Speaker 1: If you want to support the show and get the
episodes early and ad free, head on over to Freemanbeyond
the Wall dot com forward slash Support. I want to
explain something right now. If you support me through substack
or Patreon, you have access to an RSS feed that
you can plug into any catcher, including Apple, and you'll
be able to listen to the episodes through there. If
you support me through a subscribe, Star, gum Road or
on my website directly, I will send you a link
where you can download the file and you can listen
to it any way you wish. I really appreciate the
support everyone gives me. It keeps a show going. It
allows me to basically put out an episode every day now,
and I'm not going to stop. I'm just going to accelerate.
I think sometimes you see that I'm putting out two
even three a day, and yeah, can't do it without you,
So thank you for the support. Head on over to
Freeman Beyond the Wall dot com, forward slash support and
do it there.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekingana Show.
Along goes back. What's happen time?
Speaker 3: Not much Pete like just finally like got caught up
from my trip up the Calgary and yeah, so happy
to I would have done this earlier in the week,
but there was I don't think I had like five
brain cells to rub together and make a spark until
about four o'clock yesterday afternoon.
Speaker 1: So yeah, a lot's happened this week, and we can
probably touch on a couple of those things. But I mean,
are the Panthers going for dynasty? I mean, I certainly.
Speaker 3: Hope not since I live in Florida, but I but
my heart's in Edmonton, you know. I think it's I
think Connor McDavid's at that point where he has to
have to learn how to lose in order to learn
how to win. I'm hoping that that's what happens here.
I think I think it would be good for the sport.
I'll be honest with you. I think it would be
good for albert at this particular moment in time. I
think it would be great for Edmonton to win another Cup.
I know the Calgarians will be like a little pissed off,
but they'll secretly be really happy that.
Speaker 2: You know. Yeah, the the Western Canadian boys did good.
Speaker 1: So as always.
Speaker 2: A leafs are never there that's all I really give
a fuck about.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah them. But I still do want to
see a game at the garden before I die at
Mapleland Garden. But yeah, I just as someone who used
to have Panther season tickets, I would like to see
you know, two in a row would be something else.
All Right, We're not going to do this. We did
this the last time.
Speaker 3: You're this year to pissed everybody off just a little bit, like, hey,
let's talk about hockey all night, all right?
Speaker 1: So yeah, what were you trying to do to piss
libertarians off? And I'll tell you about mine today, that'll
be great. What are you doing this week?
Speaker 3: I'm well, I did this is two hours with Dave
Ronowsky this morning. I'm trying to explain to him that,
like I am, I'm over and done with, you know,
our supposed libertarian brethren grand standing. I'm with I'm a
Trump on this is the grand standing in the in
the Senate, in the House over this freaking budget or
conciliation bill. And I've explained it on Twitter, I've explained
it to my people, and I've explained it, and they
explained it this morning in a different show and I'll
explain it or now Steven Miller's correct, and that the
budget Senate, the Senate budget rules under reconciliation do not
allow for discretionary spending cuts, only mandatory spending cuts. They
got one hundred and sixty five or one hundred and
sixty eight billion dollars with the mandatory spending cuts at
first pass through a Congress that was dead set against
giving them a dollar and then between that and the
CBO budget projection which used their baseline as oh, well,
we were going back to these high pre Trump tax levels,
and so all of the projections of the the tax
collections that adds to the deficits horseshit.
Speaker 2: It's all bullshit.
Speaker 3: And it bothered me to no end to watch good
people who have lived by the precepts two precepts over
the last thirty years of one when of politicians lips
are moving, are lying and to all government statistics aren't
aren't to be taken at face value. Well, we have
both of these things happening at the same time, and
as our libertarian brethren who are lying through the freaking teeth,
politicians are lying through their teeth about this, And why
would a we quote unquote libertarians out in the world
believe anything that the CBO has to say, knowing full
well that the CBO is staffed by people who don't,
who are part of the managerial state, that are that
is root and branch trying to stop what's happening in
the executive branch.
Speaker 2: It makes no sense to me whatsoever. I asked this.
I asked this basic question without.
Speaker 3: Being a douchebag for once to Clint Russell on Twitter
the other day and I said, Clint, I mean, come on, man,
can I ask the simple question like why? And he
came back with, well, this is their best case scenario,
so it's actually the reality is evenmore is I'm like
bullshit like and then I posted up the Miller, you know,
multiple three or four tweets from Miller now explaining the process.
That's what's going on, that's what they've done. And the
more important thing is that Trump doesn't need Congress after
this budget reconciliation bill passes.
Speaker 2: He won't need them until the midterms.
Speaker 3: And that scares Davos to fucking death because all of
their power that's left in the administration really is in
holding up this bill to blackmail Trump, to give in
on other aspects of his program, funding the war in Ukraine,
allowing you know, Yahoo to go fucking crazy and against Iran,
all that other stuff. They're holding this bill hostage and
for guys like supposed like good libertarians like Massi and
Rand Paul and others to be holding this up over
quote unquote fiscal discipline is complete worship. And I'm sorry,
but it's time for everybody to grow up. And I'm
you know, what I said to Dave Gronowski this morning
is that the problem is that we have too many
critics and not enough builders. I mean, this is the
classic problem, like if you guys are so smart and
so why is an assucient? Why can you not win
a fucking election that matters? And why can you not
build anything? This is getting back to the same common
you know, the same conversation you and I've had before
that libertarianism is in a political movement, it's a hobby.
And I think your I think your are your Your
description of it that way is really the most you know, basic,
And you know, I've had many a conversation with Dexter
White about this. He's like, look, show me what you
guys have built for sixty years worth of of of
criticism and everything else. Not to say your criticisms aren't correct,
or are trenching or worth discussing, or anything along those lines.
But then where does that lead to? What are we
supposed to do with that in order to figure out
our current mess and improve.
Speaker 1: They'll immediately say, They'll immediately say Bitcoin, that's what they
built for those of you. For those of you who
are just listening, Tom is just completely face palmed right now,
I think is I think his hand is ready to
go through his head.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, it takes a lot for me to
take my drop my glasses on the table and like
and shut the fuck up. No, it's not bitcoin. That
not that I don't like bitcoin, not that I don't
love it, but I have news for you folks. Bitcoin
is going to save the dollar system first and then
we'll see if it actually becomes its own system after that.
Speaker 2: That's what's happening right now.
Speaker 3: And even people like Cantlen long understand this, Like she's
explaining it to me.
Speaker 1: I got it act by a bunch of bitcoiners when
I was on Marty Bench Show, and I told them,
I said, you know, and this is something that was
that I went back and forth with on Twitter with
a libertarian luminary today is if your whole goal, and
it looks like it's going to happen, there's going to
be a reserve there. If your whole goal is for
there to be a bitcoin reserve, and you know, I explained,
I understand the technology. I know the bitcoin can't be fractionalized,
But if they're using it as an m one and
they're printing against it, unless there is a libertarian in
power to prevent them from printing against it exponentially, what
the only thing you're doing is getting rich, which I'm
perfectly fine with. And congratulations, I'm happy for you. I'm
not gonna no, and seriously, I'm not even being hyperbolic.
I am happy for you. Wealth is very important. It
keeps you, keeps you out of jail, It'll do a
lot of things. But if you think that this having
this bitcoin reserve, but you don't have people in power
who don't want to understand fractional reserve banking and understand
it's pitfalls and everything, then you're then it's nothing other
than a way for you to get rich. When you
convert it two dollars, because that's what you're going to
be doing unless somebody gets power and holds them to
it and holds it to and holds you know, dollar
for a dollar or two dollars for a dollar, you
know for or whatever however you want to split up
the SATs and everything like that. But when you tell
them that, it always comes back to, well, I mean
power being immoral. We're not allowed to get power because
we've been you know, because other people control it. Okay,
then stop talking about bitcoin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I'm not not arguing with you.
Speaker 3: I you know, I think I probably was one of
the first people to say, what will bake everybody's noodles
to day that the FED puts bitcoin on its balance sheet.
Speaker 2: Well, that's not what's going to happen.
Speaker 3: Obviously, We're now going to move into bitcoin the Sovereign
Wealth Fund or some kind of strategic bitcoin reserve which
will be used to extend the US treasury market into
all the corners of the world. And I refer everybody
to the podcast I did with Kaitlin Long, who knows
stranger to bitcoin, no less a bitcoin advocate than Caitlin
freaking Along. Understanding the power of having bitcoin be a
part of the banking system to restrain leverage. But it's
going to do so within the US treasury markets as
the heat sink for the t bill market. And that's
what it is now. So it's how is operating right now.
Speaker 1: Explain Explain that because a lot of people aren't gonna
understanding that.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's just okay. So bitcoin trades against tether, mostly
doesn't trade against dollars. The trades against tether what is
tether back by tether's back mostly by t bills. So
that means that as bitcoins price rises, if the volume
of bitcoins that are traded on a day to day
basis does not change as the price rises, that means
that the number of tethers and number of dollars that
is trading against synthetic dollars is trading against, has to
rise comminately with the price. So you trade a thousand
bitcoins a day at one hundred thousand dollars, that's what
a billion dollar market or whatever it is. So big
price goes to two hundred thousand dollars a point, Now
you've got a two billion dollar a day market. Now
you need more more tether in order to liquify those trades.
Here's a lesson for all the libertarians who are so
enamored of the supply side of the quantity theory of
money and forgetting all about the demand side. The point
that Martin Armstrong likes to make on a regular basis,
and even the Lidwig Boissis himself makes made a century
ago and is quoted in the Wikipedia page for the
quantity theory of money. Which is the problem is you
cannot just look at the supply side of the of
the QTM.
Speaker 2: You have to look at both sides.
Speaker 3: You have to look at both the supply of money
the amount of money that's in existence, which we libertarians
like to argue about, or the libertarians like to argue
about and forget about the demand side for money. Now,
where does the demand side for money come from? Where
does where does demand for money come from? What comes
from the need to liquefy the comparisons between two objects
we're trying to figure out the value of in the marketplace,
and the money is the is the medium of exchange
is the comparator? Well, what happens when we can't compare,
when we don't have enough resolution for these two items
what happens. What happens if the resolution between these two
items is less than a penny, we have to options.
You can either inflate the money supply in order to
lower the value of a penny, or you can add digits.
Speaker 2: That's it, that's all you got. You can.
Speaker 3: And that's what we've done and what I've been And
I had this insight, and and people would actually try
to argue this shit with nan. I'm like, I'm sorry,
but I understand math and I'm not stupid. Because credit
comes into play because of a temporal need for money
that isn't available, and eventually the credit gets instantiated and
then becomes part of the base money supply. When technology,
which is in self deflationary right from a price perspective,
if everybody's got their incentives aligned, then the free market
is running and people are innovating at a profit, and
we're driving.
Speaker 2: The cost of production of all of.
Speaker 3: All old technology back down to a cost plus business model.
Speaker 2: Well again this for you.
Speaker 3: You're gonna have have to raise the general supply of money.
Everybody who's screaming that the dollar is going to die
one day, well they're gonna it's going to die to
the Chinese yuan, for example, like, well, I get this
for you. Have you thought about how much the Chinese
will have to inflate the you want supply to fill
the vacuum left by the dollar retreating and retrenching. Have
you thought about that? I don't know if you have,
because I have. Hell, I had that conversation with a
guy fifteen years ago.
Speaker 1: That must seems like mutually assured destruction.
Speaker 2: Well it's not even it's not.
Speaker 3: What it is is is it's an understanding that demand
for money is important. It's what drives the growth of
the money supply. Now, Bitcoin is inherently deflationary unless until
bitcoiners decide that the sat is the new bitcoin and
we add eight more zeros to it in terms of resolution,
which we can do because it's digital and it's just
and I'm adding more bitcoins, you're adding more resolution, which
is fine. There's nothing wrong with that. I that's this
part of the reason why I looked at bitcoin originally
fifteen years ago and went ooh, this is cool. We
can get monetary resolution without having to inflate the money supply,
thereby not violating the property rights of current bitcoin holders,
current money holders and we can have innovation, and we
can have the consumer remain sovereign, and we can have
savers remain whole.
Speaker 2: That's bitcoins moment.
Speaker 3: But the truth of the matter is is that And
this is an extension of the conversation I had with
Caitlin long when she was discussing the whole concept of
defending par the par value of the dollar, and I'm like,
and these are all ideas that have been like rattling
around in my head for years and years and years,
and I have not been had a really good framework with
which to present it to the world. I've done, I've
done better and worse versions of this conversation over time.
But as you get older and with the reputation, eventually
you get better explaining things that someone puts an idea
into your head that you can work with and may
seem facile, and it may seem obvious now, but let's
talk about it. Do we get dollars at par?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: Has anybody ever gotten money at par ever in history? No,
no matter what the money is, unless it's cawery shells
off the beach. But even then someone had to walk
outside go get those cawery shells and then spend them
into the economy and they and guess what. The more
they found, the more there was a supply of money,
which then changed the demand curve for the money and
the value of the exchange rate of the money relative
to goods and services and everything else in place occurred.
We never get the money at par you know why
it's called senior age. The guy who creates the money
needs to get paid. Doesn't matter if it's the government,
doesn't matter, if it's the money lender, does't matter if
it's the gold the gold depositories. Does it matter that
it's the gold miners or the goldsmith's or whoever it is.
They have to get paid because as good free marketeers,
we understand that nobody does anything unless they have the
potential for a profit. No system is sustainable otherwise unless
you want to malinvested. You know, economy based on the
production of money. Remember, I just look at money dislike
nisists as another commodity in the world and so and
as a matter of fact, it's a commodity that has
no other good competing use case than to be used
as a medium exchange and or store value and or
unit of account, all of which are aspects of a
commodity that are acquired in terms of monetary character over time.
And those things don't happen contemporaneously. They don't just happen
all spring out of like you know, like dwarves, they
spring out.
Speaker 2: Of holes in the ground with the quote Kimling.
Speaker 3: No, it happens as a process as we winno out,
you know, competing factors for that particular commodity to become
a money may start as a medium of exchange, and
then eventually, because it's so successful, it then becomes a
unit of account and eventually people store their value their
wealth in it, and blah blah blah blah. You can
have competing quote unquote moneies at any moment in time.
So my point about all this is that at the
end of the day, we never get money at par
what's the par value of a dollar today? The Fed
Fund's rate is that I'm happy to have the conversation
as to whether or not.
Speaker 2: Those people should.
Speaker 3: Get that amount of profit to run our monetary system.
I have no problem having that conversation whether or not
that's a moral illegal, you know, good, bad, or and
different for society.
Speaker 2: No problem.
Speaker 3: Do I think that should be a market process, of
course I do. But make no mistake, folks, you don't
get dollars at par The banks get them at four
and a half percent of four point three three percent,
which is the current sofa rate thirty day sover rate.
What are you buying your car loan at? What are
you buying your credit card at? That's how you buy dollars.
You buy dollars that way. Your your employer who pays
you a dollar or fifteen dollars to thirty dollars or
fifty dollars for your time, got news for you. He
bought it from somebody else at less than par.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: Now, I still believe in the basic idea that the
problem with you know, are the monetary system is that
we print you know, having no opportunity cost. Really the
issue is, of course, that we should have new monetary
units to come into existence without it with opportunity cost,
meaning the person who creates the money should have to
make a rational choice between this activity and that activity,
printing money or doing any other goddamn thing in the world. Right,
as long as there's an opportunity cost that's measurable and
accountable and controllable by market forces, you're never paying the
power value of a dollar. Ever, you're not paying a
power value for bitcoins either. By the way, folks, the
miners get them bursed, and so the miners are paying.
Are they spring into existence because the miners did work,
they get paid, They come into existence, they do their thing,
and they get to buy to yesterday's goods or tomorrow's
goods at today's prices using yesterday's money. Okay, that's the
way it works. That's the way it is always going
to work. The question is can we shorten the time
horizon between those those those three states of being? Maybe,
but whatever that cost is, that cost is, and you
have to make your peace with that, or you're you know,
you're arguing about how many groth parts can dance on
the head of the pen. And I'm just not having
that conversation anymore. And everything. This is a methodological error
that too many Austrians make, that too many libertarians make,
and too many bitcoiners make. I've had this conversation with
many a bitcoiner, good bitcoiner, bitcoin Maxi's who I can
argue that I've argued this points with these points with them.
I don't care if we're talking all of them. And
here's the thing. Bitcoin is superior because it can add resolution.
We could add resolution to the dollar if we made
it fully digital and we were willing to accept tensive
ascent or half a cent or whatever, and that had meaning.
We choose always to inflate as opposed to add resolution.
We do, and you can argue why we do that.
You can argue that the government is corrupt and that's
what they want to do. That the people who are
getting the senior dge, that's how they make their case.
Speaker 2: Great.
Speaker 3: Fine, I'm happy to have the conversation about how that occurs.
But make no mistake, you don't get dollars at par.
You never have and you never will. Make your peace
with it and then figure out what system you actually want. Okay,
that's it, and everything else is bullshit. I apparently Savadina
Mouse at Bitcoin like Blue Open the had a speech
that blew up in the idea that that tether could
help liquefy the.
Speaker 2: Treasury market.
Speaker 3: I'm like, if he used I didn't watch the speech,
but if he used the straw man that tether could
replace the treasury issuance market, then he's full of shit too,
because no one ever ever in a million years argued
that tether could perform that role. Tether can act as
a hot sink for marginal demand in the t bill
market and therefore, and by extension, the money market and
repo markets, to keep the dollar markets liquefied during time
during short term time duration mismatches, and keep SOFUR within
a relatively tight range, so our banking system can operate.
Speaker 2: With some amount of predictability.
Speaker 3: And as far as I'm concerned, after what I witnessed
at the beginning of April in the tariff tantrum, that
Davos drew when they attempted to attack and destroy SOFUR
and failed, because that's what happened. And if you don't
believe me, if you think I'm fucking making shit up,
you go look at the SOFA data in the SOFA
futures market and you tell me what that looked like
on April seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth.
Speaker 2: You go look at those days.
Speaker 3: You go look at the inter day market movements and
the volume and the volatility at specific moments of the day,
the London open, the New York closed, the Tokyo open,
this open that like any any market operator, veteran who
looks at markets on a twenty four hour basis, knows
when certain markets open, knows when they close, and knows
how they can be how those opens and those closes
are manipulated. Those market open and closes are manipulated. And
if I'm attacking that market, I'm attacking at different times.
I'm not always attacking on the London open, so that
I can have five days worth of data to say,
to prove to the Spurgs in the audience, Oh yes,
it's it's definitely City of London. Like City of London
doesn't operate metaphorically out of Singapore or Tokyo or Brussels
or New York, of course they do. You have to
understand who's who would be incentivized to attack the sofa
what they call the sofa strip from six months out
to three the futures market from six months out to
three years, which is where that basis trade was running.
To understand what it is that was actually happening and
the during that time if you go back to it,
and I even I fell for this because I didn't
know and it was that, you know, Zero Hedge was
running their arguments that it was the classic basis trade.
That people were that there's a basis trade out there
where people are playing the spread between the futures price
and the spot price for US treasuries and then pocketing
the three or four basis point spread, and that's how
they make their money. And a lot of hedge funds
do this because they know that or they they do
this because they know that there's a that there's supposedly
a fed put under this under that market. But that
fed put isn't there. Then what and what they were
finding out, of course, is that it wasn't really that play.
Speaker 2: So what you.
Speaker 3: Heard that week, I heard first it was the basis
trade was blowing up, which was wrong. Then I heard
Japan was blowing up, which was also wrong. What was
happening was the city of London and Amsterdam we're blowing
We're attacking the Sofa strip, probably through the Bank of Canada,
because Mark Carney all but took credit for doing this
in multiple interviews when asked about it by sycophant Canadian media,
and they failed. They tried to attack Sofa and destroy
it because Sofa is their Achilles heel. It is our
kryptonite to their markets. It's our it's our bulwark. Live
war is over, sofa rules, live war suses. That's it,
I mean, and we're here, we're and now every day
they keep it, trying to attack the treasury market from
a different perspective. Write a headline, move a market, write
some headlines, get Bloomberg involved, have moved these downgrade our debt,
all the all the usual Shenanigan bullshit that they pull,
and then every day, because we're good gas lit monkeys
who want to believe that, I'm now speaking as a libertarian,
we're good gas lit monkeys, and we're predictable as today
is long. We're also easily manipulated into ab reacting when.
Speaker 2: These things happen.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, the US tenure US thirty years straight
at five percent.
Speaker 2: That must mean something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, doesn't mean what you think it means, because you're
not thinking like a general in a war attacking someone's
front lines. You're thinking like a libertarian. And that will
not get you anywhere in a fucking war.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. That's that's the hard truth.
Speaker 3: And I've watched it play out now enough times to
know they just don't know what there's just so what
they're talking about. And I have friends in the industry
that I've made over the years in the banking industry
and then finance and run heads funds and everything else.
And I can tell you they're all Libertarians at heart,
and they're all telling me the same thing. Oh yeah,
that was absolutely a freaking city.
Speaker 2: I'll end the boy.
Speaker 3: And most people just don't get it because you don't
understand the plumbing, and I blame. This is where I
get angry. This is why I'm so angry with what
my experience with the Mesas Institute, because I urged them
to come out of their fucking shell and up their
game and help the world understand it's the world is
more complicated than just and the FED. If it's on
a bumper sticker, it's not good policy.
Speaker 2: Sorry, just is. You know. I wanted them to leave.
Speaker 1: I had someone tell me that your speech was incoherent,
which tells me that they just didn't understand what you
were saying, or they didn't want to understand what you
were saying. So but here, let me let's let's move
on from that. M Trump and Powell. What's the dynamic
right now? There is no dynamic. Powell's going to do
what he needs to do. Trump is going to k
fabe his way through everything like he always does.
Speaker 3: And the PCEE data that came out today is given
Powell the reason, uh possible reason to cut rates in June.
Speaker 2: But here's the thing.
Speaker 3: If I'm right, which I've been about all of this
for about four years now, and yeah, if I was wrong,
I would just cop to it.
Speaker 2: Sorry, but I've been right.
Speaker 3: Powell needs to hold interest rates as high as possible
for as long as possible, and until this budget Reconciliation
bill passes and we no longer need Congress. No, we
need to keep all the pressure imaginable on City of London.
Look at what's happened. If you think that that Trump
doesn't know what he's doing, the Vestent doesn't know what
he's doing, that Powell doesn't know what he's doing.
Speaker 2: What have we done here? We are.
Speaker 3: Almost two months since the tariff announcement. The euro is
up eight percent. The European Union is staring at a
twenty percent based tariff, not fifty because Trump put it
on hold for thirty days, but twenty. So the Europeans
are now already trading at thirty percent loss relative to
way they were to export into the US market. They
got the double whammy of the tariff plus the rising euro,
and everybody's out there screaming.
Speaker 2: Oh the dollar's failing.
Speaker 1: Oh my god.
Speaker 3: I look like fucking Peter Ship shut the fuck up,
like dude, seriously, Like that's the worst case scenario for.
Speaker 2: The Europeans. It's supposed to be.
Speaker 3: I thought the theory was last I checked from all
these people who told me that tariffs are bad, which
they got, of course from British economics theory.
Speaker 2: Assholes. Oh, by the way, I.
Speaker 3: Thought the theory was that when we put a tariff
on they were going to then weaken their currency in
order to offset the tariff.
Speaker 1: That's not what happened.
Speaker 3: They were so goddamn worried about the tariff they dumped
our treasuries on the market to manipulate our yield curve
and watch their currency rise, and took a big hit
and had their currency rise. They're in a twice as
bad position that they are now than they were then.
And I had a friend of mine send me from
his Bloomberg terminal all of the for the last year,
all of the weeks in which the Bank of England
had to issue repos Bank repos swamps to to keep
the English banking system liquefied. They've been repoeing because they're
fucked since their Ukrainian debt has all blown up in
their face and that they guaranteed, and they having to
go to the bank, do the walk of shame to
the Bank of England to go get pounds. They're in trouble.
This keeps happening over and over and over again. And
the pound is higher, it's a dollar thirty five. In
what universe should the pound be trading at a dollar
thirty five given their situation, I mean, with the Euro
at a dollar thirteen, like they're losing this war. And
Powell cutting rates is helping them because when they need
to get dollars they get to pay twenty five bases
points less. How about we keep it there and every
week you see the and so what's happened up until
the tariffs pulled in the you know, rolled into town.
The ACB was tapping the FED swap lines for hundreds
of millions of dollars every week.
Speaker 2: Now they're down to tens and.
Speaker 3: They're put there because they can't afford to pay four
point five to eight percent, which is what they were
paying twenty six to thirty basis points over so far,
that's defending par The offshore dollar par is twenty five
basis points higher than the onshore dollar par Trump is winning.
He's enforcing a cheaper dollar at home than it is overseas.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what China has been doing, right, isn't that
what China has been doing for for a while now? Yeah, yeah,
they basically have.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well that's what they should do. But generally speaking,
the onshore and off your shorey Wan trade, they trade
in a very tight band with one another, right and
only when they get out when the when the two
you know, get significantly out of whack from each other,
that we're like, ohways, they're stressing the Chinese banking system,
the Chinese and fair fair cop, that's what you should
be looking for. When on shore and offshore deviate from
each other.
Speaker 2: That's an issue.
Speaker 3: It usually closes within a couple of days because it's
not being enforced.
Speaker 2: This is like an enforcement thing.
Speaker 3: The FED is literally charging and able to charge the
European Central Bank a premium. If they were bailing out
the European Central Bank, they'd be selling them money at
a discount.
Speaker 2: They're not. They're they're making them pay through the nose
for it. And that's what you want to.
Speaker 3: Say, that's when you know that, that's that's who the
real target is.
Speaker 1: So it's obvious that Europe, City of London, Europe itself
has lost their minds. They're in they're in a panic.
The whole Ukraine thing, completely backing Ukraine. I consider them
to be our biggest enemy right now. M with that
noubt if if we're at war and we have been
at war financially with them, and I know that there's
I mean, if you're a sperg who doesn't believe this,
you can just tune out right now. It doesn't you're
not going to believe anything. So you know, I mean,
I can't help you. I'm sorry, this isn't going to
mean anything to you. You're just gonna you're gonna scream, scream,
bloody murder. But if we're actually at war, if we lose,
we're winning this. What would cause us to lose it.
Speaker 3: Getting involved directly, and I mean really getting involved directly
and having being forced to follow NATO into a war
against Russia. That's why they're trying to force us into
doing so. I've been screaming this for four years, five years.
I've probably been screaming since twenty nineteen to be honest
with you, that what Europe has been wanting us to
do is to fight their war for them and get
us involved in a war with Russia where they don't
have to pay for it.
Speaker 2: We pay for it.
Speaker 3: They want Russia and the United States brought low through
through adversarial conflict that destroys both of our economies, populations, reputations,
and everything else. They're desperate to try and keep the
capital from fleeing Europe in this scenario, Why did the
United States become the repository of the world's wealth during
World War Two and the lead up to and.
Speaker 2: During World War two? Because we were the only place
why not being bombed?
Speaker 1: Yeah, because we didn't. There was no war on the homeland.
Speaker 3: So what are they trying to do now? They brought
the war to our doorstep. That's what the fentanyl war is.
That's what putting Mark Karney in charge of Canada's about,
having him sign on to the rearm europrop program and
then and then have the nerve to say that we
that Canada has paid the United States and blood for
our for their defense. He actually said that it's cost
Canada like one point two trillion dollars to you know,
buy defense from the United States.
Speaker 2: Like that's nice.
Speaker 3: We're still gonna park four tanks on the Trans Canada
Highway and take your country over.
Speaker 2: If you're going to like act like.
Speaker 3: That, the Canadians would well, and the Western Canadians would
welcome it at this point, like if he wants to
play that game. But he's too dumb for his own good.
This guy, he's devious and he's evil and he's vile.
Speaker 2: But he's pretty freaking stupid.
Speaker 1: Well, it's also the mass immigration, it's also the blriots.
All of that is, all of that is to basically
to destroy us, destroy us from within, des rives from
without and from within. Of course, Yeah, yeah, I would
say I was. I did a show this afternoon where
I went about two hours and I said, really, we
should be building a for everybody's worried about the border,
the southern border. We should be building a wall on
the north border.
Speaker 2: I mean no, I mean I I yeah, I agree
with you.
Speaker 3: Like I half facetiously said the other day, we should
just invade Canada. We should just invade Ottawa and take
it over, Like it's not like King Charles came in
there the other day and said, there, it's they're all
on unsettled they're living on unsettled land that they stole
from the native native tribes. So like, okay, well if
you if you guys aren't, what do he was of course,
what he was saying is that that means that you
guys can be colonized by the EU. Like excuse me,
we can walk in, we can. It's now Lake Buffalo
because why does why should Ontario havevn't have a lake?
By the way, I want I want people to understand, well,
why why should that be? Why should Ontario have a lake?
Why can't that be Lake Rochester. Well, I mean Buffalo
can't win a Stanley Cups. And when we give them,
when we give them a lake, I know they're not
I know they're on Lake.
Speaker 2: Erie, but who cares? You know what I mean?
Speaker 3: Like at some point like like why should we go
through this and the and the quebec Hers right after
the King's speech, like we're like oh yeah, okay, well
then we're then we we're voting unanimously to like.
Speaker 2: Not be ruled by the king anymore. Like I saw that.
Speaker 3: Like I don't know what's going on up north in
Ottawa right now, but it's really weird.
Speaker 1: And they know the country's lost. They know the country
has been lost to immigration from the Indian subcontinent, from China.
I mean Ontario. I talk to people in Ontario. It's
an Indian it's an Indian province.
Speaker 2: M hm.
Speaker 1: And I mean, like the.
Speaker 3: Truck Canadians are now non native born, yeah, forty and
they want to double the and they want to double
the population of Canada by twenty thirty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So if we're going to take Canada, we have
to I mean, we'll have to deport half the country,
half the country. I mean it's you can't let them
or they'd have to be a commonwealth. They wouldn't get
a vote, they wouldn't get a say, and they wouldn't
but they wouldn't be allowed to come here. I mean,
it's this is this is war from all sides. And
you know what's funny is people see people see one
thing that like they see the immigration as the huge issue,
and it is they see the money supply is a
huge issue, and it is they see the dead as
a huge issue, and it is they see wars in
you know, Israel trying to get us in war with Iran, right,
trying to get pull us into war with Ukraine, and
those are those are big, those are gigantic issues. Really
the only way And what's funny is is this is
going to sound libertarian, and it's not something that I
don't talk about libertarian answers anymore because they're pie in
the sky. But there's actually somebody right now trying to
fix the money supply. And if he can fix the
money supply, and we can win this war of money,
we can take care a lot of a lot of
this ship.
Speaker 2: We can win the world. Okay. So one of the
things I was I was.
Speaker 3: I was on with Alex Kraner this afternoon on Crypto Richester.
We were we did two hours this afternoon. So this
is the third show.
Speaker 2: I've done today. And Alex brought up, you know.
Speaker 3: The the fact that apparently that that Vladimir Putin was
actually brought into power by am I sex right, and
that they we thought, we really did think that, at
least they thought at the time that they had their
boy right and and then Putin slowly turned the tables
on them, and you know, found out that by accident
that oh shit, he's actually a Russian patriot. And then
I brought up Mike, I said, and then and Al
was just talking about that and how he's created a
Russia that is, for the most part somewhat of a
bulwark on its own. You have Xijiping in China, for
better or for worse, was brought to power by the
Chinese oligarchs in order to stop the Thebogian takeover of
China through the oligar class there in the banking system.
And he did the same thing, and they both won
and they both survived. Now now we have Trump, and
we're all fixated on Trump in the United States, and
what Trump is attempting to do is to finally break
the five hundred year rule of these fucking people going
back to the Venetian banks and all the rest of it.
Alex brought up a really interesting description of the Catholic
Church and the Vatican as the ghost of the old
Roman Empire. And somebody he was quoting a book that
I had never heard of, and somebody I hadn't heard
of it before, but I thought it was a really
interesting concept. Again, these are like fresh nascent ideas in
my head. I'm not like saying I buy all this,
but it's just one version of history, right. But I
when I got done, when he got done with all
of that, I said, well, Alex, you know, it's really
interesting Trump is attempting to take all of this on.
He wouldn't be able to do so if Putin wasn't
in Russia and Jesi Ping wasn't in China. It's not
that where the three of them are allies.
Speaker 2: They're not.
Speaker 3: Theopolitics they have overlap and they've been diagram of interests
and their enemy is the age old colonialists of Europe.
As I've been saying for five years, and I said,
was I intuited my way through a lot of this
just by looking at the game board and like laying
it out and going okay, okay, these things make sense.
I didn't really have good historical context. In the last
few weeks, I've been able to talk to different people,
primarily in Berlin game and I've had many a discussion
now with Dexter White on these subjects, and we've filled
in some of the other history and he and I
discussed this stuff and it's become really obvious that that is.
Speaker 2: The scenario, that is the issue.
Speaker 3: But Trump is only able to take on this what
is not only an nowladacious but ambitious plan strategy, multi
pronk strategy to attack these people on every front and
to win.
Speaker 2: And he's not the only one doing it. He's just
a figurehead.
Speaker 3: The American banks are behind him, the American military military
not military industrial complex, the American military patriots are some
American industrialist ones that are left. And then of course
the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese to a lesser extent,
to some extent, and they all get it, and they're
like in order for us. And now he's got the
Arab Gulf States to sign on his trip to the air,
to Saudi Arabia, in to the in to the Middle East,
where he noticed he didn't stop in Israel. Notice notice
that he went to Saudi Arabia, was treated like a king,
went to the UAE, went to this place, went to
the Katar and all these places, and got them all
the sign on to becoming partners with the United States
to come up with a plan to figure out how
to untie the Guardian Knot of the Middle East.
Speaker 2: How do you untie the Guardian out of the Middle East?
How do you cleave it? You get rid of here,
you get rid of the.
Speaker 3: Old French influence, you get rid of the old British influence,
and you leave the place. And you leave everybody there
who's got the skin in the game for that reason,
to come up with.
Speaker 2: A plan that they can all live with. Figure it out,
been barred from doing for years.
Speaker 1: Figure it out, get all this, all this outside influence,
and now you've got to figure it.
Speaker 2: Out, right.
Speaker 3: But Trump wouldn't be able to do any of that
if he didn't have if we weren't at that moment
where everybody felt they were strong enough to do so.
Is Russia strong enough on its own?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: Is China strong enough on its own? No, it's the
United States strong enough.
Speaker 2: On its own. No.
Speaker 3: Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States strong enough on their own.
Hell no, put them all together. It's a different world.
So it's like we've called in Nexus and four of
the five players in the game have all gotten together
and make an alliance against the fifth guy. Yep, we
want to win and well and by the way, we'll
take the shared four player victory. Yeah, it's Oh, that's
a shitty way to win.
Speaker 2: So what we're winning and we're moving on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the people who concentrate a lot on Israel, and
I concentrate a lot on Israel too, really don't realize
that if you break the power, especially the financial power
of Europe, Israel is in real trouble. And I do
they survive?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Well, here's the here's the fun. Here's the thing
I've come to the conclusion of in the last I
don't know. I came to this conclusion a few months ago, honestly,
But which is that. I think Trump wants to save Israel,
but I don't think he has any desire to save
the Zionists.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well it definitely not look cude.
Speaker 3: Yeah, definitely not Yahoo and the and the exactly. And
I think that's the careful game he's playing right now.
And in order for him to do.
Speaker 2: That, what is he doing.
Speaker 3: He's doing that at the same time that he's trying
to remake the way we do our finances, the way
we tax our people, the way we right way we
generate revenue, the.
Speaker 2: Way we do all of these things.
Speaker 3: So, of course, and then you and then you have
the old dead enders the old silent Irrigen dead enders
and the old boomer cons right, who are fighting him
on this because they're all either in the town for
that version of the world, right, the Lindsay Grahams. I
don't even think Lindsay Graham is actually in the thank
for anything other than please don't out the fact that
I fuck little boys, right. I think that's a whole
I think that's Lindsay Graham in a nutshell. But there
are others who are more ideologically in you know, you know,
the Mike Pompeo's and the Mike pencils, and that whole
dispensation was credit.
Speaker 2: I think those were there.
Speaker 3: You've got all of these people that you have to
try and schmooze over the line while keeping the American
people on on Trump's side, keep them on side, to
then put the pressure on them to say, no, you're
just going to have to go along with this new plan.
And oh, by the way, the primaries are looming, how
are you going to get.
Speaker 2: Out of this?
Speaker 3: So Davas is trying to protect their quizzlings in the
Congress by using this bill in order to try and
stop and derail Trump. Do you see what I'm laying
out here. Do you see how this is playing. You've
got to stop Trump getting the win legislatively so that
he no longer needs Congress or anything until the midterms,
until really until July fourth next year, so that he
can then run the agencies and have them go through
line by line, cutting shit left and right. Under recision,
We'll codify the DOGE, will codify DOGE and the cuts
and everything else to discretionary spending and free up the
resources to go after the trader's judiciary, which they've already
started the process on. Pam Bondi is saying, we're no
longer taking to a bar association which stands for the
British Attorney Attorney Registration, it's the British Accreditation of Society,
whatever the hell the bar stands for. But the b
and bar is British. They control our fucking judges to
these goddamn people, like they control everything about how we
make laws and we rule ourselves through the long marks
of the institutions and creating this mess that we're trying
to domestically work through. So solely, but surely you'll note
and even I almost fell for this stuff with the
Supreme Court and the whole Amy Cony Barrett hates Trump
and all this stuff. For the most part, the Supreme
Court is giving Trump everything that he wants because there's
no way for the Supreme Court to really stop him
under Article two of the Constitution. We have members of
the Supreme Court, so dom my R. Brown Jackson and others,
who are all trying to turn the Supreme Court into
the French administrative Court to run the United States.
Speaker 2: It's what they're doing.
Speaker 3: Like brown Jackson's statements the other day, which I've been
banging my shoe on the table I kruse Chef about
was really obvious. She said, wouldn't it be better like
it's talking about you know this, uh, you know, the
the the opposition to Trump trying to deport these people
and define now define where the legislative executive power is.
Wouldn't it be better if we have these things, these
these challenges so that we can fast track them the
Supreme Court, and the Supreme courtgan rule as to whether
or not the president has those powers or not. I'm like,
excuse me, you failed basic reading comprehension. You're the Article
three judiciary, he's the Article two executive. He's exercising Article
two powers that you have no jurisdiction over. It's a
complete reversal of the separation of powers. That one statement alone.
She should be impeached immediately, immediately, because she doesn't understand
basic jurisprudence in the United States, and she's smart enough
and clever enough to try and couch in very reasonable terms.
She all but called for an insurrection, a lawyer's insurrection
against the sitting president, to flood the courts with a
bunch of bullshit where we have to go through every
goddamn potential deportation and decide, well, this one's legal, but
this one's not because of this, you know, this talmudic
interpretation of this fucking arcane law. No, that's French administrative law.
And the last I met last if realized we're not French.
We were governed under English common law, not French administrative law.
If you don't know the difference, you're a bad American.
Speaker 2: Shut fuck up.
Speaker 3: I don't live in Louisiana. I would never live in Louisiana.
Why they're ruled by French administrative law plays the ship haul.
Speaker 2: But they're free to live that way.
Speaker 3: No offense to the people from Louisiana. You want to
live like that, that's your problem. I'm never living there
because I don't want to be ruled by the fucking French.
We rejected that, and we rejected this concept root and branch.
This is the in Berlin Games argument about English common law,
England and the English tradition of fighting the hereditary rights
of kings and all that shit. And we are the
inheritors of England, not Britain, not the British England fundamentally different.
When you look at the Constitution, it is it is
an amalgam of basically the Magna Carta plus Iroquois algonquin
individual individualism, literal of freaking like you're gonna talk about anarchy.
Speaker 1: Right congressional structure and right.
Speaker 2: Congressial structure and all that stuff.
Speaker 3: They grafted the two of them together, and the alchemy
of those two things gave us probably the best goddamn
foundational document for country in the history of humanity.
Speaker 2: As long as we.
Speaker 3: Go back to the pre nineteen thirteen version where we
have the states selecting the senators. This is a brilliant system,
and we can go back to it, and we should
honor it. Then we need to get the Federal Reserve,
and we need to reign in the Federal Reserve, no argument.
We need to repeal the Banking Act in nineteen thirty five,
which created the modern FED. We need to repeal Dodd
Frank and all this other bullshit. We need to put
banking regulation back under the Treasury where it belongs. Fed's
doing too many things. That's why it's not any good,
any at anything, because we would be better served with
a federal Reserve that defended part domestically or no that
kept that kept the domestic economy liquefied and lender blast
resort for the domestic economy and the defender of par
to the international economy. Every other aspect of FED policy
needs to go away.
Speaker 1: So when we were talking last year before the election,
we're talking about different like competing elite groups that were
trying to get with Trump. I haven't talked about this publicly,
but I've been thinking about that. Israel is undergoing the
same thing. You have the La Kudniks and all the
hard liners. I mean there's hardliners worse than the La
Kutnicks in there. I mean there are people who want
to think that Yahoo isn't doing enough. Then you have
the basically there's a business class there that just is like,
this isn't good for business. I mean, we can figure that,
let's figure this out, let's become you know, let's let's
commercialize more. And then you have it seems like you
have this class of like real you know, like they
call Tel Aviv the gayest city on the planet. You
have another another group that's like we need to I
think whit Coough is actually either by purposely or not,
I think he's representing the business class and everything that
I see him doing as far as like when he
when he talks about Israel, when he goes to Israel,
when he goes anywhere, it seems like he's definitely way
more interested in the commercial than you know, the hardliners
or the I mean, I think he knows that as
soon as you let to generosy takeover, you're just gonna
it's not good for business. So killing your neighbor is
not good for killing your neighbor and their children is
not good for business. And you know, letting letting the
homos take over is isn't good for business. It almost
seems like he's he's representing the commercial class. There. That's like,
can we get back to you know, making disgusting pharmaceuticals
and everything else that you know, we can send poison people, right?
Speaker 2: What do you think now?
Speaker 3: I think that's correct, and I think that you know,
I think that you know, a lot of I think
too many people spend too much time analyzing the moves
of people who are clearly being sent out by Trump
to be what's the word I'm looking for, distractions? Kellogg
comes to mind.
Speaker 1: Kellogg is a He's a complete He is sent out
there to be, I mean, to be a pawn to
be picked off. And I'm surprised. I'm surprised Russia hasn't.
I'm surprised he's made it out of Russia alive a
couple of times.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I think that I think the Russians
understand that he's there for. He's there to do.
Speaker 3: He's there too, He's there to keep the neo cons
at home on side, hoping that's what he's there for.
He's there to keep the Israelian be on side.
Speaker 2: That's what he's death. He's what he's there for.
Speaker 3: But even he finally came out to that was just
looking at zero Hedgelwer but in an hour a go
there was a thing. Hold on, It's right, Kellogg calls
Russia's NATO concerns fair warns Ukraine a.
Speaker 2: Better show up in Istanbul. Finally the first thing, like
he's even throwing in the towel.
Speaker 1: Now, yeah, so everybody, people are just they're all falling
in line.
Speaker 3: They have to fall in line eventually because they don't
have any leverage trum Trump has played his leverage very
very well because at the end of the day, in
the Terra War, he knows that the American consumer is
the one that everybody wants access to because like it
or not, folks, depending on no matter how much you
want to gaslight be gasolate into believing that America is
on the verge of collapse.
Speaker 1: It's not.
Speaker 2: Do we have problems, yeah, can we fix those problems? Yeah?
Do we have a lot of debt? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Same thing in Ukraine, same thing in Iran and everything else.
Trump doesn't want a war. Nothing's changed four months worth
the negotiations. The war still going on, but there's nothing
he can do about it. What he and Putin are
doing right now is giving each other the option of
walking away from a deal and then leaving the war
to the Europeans. Look, Putin escalates starts a summer military campaign,
which Trump can then publicly decry, knowing full well that
it's going to force the Europeans to respond. But at
the same time, Trump is telling Budin, oh God, damn it,
you can't do this, and this is wrong and this
war is not terrible and this is not our war,
and blah blah blah blah, and the Europeans fall into
the trap of going, yep, and we're gonna escalate and
NATO and you're gonna have to come in, and then
we're gonna go, Yeah, that's nice.
Speaker 2: It's not our wars war.
Speaker 3: They're running the exact same playbook they ran into World
War One world War two.
Speaker 2: It's no different than they've done before.
Speaker 3: And they'll continue to do it up until that moment
where Trump has a thought to make a decision. But
he can't make that decision until and I really do
believe that it's about the Budget reconciliation bill. You get
the Budget Reconciliation Bill passed, and then all of a sudden,
Trump's hands are freed to go, you know what, We're done.
It's it. He can make little moves at the at
the edges, pull some troops home from Syria, you know,
open reopen the embassy, and reopen the embassy there, you know,
negotiate with Iran. I think the Iran deal is mostly done.
I think the Russia, the deal with Russia over.
Speaker 2: This is done. I think it's all finished.
Speaker 3: I think it's just a matter of trying to get
it sold in such a way that we as the
American people, put the pressure on our representatives to say,
this is what we want. And we have told them repeatedly,
this is what we want, and they are refusing to
do what we want. Well, guess what happens now, what
happens next? We turn around and we say, oh, well
that's very nice. You're going to get primary, and you're
going to get a primary. And you're going to get
a primary, and you're going to get a primary.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: So that's what That's how I see the game board,
and Trump is very smartly moving the ball forward incrementally
to get to bring the people across the finish line
that it's time for this for our involvement here to end,
because it doesn't make any sense to us to be
involved in it.
Speaker 2: Anymore.
Speaker 3: You still have too many people. I still believe you
probably have too many people still in the middle who
aren't sure what to do here because they've been told that,
you know, we have to, you know, support Ukraine, you know.
And there's a lot of a lot of dumb people,
I an say dumb, A lot of ignorant people out
there who don't understand what's happening, only you know, what
they can what they're allowed to be told, YadA, YadA, YadA,
and you know. But Trump's approval rating is still strong.
He's still about fifty percent for the first time is
presidency again to presidencies. He's doing fine. And if you
can get the budget Reconciliation bill passed and then we
can really start to to to untie you again. It's
about cleaving these guardian knots, which these guardian knots are
all manufactured. They're actually not very hard to fix, but
they can't be fixed with the right political support. And
so this is why I get really angry with the
oppositionally defiant libertarians who refuse to stop critiquing long enough
and stop having historianic ab reactions and realize this is
the way statecraft works. And if you don't have the
stomach for it, you shut the fuck up. And I
know you got free speech and this and everything else,
but hey, why don't you use that free speech to
actually engage your brain as to and have a little faith.
Speaker 2: But that's a that's that's a tall order.
Speaker 3: Given the people that were dealing we're dealing with and
they've been taught and given positive feedback that this is the.
Speaker 2: Right way of going about all that. Yeah, I'll fill
I'm sorry, Yeah, well we'll figure it out.
Speaker 3: So it's having technical problems, I'll you know, kind of
try and fill space as best like can. But this
is what I think is going on, and that ultimately
what what Trump is attempting, like, what he is attempting
here is very ambitious. And I really do think that
a certain point, you know, a little bit of faith
and a little bit of generosity goes a long way.
And I know this is very difficult for a lot
of people, given the level of anxiety, given how many
times we've been betrayed and how many false profits we've
had and everything else.
Speaker 2: I get it.
Speaker 3: I'm not I'm not unsympathetic to that point of view. Hell,
I had that point of view up until the election.
You know, I even say, you know, start through the
first part of the transition, but once he really started
making attacks on kir Starmer, City of London versus Evander
Satan and all the rest of them, it became very
obvious to me that he has much bigger plans than
what he was communicating early on. And that's where I think.
Speaker 2: We need to be.
Speaker 3: I think we need to give him all the political
support that we can with the best of our analysis.
And I think it's time for everybody to to, you know,
kind of up your game a little bit in terms
of your ability to fix uh, to read the game board,
because this is a very difficult game board to read,
and I get it, but it's still it's necessary, and
I'm seeing a lot of people fail. I'm seeing a
lot of people who I would never expect to have
failed failed to read this board. And that tells me
that one either the board is almost un unreadable, or
you know, it's gotten more complicated or more desperate, or
you know, the stakes are too high for even the
best and most trenching analysts too uh to keep their.
Speaker 2: Heads in it. That's that's my take at this point.
Speaker 3: All right, Well with that, with that said, since Pete
doesn't have any uh it doesn't doesn't seem to have
any audio, and I'm gonna have to like finish off.
So this has been the peak and on so and
I'm Tom Luongo and he's Pete, and Pete's awesome and
it kind of sucks that, you know, I've had to
like carry the last ten minutes of the show.
Speaker 2: But it is what it is, you know it. You know, the.
Speaker 3: Comedy is not good, folks, but it's free. So thanks
for tuning in. We'll catch all another time. Pete, have
a great night, have a great weekend.