate has fallen over the decades, and that is all per the Census Bureau. I'll tell you why this forever renter trend just keeps strengthening in a moment. But if you don't own your home, here are your current housing options. You can live with your parents. Yes, welcome back childhood bedroom with those glow in the dark stars on the ceiling. Sadly, you can be homeless. That is really not good. Or the other option is you can rent something nice, new, modern, and energy eficient. The group in which home ownership has fallen the most are those 30 somethings. 20 somethings aren't even part of what the Census Bureau reported here. It fell most sharply in the 1980s and then again, after the great recession. And here's what I know you might be thinking because we have some of the smartest listeners around. I bet that during times that buying was cheaper than renting, the trend reversed. That's what you might be thinking. No, it didn't. Regardless of what is cheaper, over time, the home ownership rate just keeps falling despite those periods, whatever is cheaper renting or owning now the overall home ownership rate that's fallen just since 2023 from 66% down to 65% that might not sound like much, but a Full 1% drop there means 1.3 million new renters already, just since 2023 and now you might be thinking, well, this is like totally because home prices and mortgage rates have been higher since that time. They've been higher since 2023 you are, in fact, somewhat correct about the affordability on a median priced home today, which is around 420k, I mean a 10% down payment and closing costs, that means you're out of pocket, probably more than 50k and it's 100k plus for a 20% down payment. And this is often an insurmountable hurdle without financial help from the Bank of mom and dad. But this is all part of a longer, multi decade set of trends. And look, a lot of these trends don't have much of anything to do with finances. People are renting longer because Americans wait longer to marry and have kids, and this has persisted, whether economic cycles are good or bad, and certainly, regardless of what mortgage rate levels are, younger generations value flexibility. That's another reason people are renting longer. Also 30 somethings are just simply more comfortable with subscription models like renting. I mean, look at Netflix and Uber and Spotify. It's been decades since anyone actually bought DVDs or CDs. Yeah, renting is just sort of another subscription model. More. Boomers are also renting for convenience. They would rather play pickleball instead of mow a lawn. This is something that they figured out a while ago. Also higher consumer and educational debt keeps people renting. You've got buy now, pay later. Companies like Klarna that are booming and mortgage eligibility got sucked from souls when all this happened? Hey, I've got more a ton of reasons for why more and more people are renters today, and how this trend is your friend if you are a rental property investor.    Keith Weinhold  8:13   Also, let's be mindful when we broke the gold standard in 1971 asset prices took off like a Blue Origin launch, and wages stagnated. That makes it tough to patch together a down payment and look, there is still an antiquated notion out there that apartments especially are like replete with paper thin walls and one in every five units is a meth lab. Have you toured apartment buildings, fourplexes, duplexes and single family rentals built in the last 10 years? Sheesh. Great amenities. Expect to see granite countertops, patios, fenced yards, gyms, sometimes even pet spas at Class A apartments, washer, dryer in unit. I mean, that has been standard for a long time, LED lighting, smart locks, increasingly office nooks for remote workers. Those are the modern amenities that you find in a rental. So the bottom line here is that as Americans age, there is an elongated renter stage of life. It's not just prices or rates, it is lifestyle. And this is why, even when affordability improves, the homeownership rate should continue to drop. More rental demand is coming. So yes, an elongated renter stage, this forever renter, if you will. That is somewhat about finances, but it is more, and this shapes the landlordtenant landscape for decades. And of course, your advantage here at GRE is even if you live in a High Cost part of the nation, we know how to buy here, say, a brand new build to rent single family property in an investor advantage place like Indiana, Missouri, Alabama or Florida, and we get it for, say, 300k or so, and you get a tenant that will pay you rent for four years or more in a lot of cases. So we've been talking about where the rental demand is coming from. It is both a lifestyle choice and a financial consideration for your tenant. Now this forever renter trend, that's something that really matters if you are providing housing to people. But some real estate trends just move so slowly, so glacier like that, you can kind of get lulled to sleep, until one day you look up and a trend has crystallized like the one that I just described. Let's compare a trend like that to something that people think matters a lot, and this does matter, but its importance is overinflated, and that is, for example, the President's nomination of a new Fed chair this year, and how that's going to move the real estate market. No, not as much as people think, as we've learned here, mortgage rates actually don't have that much to do with home prices. And yes, mortgage rates do move. They are correlated with the Fed funds rate. Yes, they are. When one is high, the other will be high. When one is low, the other will be low. They just don't move in direct lockstep. Let's listen in to the remarks of one Donald John Trump on the matter, because he talks about housing here. This is about a minute long, and then I come back to comment when Trump says him, he is apparently pointing to Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, who was in the room at the time, but as you'll hear, he's not expected to be the Fed Chair selection.    Speaker 1  12:06   Have you started the interviews for the Fed chair? Yes. Who have you interviewed? Ithink I already know my choice well. I like to him, but he's not going to take the job very fast. You like Treasury better, right? Much better, sir. So we are talking to various people and the I mean, frankly, I'd love to get the guy currently, and they're out right now,but people are holding me back. He's done a terrible job, hurting housing a little bit. The truth is, we've been so successful, we've blown past his interest rate. Stupidity. He's been wrong. That's why I call him too late. He's too late. Jerome, too late. Powell, he was recommended to me by a guy that made a bad, you know, bad choice, and it's too bad. But despite that, it's having very little impact, because we have, you know, we have all of these things happening, but it has an impact on housing to a certain extent. He's a fool. He's a stupid man, but we have some very good people   Keith Weinhold  13:09   yeah. So this matters, but it's as much entertainment and almost comedy against a demographic trend like the Forever renter propensity, a calendar year recently ended. It's time to make a quick rundown of the overall investing landscape. Once in a while we do that. It's good to check the movement on other asset classes outside real estate. It's our asset class rundown for last year, the s, p5, 100 was up nearly 17% that's the third year in a row of double digit gains in the year that Warren Buffett stepped down as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, there's a warning. The S and P Schiller price to earnings ratio soared above 40 for only the second time in history. That's an indicator that stocks are overvalued. The only other time that happened was during the.com bubble in real estate, single family home values were up about 2% per the NAR just over 1% per Kay Shiller, apartment building values were flat to a slight decline. There is no such thing as an official apartment building Price Index, CPI inflation, up almost 3% on the year. It now hasn't been at the Fed's target of 2% or lower for a calendar year since 2019 Yeah, it has run hot all that time. Last year, mortgage rates fell from 6.9% to 6.2% and then, as you would expect, the yield on the 10 year treasury note also fell from 4.6 to 4.2 The dollar fell hard with a thud down 9% its worst performance since 2017 WTI oil prices fell from 70 bucks to $58 that's an 18% decline, but really the story of the year among all asset. Classes is what happened with precious metals, gold up a staggering 68% over the past year, touching an all time high of about $4,500 silver, up about 155% leaving investors flabbergasted and slack jawed, touching an all time high of over $80 platinum and palladium had near triple digit gains the real price of gold. This means inflation adjusted even jumped to its all time high last year, significantly surpassing the previous peaks of 1980 2011, and 2020. Realized this. More than 80% of all the recoverable gold on earth has already been extracted. Silver has been the top performing major asset class. In fact, today, a little one ounce silver coin is worth more than a 300 pound barrel of oil. Sticking with the topic of metals, inflation finally killed a penny. The last one was minted in 2025 in Philadelphia, ending a continuous run of the US minting the penny since 1792 no more. Bitcoin was down 6% falling from 93k to 87k the NASDAQ is aiming for near round the clock trading. It currently trades 16 hours a day, five days a week. They are looking to go up to 23 hours a day, five days a week in the second half of this year. That's our year end asset class rundown    Keith Weinhold  16:34   coming up in future weeks of the get rich education podcast. I am going to do an episode on overpopulation versus underpopulation? Is the world over or underpopulated, and is the United States over or underpopulated? This obviously has huge implications for the housing market. Then on another episode, we're going to discuss a real estate axis strategy we've never discussed before, called the 721 exchange. Now you might have heard of the better known 1031 tax deferred exchange, but the 731 is different. When you get older as a property owner and you realize that you don't want the hassles of landlording anymore, you can sell your properties to a partnership. The 721 exchange dictates that this is not a taxable event, and therefore no capital gains taxes or depreciation recapture are due. Property owners still get the benefits of cash flow and the appreciation across a greater number of properties and markets, and it's a great estate planning tool as well. Yes, that's the 721, exchange. We are going to cover it here. When it comes to investment real estate, I guess we cover nearly everything that's coming up on a future episode. As for today, we're talking about property taxes, if they go away, what replaces them that comes up shortly? Visit get richeducation.com to learn more about how we help you and what we do, and to get connected with real estate. Pays five ways type of properties. Visit gre marketplace.com. I'm Keith Weinhold. You're listening to get rich education.    Keith Weinhold  18:23   You know, most people think they're playing it safe with their liquid money, but they're actually losing savings accounts and bonds don't keep up when true inflation eats six or 7% of your wealth. Every single year, I invest my liquidity with FFI freedom family investments in their flagship program. Why? Fixed 10 to 12% returns have been predictable and paid quarterly. There's real world security backed by needs based real estate like affordable housing, Senior Living and health care. Ask about the freedom flagship program when you speak to a freedom coach there, and that's just one part of their family of products. They've got workshops, webinars and seminars designed to educate you before you invest. Start with as little as 25k and finally, get your money working as hard as you do. Get started at Freedom family investments.com/gre, or send a text. Now it's 1-937-795-8989,yep, text their freedom coach directly. Again, 1-937-795-8989,   Keith Weinhold  19:34   the same place where I get my own mortgage loans is where you can get yours. Ridge lending group and MLS, 42056, they provided our listeners with more loans than anyone because they specialize in income properties. They help you build a long term plan for growing your real estate empire with leverage, start your pre qual and even chat with President chailey Ridge personally while it's on your mind. Start at Ridge lending group.com that's Ridge lending group.com    Jim Rickards  20:05   this is author Jim Rickards. Listen to get rich education with Keith Weinhold, and don't quit your Daydream.   Keith Weinhold  20:22   Welcome back to get rich education. Episode 588 for the 12th consecutive year here, I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, I look forward to perhaps meeting you in person this coming weekend, as I'll be attending the real estate guys create your future goals retreat event in Colorado Springs. You probably remember that we have had the events host and leader, Robert Helms, of the real estate guys on the show with us here several times in the past. What a class act I am spending a few extra days after the event in Colorado Springs to both look at local real estate in that market and climb the Manitou incline, that's this grueling climbing challenge up a slope of Pikes Peak. If you want to climb with me after the real estate guys event, bring your running shoes and I'll lead a group of us up there    Keith Weinhold  21:13   if property taxes go away, what replaces them? Realtor.com recently had a terrific article about this that you can look up the property tax revolt is spreading, but the replacement plan isn't let's look at the probability and possibility of eliminating property tax. Think about how property tax elimination would increase the value of your property well, because now every buyer could afford to pay more, since they won't have that property tax expense. And of course, if you were to remove property tax as a line item from your income and expense statement, your cash flow could double, triple, or even five or 10x depending on your current cash, on cash return. But that cash flow part is less likely because most efforts to eliminate the property tax, they focus on homes, primary residences. Well, several states have either active legislation efforts or these sort of informal grassroots movements to significantly cut down or just totally abolish property tax, but no state has fully eliminated them yet. The most prominent efforts are in five states, most notably Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis has made the most noise about it. He proposed eliminating property taxes on homesteaded which are primary residence properties, and he aims for a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to achieve this, that is 10 months from now. And that proposal, it's still pretty early in the legislative stages, and the state is also considering property tax rebates in the meantime. Now, even if you own rental property, and property tax were only eliminated on primary residences, it would still cause the value of your property to boom pretty nicely, even if it didn't help the cash flow. The state that's made the second most noise is Ohio. A grassroots organization has called Citizens for property tax reform. They have actively campaigned to place a constitutional amendment on their ballot that would just totally abolish property taxes statewide. Third most is Kansas. They propose legislation and that aims to effectively bump up sales tax to replace property tax. The fourth out of five is North Dakota. Let's look at what they're doing following a failed 2024, ballot measure to just totally abolish the property tax outright. Well, there's a new proposal from the governor, and that seeks this phased out elimination for most homeowners over a decade. And see, North Dakota has a slightly better chance of pulling that off, because they can fund that from the state's Legacy Fund, that's their oil well fund, and then making the fifth most abolition of property tax noise is my home state of Pennsylvania. Lawmakers have introduced bills to eliminate all property tax. They also aim for a constitutional amendment to put that issue before the voters. So they are the five states that have made the most noise, and that's what their approach is.    Keith Weinhold  24:43   Now, seemingly for most of my life, homeowners and landlords have griped about property tax, saying it's the most ridiculous tax of them all, because you pay it year after year after year in perpetuity. And it just never goes away. Unlike other taxes that are just a one time tax, even if your property's mortgage is paid off, you still have a house payment, and that is largely due to property tax. Understand, though, that currently a lot of states give you a reduced property tax once you reach a senior age, usually age 65 plus some start as low as 61 but when it comes to eliminating the property tax, there's a part of the conversation that's really important, and it has been notably absent, and that is a novel solution to replace the lost revenue. And it gets rather interesting to look around and see where else the money might be raised if they eliminate property tax. See, and this is really important to understand, property taxes generate 70% of local revenue, up to 90% of school funding and 25% of all state and local tax revenue in aggregate in Florida. Okay, that's just in Florida those numbers, but a lot of states have a similar scenario, and in Florida, that comes out to about $50 billion a year. That is a big hole to plug, that is a big gap to fill, and it underlines both the burden homeowners are currently shouldering and how hard it's going to be to fill that gap with anything that's more stable or equitable, that's going to last as a funding source, yes, 90% of school funding. You heard that, right? If you talk to an old timer, you know sometimes you still hear an elderly person refer to property taxes as school taxes. So see, this question of, Do you want to abolish property taxes? One reason that's become louder and louder these past few years, and why you hear more about it is due to that increased affordability strain. That's why you're hearing more about it now the question, do you want to abolish property taxes? That is the wrong question. A grassroots push to AX the property tax that's gained traction, really, among some senior homeowners facing property tax bills that are as high as their mortgage. Once was last summer, for example, in Mahoning County, Ohio, the tax delinquency rate hit 18% almost one in five people having trouble paying their property tax, and that county had more than 70 million in unpaid property taxes. In some neighborhoods in Youngstown, as many as one in three homeowners were behind. And in Cuyahoga County, which is basically Cleveland, values jumped 32% on average after reassessments that fueled a $60 million dollar increase in past due balances this whole do we want to abolish property taxes? Question? You're going to see why that's the wrong question and why it's incomplete, because that slogan that skips the only part that really matters here, and that is, what is the replacement plan, realistically, taxpayers should be asked if, in lieu of property tax, they'd rather pay higher sales taxes or higher income taxes, or for those with no state income tax, like Texas or Florida, pay one for the first time. I don't like those answers. I wish governments would spend more efficiently, but that's not the angle that we're looking at here. Property taxes are the true lifeblood of local governments. I mean, they fund everything from public safety to roads to schools, and just because property taxes disappear, well that doesn't mean that the need for firefighters goes away, that the need for police officers goes away, or the infrastructure for public school systems is going to be gone, or the roads go away. So if property taxes are cut, then another revenue generating device has to emerge to keep services funded and running. And it's a little funny. I've been talking about certain states here. But of course, property taxes are exacted and assessed at the county and local level. And look, I mean, you know how the world works, you know what the nature of society is. As soon as someone has their income stream, they quickly grow into that lifestyle and the new larger spending pattern. So taking away an existing income stream or even reducing it a little, I mean, that can almost trigger outrage and protests, for example, the outcry that we had last year about cutting snap payments. But it works this way. With anything. I mean, sheesh. For the majority of Americans, if you cut their income even 10% they would struggle to survive. They would struggle to put food in the fridge. So these repeal the property tax campaigns, they often avoid the reality of the replacement math.    Keith Weinhold  30:19   Now, some states have taken a swing at replacing property tax revenue, but few, if any, have succeeded. Now, Nebraska lawmakers, what they did is they floated higher cigarette taxes as a way to fund a goal of cutting their property taxes by 40% I mean, nice try. But according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, that tax base was far too small. I mean to tell you more about what a terrible miss. This example is Nebraska cigarette taxes. They raised about $52 million in 2024 while property taxes raised $5.3 billion that is 100 times more, not even close, even if you could raise more money in the short run, excise revenues like this cigarette tax, they're pretty volatile, and they often shrink as the demand ebbs and flows. So it really makes them a poor backbone for expenses that grow over time, and they don't eliminate the cost so much as concentrated. So what they do is they sort of shift this broad civic obligation funding all this stuff, police, fire, school, from homeowners onto a much narrower group, in this case, people who smoke. That is not going to work for Nebraska, all right, well, what about a bigger deal, like replacing it with sales tax? Well, they run into a different problem. Local economies are not built the same. You might have a sales tax heavy tourist County, well, they can raise far more money than an agricultural county. And Florida is a clear illustration. They have lots of tourism and lots of agriculture replacing property taxes with sales tax. That would require eye popping sales tax rates too. According to the Tax Foundation Florida statewide, they would have to go from 7% to over 15% sales tax in Florida. But it gets even worse, because counties with a thin sales tax base would have to charge over 32% sales tax. My gosh, that is not going to work, all right. Well, how about another big one? Let's have income taxes replace property tax in a lot of states. I mean, the income tax that's large enough to raise pretty meaningful revenue. But the trade off is that income taxes come with their own sort of economic and political distortions, and once they're added, you know, they rarely stay confined to the tidy swap that voters were promised. I mean, look at New Jersey. They adopted an income tax in the 1970s to provide property tax relief, but over time, that swap proved hard to manage and hard to enforce, and now today, New Jersey has one of the highest effective property tax and state income tax rates combined in the nation. So the point is that all these property tax replacement tools are just inherently piecemeal. Each tax or fee has like this different payer base or some different vulnerability. I mean, if tourism dips, for example, revenues could drop really fast. And the same is true if a regulated industry contracts, or if consumption patterns shift. And you know that volatility, that's manageable for some narrow program, but that is dangerous as the foundation for essential services like public safety and street maintenance and police and schools and fire. Well, how about forgetting all that? Let's just have the government then totally get out of providing public safety and not have the government provide street maintenance and have the government get out of schools. I mean, we used to have more private companies provide you with some of those services. We didn't even have a federal income tax at all until 1913 other than a temporary one to fund the Civil War. But all of that is a bigger topic that we are not going to get into today. The point is, instead of asking the question, do you want to abolish property taxes? The better question is, which replacement are you choosing and who pays for it? Because local costs come on, they're just not likely to shrink anytime soon. After all, all of this schools, fire and police departments, public works, divisions, they're all subject to the same inflation and the same rising costs as the rest of the economy is so the property tax is unpopular. As it is, it does have one functional advantage. It is tied to this immovable base of properties. It's collected locally, and it's designed to fund on going services. That is not to say that some homeowners don't need relief. Some of them clearly do. But eliminating property taxes, that just does not eliminate the underlying cost of government. All it does is reallocate it, and that reallocation can get messy, that shifts a bigger burden onto a smaller share of taxpayers, whether it's smokers, like it was in Nebraska, or whether it's rural shoppers like the Florida sales tax example, or doubly on working homeowners, like it is in the New Jersey income tax example. I have studied this, and I have not seen novel approaches that really keep communities funded without creating some new distortion somewhere else. But unfortunately, one thing that I have seen is this repeal rhetoric, and it makes these political platitudes all that want to just conveniently skip the replacement plan, but it all sounds good and popular when someone stands up there and says that they want to eliminate property taxes. So really the honest question on a ballot. It's not, do you want to abolish property taxes? The honest question is, are you willing to pay higher sales taxes or higher income taxes or adopt one for the first time and accept the distortions that those choices to create to eliminate the property tax? I'm not going to get into the political side of all this, because that's not what we do here. The bottom line is, though, that you're probably going to hear more about the property tax going away. It is unlikely, of course, as income property investors here, property tax is largely built into the rent. It is passed along to your tenant, and a small reduction would help you out, probably not so much on your cash flow side, since most of these proposals are only for primary residences, but even a small property tax reduction on primary residences that would boost all property values, even rental property in the one to four unit space. But you shouldn't expect much here. If property taxes are eliminated, there is just no easy and viable replacement. That's your answer today, if you represent a company that serves real estate investors get rich. Education has over 3 million IAB certified downloads and 5.8 million total listener downloads. You can learn more about advertising on the show at getricheducation.com/ad, that's get rich education.com/ad   Speaker 2  37:51   for the production team here at GRE, that's our sound engineer, bedroom jampo, who has edited every single GRE podcast episode since 2014 QC and show notes Brenda Almendariz, video lead, Binaya Gyawali, strategy Tallah Mugal, video editor, Saroza KC and producer me, we'll run it back next week for you. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, Don't Quit Your Daydream.   Speaker 3  38:17   nothing on this show should be considered specific personal or professional advice, please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of get rich Education LLC, exclusively   Keith Weinhold  38:45   The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth building, getricheducation.com