Speaker 1: And Hi, how are you welcome to the Big Podcast.
It's the thirteenth day of January. It's too no, yeah, yeah, Tuesday.
I got it right, Tuesday, the thirteenth year of our Lord,
two thousand and twenty six. My name is Tom Sullivan.
So well, busy day we've got. They came out with
our inflation report this morning. I won't bury it. It
was it was okay. There's no big no big shakes
about that. Wall Street kind of yawned about it. Actually,
there's a hearing going on in the Oversight Committee in
the House about Epstein. I told you yesterday. So whatever
happened to that Epstein story? Because of all the other
stuff that's going on, has this been bearing all that
stuff about Epstein? Well, James Comer, the head of the
Oversight Committee, is busy holding hearings, and he had subpoenaed
former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton to appear before the committee. Bill today, Hillary tomorrow,
build in show. So we'll get into that as well.
We've got still a lot of reverberations about the investigation
into Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve. What
a bunch of pushback I mean by party artisan, it's
coming from it's coming from the private sector, from Democrats,
from Republicans, and even Janine Piro, who's the US Attorney
in Washington, d C. Who started the announced the investigation.
She's backpedaling as fast as she can.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: The president's in Detroit today speaking to the Economic Club there,
and he's also going to one of the big forward
plants in Dearborn, still talking about putting a cap on
credit card interest rates. So we've got a lot to
uh to go over today. Let's you want to start
with the with the cap on interest rates. It's never ever,
ever worked before. This is a bad idea. I mean,
I got a lot of pushback that I saw yesterday
on this exact. Well here's when from Steve Wore ste
you know, the economic guy, and he says he put
this on his on his X feed last night. Price
controls on credit cards never in capital words, capital letters,
never work. Nixon and Carter cried it. It was a disaster.
Capping rates at ten percent may sound popular, but it's
risk cutting access to credit for millions of Americans who
rely on it for emergencies. So what banks will do
is that they will cut off credit to people that
are high risk, even medium risk. They are not going
to issue they're going they're going to cancel credit cards.
They're not going to allow people to have a credit
card because it's it's going to cost them a lot
of money and they're not going to take the chance.
So a lot of people will turn that don't have
good credit, will turn to payday lenders. And I don't
know Louis on the corner, but it's it's it's going
to hurt the people who are the most vulnerable. The
rich people won't care. They'll still get their credit card,
no problem there. But once again, you're going after the
people who don't have a voice. Mark Penn, the Democrat poster,
was asked about this in this context. Elizabeth Warren gave
a speech last night where she was just ripping President Trump.
As you would imagine, after her speech, President Trump called
her out of the blue. She was very surprised, and
she said, I told him exactly what I just said
in the speech about all the things that he's doing wrong.
She wants to get the credit cards to more people.
She wants to help the lowest income, the most vulnerable,
and she also hates big banks. So this is what
Mark Penn said about the chance of getting credit card
interest rates capped.
Speaker 2: Somewhat surprised that he picked up the phone, but you know,
when you're a Republican and you want to get your
numbers higher, you need some Democrats, and when you're a Democrat,
you need some Republicans. So he's got a proposal to
maybe cap credit card interest rates, and it is possible
that he and Warren would come to an agreement on
this proposal and get it into laws. So I think
from that perspective that call made a lot of sense,
because if the president gets the credit card interest rate
cap under his watch, that's a pretty good accomplishment with
a lot of Democrats.
Speaker 1: Well, sadly, I agree with with Mark Penn because it
would be popular and Donald Trump is a populist, and
so always Elizabeth Warren. But no, they don't come from
the same place. But it would be something that people
would If you ask the person on the street, are
you for credit card interest rates to being capped at
ten percent? They're going to yes, of course. Because I
don't like the big banks. The big banks are mean
to me and they charged me a lot of fees
so yes, So maybe there will be a lot of
members of Congress that will actually go for this. Can
you imagine Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren working together on
getting a ten percent cap on credit card interest rates?
If you don't have sterling credit, say bye bye to
your credit card. I'll tell you that. And speaking of
the President and financial matters, so the President was in
Detroit today. He went to a Ford factory in Dearborn, Michigan.
And what he said there was all very optimistic. And
he's a great politician, and so he was handshaking all
the guys and gals that worked at this Ford factory.
I wanted to bring up a story about and this
is from their financial statements. They have lost a fortune
on evs. They are taking a massive nineteen and a
half billion dollar write off due to the electric vehicle
investments because they're canceling future EV models. They're scaling back production,
they're ending their f one point fifty lightning production to
refocus on profitable hybrids and gas vehicles. It is a
significant shift due to the weaker than expected EV demand
and the high costs. So this is a huge rite off.
General voters took a similar one forid and general voters
are getting out of the ev business. So President Trump
was there and he walked around the plant and talked
to everybody who shook hands. But he also gave a
speech later at the Detroit Economic Club. Kevin o'larry mister wonderful,
listened to the speech and was asked his reaction to it.
Speaker 3: Optimism, as the administration should be. But let's drig dig
down a little bit. Two point seven percent is not
two you said it yourself. The mandates two percent, So
that's as a percentage, it's significantly above where we have
to get to. So I'm not as optimistic that job
owning the FED is going to get rates reduced anytime soon,
because I mean they, I mean, it is an unusual
situation obviously, but I don't think you can count on
rate cuts While Powell's there, He's obviously under some pressure.
But at the same time, his mandate is to guide
the ship, and the ship means get inflation to two percent.
This tariff situation is getting really interesting. I think what's
going to happen, And I'm certainly talking to a lot
of businesses that have boring the input increases, I mean
tariffs themselves on commodities. Are goods that you don't create
yourself is inflationary, There's no way around it. So potash,
potash box site, pineapples, bananas, softwood, lumber, that stuff is
not not enough if it's made in the United States.
So when you tariff it, you make your prices go up,
and that's what's happened. So I think what the misfre
administration has to do there waiting for the Supreme Court
is put a moratorium on anything that we don't make
get rid of those tariffs so they can bring down
those increased costs on that affordable affordability issue. Secondly, here's
how the Supreme Court's going to come down. The majority
of these tariffs will be legal, in my opinion. The
ones that aren't going to hold are the ones that
we're put on with emergency measures around things like fentanyl
on Canada and Mexico. So this is a treasury issue.
So let's say they brought in year round numbers two
hundred billion dollars in tariffs in the life past eleven months.
Maybe fifty billion of that's going back to the people
that paid it. It's not the end of the free world.
It's going to be a compromise situation. I don't think
there's any way the administration can keep that money. They
may be able to modify the policy so that going
forward they can continue to tariff and then keep that,
but I think that's what the Supreme Court is going
to do. This is going to be a boon for
accountants everywhere to try and figure out how do I
file to get this money back. I can't imagine that
nightmare because it's not IRS, it's Treasury. We'll wait and
see how that comes down. But I really think at
the end of the day, where we're going on tariffs,
and most of the market believes this is we will
get eventually with all countries to a reciprocal tariff so
that you can't weaponize the tool and say, look, we're
going to slam China with one hundred percent again, or
we're going to slam these guys that trade with a
certain Middle East country with tariffs. While they do that,
that was not trade policy was used for. And I
think that's what's going to happen in Supreme Court. They're
going to try and fine tune that. I think it's
making some in Congress a little uncomfortable the way this
task sus been being used.
Speaker 1: I could not agree more with Kevin O'Leary about the
fact that I think that's exactly what the Supreme Court
is going to say. Mister President, you're using teriffs to
exact behavior out of other countries that you can't do
but for reciprocal tariffs. If Japan charges US five percent
tariff for pencils, we can charge them five percent for
their products. That sort of thing. I think that is
where it's going to go. But Kevin mentioned the inflation rate.
The Consumer Price Index came out this morning and it
was up three tens of a percent, which when you
do year over year two point seven percent inflation rate
over the last year over year, the core rate was
two point six, but the overall headline rate two point seven.
That's what he was talking about. It's not two. That's
where the Fed wants it to get to, and two
point seven is not to. It sounds close, but it's
not that close. And when you look at the list
of what was inflationary in the month of December, housing,
shelter rent, everything to do with putting the roof over
your head, and food. Food had the biggest monthly gain
in three years. Mostly that was driven by beef, and
most of the beef that we're talking about comes from
Brazil because we are not producing enough beef with a
shortage of cattle in this country. Beef up sixteen percent.
Coffee also from Brazil up twenty percent. Those that coffee,
we don't we don't make coffee in this country. Wow,
we don't. Yeah, coco bean, we don't do that. So
why we have a tariff on that? All it's doing
is just driving up the cost of various things. Greg
Ipp from the Wall Street Journal was asked his reaction
to not only the inflation rate, but also this surprise
attack on Jerome Pal Here's Greg Yip.
Speaker 4: So, I mean, if the point you're making is that
like even modest rates of inflation still like out of
the price level. No, you're absolutely right. But this is
a good number for the FED. It's a good number
for the country that inflation is still relatively moderate, the
core inflation rate coming in a little bit lower than expected.
I don't think it moves the Fed in the direction
of cutting again. But should we get further weakness in
the labor market, this certainly means that the inflation numbers
are not giving them a strong reason to hold back.
Speaker 1: But what about the Fed? Loud people are on Wall
Street in the financial market are extremely concerned and I
use that word extremely on purpose, extremely worried about the
independence of the Federal Reserve. Greg Yep also is concerned.
Speaker 4: Yes, it is at risk, and I think people are
right to be worried. I mean, look on the positive side.
The blowback to the alleged investigation of Chair Powell has
been so severe that a lot of the people responsible
for it are trying to distance themselves from it. The
President claims he didn't know about it, you know. The
US attorney in charge of the probe claims to say, hey,
we didn't even use the word indictment. So and I
think that's a reflection that there's still a strong muscle
memory in the body politic and among thoughtful policy leaders
that you should not go this distance. But Joe, I
guess what I would fall back on is that this
is not the last first and it's not the last
attempt by Trump to corral the independence of the FED.
We've seen him repeatedly take runs at the FED, threatening
the Firechair Powell, trying to fire Governor Lisa Cook putting
his own White House advisor on the Board of Governors,
and he has also, through this process of interviewing new
candidates to succeed out, made it clear what his priority is,
You must lower interest rates, and based on their public comments,
both Kevin Hassett and Kevin worsh the leading candidates, have
said that is what they will do. So I would
say that at least twenty to four to forty eight
hours into this latest brew haha, it's not perhaps the
death blow that some of us worried about, but I
think that this is a president who does not give
up when there's something that he wants, and I would
expect him to come back and try this again in
some other way.
Speaker 1: So it wasn't just here in the US. The international
central bankers of all the various countries around the world
put together a joint statement and it reads, the independence
of central banks is a cornerstone of price, financial and
economic stability in the interest of the citizens that we serve.
It is there for critical to preserve the independence with
full respect for the rule of law and democratic accountability.
Then Jamie Diamond, the head of Chase Bank, the biggest bank,
and he says on fat independence is first, I just
want to say that I don't agree with everything that
the FED has done. I do have enormous respect for
j Powell, the man. Two. Anything everyone we know believes
and FED independence and you all repeat it all at
the same time as most people do, so do we.
And anything chips away at that is probably not a
great idea, and in my view, it will have the
reverse consequences, will raise inflation expectations and probably increase rates
over time. So Jamie Diamonds saying you're going to shoot
yourself in the foot on this business of going after
Jay Powell. So the pushback is quite wide, and again
it is bipartisan. Back to regib We had.
Speaker 4: A couple of Republican senators come out against that, but look,
one of them, Tom Tillis, is already an now he's
retiring because he has gone up against the president once
too often and he could see the writing on the wall.
The other was Lisa Murkowski, who's obviously always on an
independent street. The majority of Republican senators haven't really sent anything.
Speaker 1: Jim Kramer and David Faber over at CNBC when they
started their Morning Conversation this morning, this was topic a.
Speaker 5: Look, foods too high. A lot of that is tariffs,
A lot of that is safe. For instance, when you
deal with Brazil, Brazil would be a way to get
cattle down. Cattle's principal source of food inflation. I'm surprised
the President hasn't addressed it yet. But when you're a
political enemy, you're as Brazil's regarded now are, you're not
going to get lower tarifs. And I think that what
the President's going about incorrectly. And I know now the
president feels like a little bit of a free fire
zone after what he if A Justice did with Palell
is you're just.
Speaker 6: Going to make a deal.
Speaker 1: Let's get beef down.
Speaker 5: That is a principal source, a staple, and it's way
too high, and it's up to the president.
Speaker 1: Dealer. Where's your head right now? On do oj and Powell?
Speaker 5: Well, look, I mean everyone keeps talking about the attack
on the Federal Reserve and independence.
Speaker 1: That's because we're business network.
Speaker 5: That the fact that the Justice Department is being revealed
as a point of the president, even to the point
where the President doesn't even know what's a pawn, That's
what's the real tack is on.
Speaker 1: I think the Just You don't want the Just Department
to be a farce or a joke.
Speaker 5: It tends to be a really important arm of government,
but right now it just seems like a kind of
a hack.
Speaker 1: Group of people.
Speaker 5: You know, when I got out of law school, the
number one job that you get was, before you go
to any of these firms like Paul Weiss or a
Kravat or Sullivan, you went to the Justice Department. I
don't think anyone would be thinking about going to the
Just Department now because you just have to do the
bidding of someone else to go after Palell to make
it so that he could be in jail.
Speaker 1: It's farcical.
Speaker 5: I think that the Just Apartment is the one the
agency that is really being hammered, not the FED.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the water cooler talking DC apparently is all
about how long Pam Bondy is going to stay as
Attorney General, the rumor being that the President's not tickled
with her. We'll see, let's see. How about how about
the Clintons. We haven't talked about the Clintons in a
long time. Well, they're back in the news because I
told you Comber James Comer, the head of the Oversight Committee,
has been looking at epstein documents and wanting to interview people,
and he gave a subpoena to Bill Clinton and won
to Hillary Clinton. Bill was suppoth to show up today.
He did not, and Comber went to the microphones to say,
what's going on.
Speaker 7: Voted by the entire committee in a unanimous vote of
the House Overside Committee to subpoena former President Clinton and
former Secretary State Hillary Clinton. Now Hillary Clinton supposed to
show up tomorrow. We'll see what happens there. But with
respect to the former president, he did not show up today.
One reason I think most Americans want President Clinton to
answer some questions.
Speaker 6: Who is because he visited the White House. Jeffrey Epstein
visited the White House seventeen times while Bill Clinton's president.
I've been in Congress nine years. I think I've been
to the White House nine times to nine years. Epstein
was in the White House, double the amount of time
that I was under one president. And then we know
that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's playing somewhere around twenty
seven times after the presidency. So no one's accusing Bill
Clinton of any wrongdoing. We just have questions and that's
why the Democrats voted along with Republicans to subpoena Bill Clinton.
Not a single Democrat showed up today, Not a single Democrat,
the ones that have press conferences on the cap steps
and talk about how they're trying to get justice for
the victims and all that, it just seems like they
only care about questioning Republicans. And we've had We've had
a former Cabinet Secretary of Costa in for a grilling,
we had Bill Barr, former Attorney General, in for a grilling.
But for whatever reason, President Clinton didn't show up, and
the Democrats on the committee don't seem to have a problem.
This is the amount of preparation that went into this
deposition today. These were the questions that we were prepared
to ask. We've communicated with President Clinton's legal team for
months now, given them opportunity after opportunity to come in
to give us a day, and they continue to delay, delay, delay,
to the point where we had no idea whether they're
going to show up today or not. I think it's
very disappointing as a result of Bill Clinton not showing
up for his lawful subpoena, which again was voted on
it unanimously by the Committee in a bob partisan matter.
We will move next week in the House Overside Committee
mark up to hold former President Clinton in cond tip
to Cougress.
Speaker 1: So I don't know, I see them do a lot
of subpoenas, and they never seem to actually lead to anything,
even though even if you or I told Congress, who
are not going to show up, oh no, they would
come get you. Elliott Williams, former federal prosecutor, he kind
of shrugged about this as well.
Speaker 8: This is common saber rattling in Congress over the issuance
of subpoenas. Now, to be clear, before anyone has ever
held in contempt of Congress, there's usually an extended period
of back and forth negotiation between the parties. Like it's
rare to go from zero to sixty of subpoena issued.
Recipient of subpoena says, well, you know, I'm not going
to come into testify and immediately that they're slapped with
a contempt proceeding. Usually what would happen is there would
be some back and forth over okay, perhaps perhaps your
appearance won't be public, perhaps it won't be transcribed, perhaps
it'll be just a conversation with the chair or whatever else.
And so you know, there's obviously huge political a huge
political umbrella hanging over this, and I think that's what's
driving some of this. But we haven't seen the end
of it. There will be some negotiation between the parties
because it is still a subpoena from Congress.
Speaker 1: So, in other words, the Epstein story hasn't completely died.
There's still theoretically working on it out there. Probably the
real story today that we don't know what the answer
is going to be. But the heated rhetoric between the
United States and Iran is getting hotter by the moment.
Now we know that the people of Iran are rising
up against their leaders, the Ayatola, but the Ayatola is
also apparently there are lots and lots and lots of
body baggs from the limited information we can get out
because they've cut off the internet. There. It's getting to
the point where it appears like something is going to happen.
Brett McGirk, former National Security Council guy, was asked all
about what he thinks is going to take place.
Speaker 9: Well, he drew a red line last week, and Iran
appears have made the choice to massacre his own people,
so they kind of crossed that line, and the President
today has doubled down on that. I think what they're
doing is trying to put together a holistic policy I
think goes down some measures. I expect to see Iran
is still exporting almost two million barrels a day despite
a US policy to get those down to zero. So
I think you'll have increased enforcement against sanctions trying to
get around this black this communications blackout that the regime
has put on its own people. I was in the
White House during the Women Like Freedom protests in twenty
twenty two. We work with Starlink other tech companies. The
technology is advanced now, so there's direct to sell technology
that might be available for RON. I think you want
to try to do that so allow people to communicate.
That's critical. You want to work with allies, particularly the Europeans,
none of whom have designated the Revolutionary Guards core kind
of the core, the repressive apparatus of the regime as
a terrorist group. I think that all goes out saying
big question is military force and whether or not the
president is going to order strikes here. I think the
indications based on the statement today is that is where
this is heading. That is much more complicated than what
we saw in June. The June operation was against the
nuclear facilities, rehearsed operation over years across administrations. This would
be much more open ended, much more dynamic, And I
have to say the option for a limited strike I
don't think is really there because you can't do a
small strike inside Roun. You have to go after the
missiles and what Iran could do to retaliate. So potentially
we're looking at quite a significant military operation triggered by
a on making this decision again to massacre its own people.
The numbers that are coming out, we can't confirm them,
but they continue to grow and they seem to be
quite large. So I think probably within the White House,
within the intelligence community, they know more than we know
about what is really going on. But it looks pretty grim.
Speaker 1: It does look grim, and maybe the Ayatola and the
top people of the government of Iran will flee the country.
But where does it go from here and is there
anything that can be offered that will bring this to
a halt before we actually have a war? No?
Speaker 9: No, I thought the dangle of talks, which came out yesterday.
The present mentioned yesterday a couple days ago. It's almost absurd.
I got negotiated with Iran.
Speaker 1: Iran.
Speaker 9: Iran will talk to the United States about two issues,
hostages and it's nuclear program.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 9: And they're trying to dangle talks to talk about the
nuclear program, which of course we struck last summer. There's
really no unless Iran is willing to talk about it's
support for terrorism, is oppression of its own people, the
kind of the core of what it is as a regime.
There's really nothing right now to discuss, and I thought
the President took that off the table today.
Speaker 1: So again I.
Speaker 9: Was looking at this yesterday kind of weighing fifty to
fifty whether the President might order a military force. It
appears that that is now where this is heading. I
just have to say that is going to open up
a lot of unknowns. Unlike Venezuela and unlike the June War.
It's hard to know exactly what the objective here would be.
But the president's statement today is telling the Iranan people
stay in the streets, take over your institutions. Help is coming.
Very hard to walk back from that, So I suspect
now we're gearing up for that, and I have to
say I just I dealt with the crisis from October seventh,
twenty twenty three. Throughout, Iran has made choices from the
first days of that crisis. It chose to join in
with Hamas, it chose to start attacking us, It killed Americans,
it joined the Mayhem, and this is all blowback from
those decisions. And then it's made the decision here this
week to massacre its own people. You know, it speaks
to who what this regime is. And while we all
want to see it changed, however, changing a regime is
extremely difficult. And even if the Supreme Leader was no
longer around, who is actually going to fill the vacuum.
It could be the Revolutionary Guard's corps and the people
with all the guns. So this has the waste to go.
We need to be on support. We on the side
of the Iranian people in the streets. Every single Iranian
you see in the streets is risking their life. Their
friends are being shot and they're still in the streets.
Is extraordinary, it's inspiring. But you know, this situation around
right now is extremely serious, very grim. It's a huge country.
We might know what's going on Tehran, it's hard to
know what's going on in all the other cities and
smaller towns and villages. So look, I think the president
decision to make he may have already made it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I suspect if you follow the President and his
decision making, he doesn't make it a big announcement. He
has made all kinds of warnings. He has told them
to keep protesting. Help is on the way, and like
McGirk said, that's very hard to walk back. So I'm
guessing something will happen, but the President is not going
to announce it to the media, that's for sure. One
more story for today, that is the Supreme Court spent
this morning hearing the case of two students that are
trans students, one West Virginia, one in Idaho. And this
is about the fact that they are not allowed to
play on the girls' sports teams. So it's more than
about sports, but that's the tool that's being used to
get this before the Supreme Austin Newtson is the Attorney
general for the state of Montana. Uh No, he doesn't
have a he's not part of this case, but he
is advising Idaho in West Virginia on what they could
be doing as they went before the Supreme Court this morning.
Speaker 6: Well, what stood out to me.
Speaker 10: I mean, obviously we're seeing some tough questions from from
Justice so sodo may r from from some of the
more liberal members of the court. Uh, not surprising. I
think we're seeing some good questions from from some of
the other members as well. But I mean, these these
are the kind of cases that you're going to get
tough questions like that. But we've got a couple of
really good solicitors in there who are well prepared and
I think are making good arguments. Well, I mean, I
think that's anitie that likes to get thrown at us.
But actually we were the first in the country to
have an NC double a athlete actually take a position
from a female athlete, but a transgender that came into
our one of our university systems. So this does happen.
It's a it's not something that's just remote. We have
seen this numerous times in Montana. But look big picture,
we've got over fifteen hundred competitions that have been taken
away from girls, over eight hundred and fifty medals that
have been taken away from women and females. So this
isn't something that's just remote that doesn't happen. We know
this happens. We've got documented cases of it in Montana
and Idaho and West Virginia and all the states.
Speaker 1: The state of Idaho is one of the parties in
this case. Of Attorney General for the State of Idaho
is Raoul Labrador, and he had this to say.
Speaker 11: You know, I think if anybody ten years ago would
have said that we would be before the US Supreme
Court today argue whether a male who identifies as a
female should have a right to participate in women's sports,
I think most people would think that we were crazy.
I think all of a sudden, people started realizing that
it did make sense when you saw these athletes who
were clearly males who were competing and dominating in sports.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is where we are. I mean, he was
even somewhat exasperated by the fact that can you believe
we're before the Supreme Court arguing about what is a
boy and what is a girl? And that is what
So they heard the case today. We'll get a decision
from them, but they're willing to take this on. We'll
get a decision by sometime may or June of this year.
Kamilla Taylor. She is a lawyer for LAMBDA, which represents
the transgender students. Well, let's be clear about what this
law did.
Speaker 12: The legislature in West Virginia passed a law that banned
transgender girls from participating in school sports. And the state
acknowledges that there is only one kid in all of
West Virginia to whom this law applies, and that's Becky
Pepper Jackson, a bubbly fifteen year old who is a
girl like any other girl. She's been understood to be
a girl from the time that we met her for sure,
which was when she was age eleven. She is now fifteen.
She wants to participate on track and cross country with
her friends. She wants to benefit from all of the
things that every other kid in school benefits from when
they participate in school sports. So the matter of fairness
is why the state of West Virginia would pass a
law to address a problem that simply did not exist.
Speaker 1: Oh, the problem definitely exists. She's trying to pretend it
doesn't exist. So Supreme Court, like I said, they'll give
us a decision come may or June of this year,
Wall Street Today decided to take the records that were
set yesterday and on record them today. The dow fell
three hundred ninety eight, the dow at forty nine thousand
and one ninety one, SMB down thirteen Nazdak down twenty four,
gold was down eighteen dollars to forty five ninety six,
and the price of oil continuing to go higher, up
a buck and a half. It's at sixty one dollars
ours now for one barrel of oil. That's it for today.
Thank you for coming by. We will be back again tomorrow.
Hope you are as well. We'll see you then