Speaker 1: Well, hello, Hi, how are you welcome to the Big
Podcast on this Friday. Today is the sixteenth day of January,
year of our Ward, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: My name is Tom Sullivan. So here we go. Three
day weekend for some people, Martin Luther King Junior Day
is on Monday, markets are closed and so forth. So
I've always thought it doesn't feel like a holiday because
it's not as well recognized by businesses. Most businesses are
going to be open. But at so is there really
a three day weekend or not?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: For some of you, yes, but.
Speaker 3: A lot of you know.
Speaker 2: So we've we've got a lot of the usual suspects today.
We've got Iran and Minneapolis and Venezuela and all of
these international stories. And it's interesting to see there's a
lot of pulling out that if you look at the headlines.
The polling basically is a significant majority fifty eight percent
in one poll that I saw say that the first
year of President Trump's term in office in his second
term has been a failure. But when you when you
just you don't even need to dig deep. All you
got to do. But that's the headline that people are
talking about and the reason why they're upset is because
of the fact that he's not spending enough time on
affordability and the economy and on them and domestic issues
instead of Venezuela and Iran and everywhere else. But when
when you peel back just one slice of the onion,
you find out that Democrats are only seven percent think
that Donald Trump has done done a good job, no surprise.
Ninety three percent that thumbs down. Now, he's done a
horrible job. His first year is a failure. Okay, so
go to the Republicans. Eighty nine percent of Republicans think
that his first his first year in the second term,
has been a success. Eleven percent say no, he's been
a failure. So it really is just the opposite between.
It just shows we're still a very divided country where
you get eighty nine percent of Republicans think he's done
a good job and ninety three percent of Democrats think
he hasn't. That I guess you get into is this
the crowd that's going to decide things when it comes
to the ballot box, and that is the independence and
there he's lacking. One third say he's done a lot
a good job, two thirds think he has failed. So
it just goes to the focus needs to be on
the independence. And I do think that you can chew
gum and walk at the same time. And I think
that he's going they're going to try to get him
to do that. Although he gave that economic speech in
Detroit a couple of days ago, and it was interesting
because he basically wound up going off on He was
supposed to stick with the economy, but instead he he
went off on Joe Biden, he went off on transgender athletes,
he went off on Venezuela. He talked about a lot
of things that the board factory. That was supposed to
be a folks on the economy. But that's him. He's
That's who Donald Trump is. He doesn't uh, he doesn't
follow the script. Let me just I guess that's the
best way to put it. We've got some we've got
some updates on the FED. Who is going to be
the next FED chief? And this gets into you know,
President Trump likes people that he sees on television. I
mean that's where he got, uh, Pete Hegg said, that's
where he got a bunch of people that are that
are well. Mark Rubil came from the Senate, obviously, but
there's a lot of people that he has that are
former television people, and he loves the fact that I
think Kevin has It does a great job on television.
And he also kind of smiles a lot while he's
talking about the economy and people like Kevin has It.
And guess who else likes Kevin has It. That's Donald Trump.
And he wants to keep Kevin Hasset, he said today
right where he is, basically being a spokesman for things
that the President is doing. Here's the President.
Speaker 4: I see Kevin's in the onions and I just want
to thank you. You were fantastic on television today. I
actually want to keep you where you are. If you
want to know the truth, Kevin Hassett is so good.
I'm saying, wait a minute, if I move him these
head guys, certainly the one we have, no, they don't
talk much, I would lose you.
Speaker 3: It's a serious concern to me.
Speaker 2: It is a serious concern to him because Hassett does
a good job of spending things the way the White
House likes to see them spun. So that then changes
things about who then is in the lead, because it
was a tie essentially between the two Kevins, Kevin Hassett
and Kevin Walsh. And now today the prediction markets have
said fifty nine percent chance that Kevin Walsh is going
to be the new FED chief and only fifteen percent
that Kevin Hassett will be. He didn't say he wasn't
going to appoint him to the Fed. He said I'd
hate to lose you. And you can read into that
whatever you want. But yeah, so the prediction markets are
now going for Kevin Walsh. The other thing, the markets
kind of like it too, And I'll tell you why.
They looked at Kevin Hassett. They like him too. But
the only thing is they want an independent FED chief
and Kevin Hasset would be perceived to be not so
independent but would be basically doing the President's bidding. And
so Walsh is a much more independent guy. So, as
the President said, he's going to make the announcement before
the end of this month. So we'll see what goes
on there. You want it, well, let's jump into Greenland
on our international tour here today. Speaking of Poles, got
a lot of polls today. Only seventeen percent of people
are in favor of US taking over Greenland only seventeen percent.
And then the second question that was asked was how
about are you in favor of using the military to
take over Greenland? And it's even lower. Only four percent
are in favor of using the US military to take
over Greenland. There's no question Greenland is strategically important where
they sit. But I mean, if we're going to do Greenland,
why don't we take over Sweden and Norway? They're also
up in that area. It makes no sense, doesn't to me.
It makes no sense, especially since we have an agreement
with Greenland, and Greenland are saying, come on up, build
as many military bases as you want, bring in more people.
In fact, it would be we would love the investment.
Congressman Don Bacon, who's a retired Air Force general, he's
a Republican. This is his thought. We have a base
there right now. It's a very important base. We used
to have roughly I think fourteen bases at the height
of our presidence in Greenland. What we should be doing
is sitting down with the Danish leadership in Greenland leadership
and saying, what do we really need to have for
security in the Arctic. Do we need to have more
presidence of US Navy. Do we need to have an
air Force base. This is a discussion we should be having.
Denmark would be very supportive of this. So with the
the citizens of Greenland, they would love to have more
presidents there, they would love to have more US investment
and mining. So to threaten Greenland our ally, to achieve
something that you could do in a frontly negotiation, a
friendly handshake, it's really absurd. And the Monroe doctrine is
to keep out other countries in the western hemisphere. Greenland
is in the western northern hemisphere and they're our ally,
and so it's really strange, absurd talking by the way,
twenty years ago, we would even be madder, you know,
in fact, to think of Ronald Reagan. But I had
this discussion, it would have been impossible. Ronald Reagan honored
and valued our alliances and they knew Russia was the
threat and not our alliances. So this is this is
not traditional Republican viewpoint, frankly, going back to its World
War Two and it's more like eighteen nineties William McKinley
kind of thinking, or was it sort of the minds
that we had in the nineteen thirties before World War Two.
We've learned from World War Two and after with the
Cold War, that US is the leader of the free world.
We should do it with humility, but also that we
have to have close friends and alliances. Administration seems to
forget those lessons learned, and its early comes out clear
when we're talking about this Greenland issue. Yeah, so we'll
see what goes on there. I again heavy majority. I
don't want us to take over Greenland, especially not use
the military. But what about Venezuela. Venezuela Maria Corina Machado
has been in DC a couple yesterday and today she
went to the White House and guessed what she brought
with her. Yes, she brought with her the Nobel Prize
medallion and it was boy, somebody did a nice job
of framing it. They've put it on a matt and
put a frame around it, and the frame is very gold,
so it will fit in perfectly wherever Donald Trump wants
toy hang it because he loves gold things on the wall.
There's a little bit of what Murraa Karina Mashada was
talking about earlier today.
Speaker 5: He deserves it and it was a very emotional moment,
I decided to present the novel piece Price Medal on
behalf of the people of Venezuela.
Speaker 6: It goes very well.
Speaker 5: It went very well. I'm very grateful for the opportunity
I had to speak with President Trump, something I've been
looking forward for a very long time. It was a
huge responsibility because I did it on behalf of a
Venisuelan people that appreciate so much what he has done
for not only the freedom of the Venezuelan people, but
I would say the whole hemisphere. First of all, I
wanted to share with President Trump my profound trust in
the Venezuelan people, and I told him that, please trust
of Venisonan people. We are people that love the United
States of America, that share values, that admire the strength
of your institutions, that want to leave with democracy and
dignity and justice and freedom. We want to have our
children coming back home and work together for the security
of the whole hemisphere. And I wanted to convey this
to him and for him to know how much support
and hope there is today in Venezuela regarding what he's
doing in our country.
Speaker 2: So everything went well, and she was discussing about thanking
America thanking him.
Speaker 3: He loved that.
Speaker 2: He soaked it right up, and then he gave him
the medallion from the Nobel from the Nobel Peace Price
looked thrilled as well. Virginia Coates, former national security official,
kind of analyzed where she is in the whole operation
regarding Venezuela.
Speaker 7: So, I think, you know, Delsie Rodriguez is the actors.
The vice president is now the acting president. That is
part of how the Venezuelan constitution works. That's the process
that's supposed to occur, and so I think what you're
seeing the administration do is follow that process. And also
part of the constitution is that when you have an
interim president, you then go to elections. My understanding is
their Supreme Court is figuring out what the timeline is
for that.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 6: Maria Karina has said very clearly she wants to run.
That's great.
Speaker 2: She should.
Speaker 6: There are other opposition leaders who I'm sure will throw
their hats in the ring as well, and we can
have a robust debate about the future of Venezuela.
Speaker 2: Well, good to hear. I think that they are going
to get through this period, get things settle down and
then hold a lack and then Machado can run and
we'll see how she does in that. But they're trying
to follow, according to Virginia Coach, they're trying to follow
their country's constitution. As far as Iran goes. It takes
a while. We moved a lot of our naval fleets
down to the coast of Venezuela. So now we've got
a hot potato back in the Middle East, and they've
got ships heading as fast as they can back to
that part of the world. It's going to take them
about a week to get there, General Jack Keene, and
it summarizes where things are on our efforts militarily with Iran.
Speaker 8: Well, we have a lot, and I think a lot
has already taken place. I mean, clearly, the president has
made a statement. His credibility is online and listen. When
he gives his word, he executes, and that is simply
to hold the people that are accountable for what they
have done to their own citizens and killing them. That
is his promise to the people that have been on
the street out there willing to risk their lives, and
in thousands of cases that is exactly the tragedy that
has taken place here, So what is likely taking place
in what could take place?
Speaker 3: Well, first of all, we're trying.
Speaker 8: To squeeze around in terms of the ability to sell
more oil that has been selling, that has taken place.
That's not decisive in itself, but it's an enabler. We're
likely helping the protesters communicate better given the Iranians have
shut down the Internet, and that's a covert operation to
do something like that. Cyber operations likely being conducted against
Iranians command and control systems. They're telecommunications and ability for
the IRGC and the Bass militia who are on the
streets to communicate effectively. Also cyber operations against their surveillance
capability of the population itself. All of those are capabilities
of the United States has that are second to nobody's. Our
offensive cyber capability is really something very special. And then
we get the information operations. We are likely conducting information
operations against the oppressors, the middle level leaders of the oppressors,
the people also carrying the guns. Because if and when,
and I believe it's when kinetic operations are conducted against
that organization, against its leaders, we want divisiveness in it.
We want that organization to break apart. We want some
of them to go over to the side of the protesters,
because the reality is the regime is more in trouble
as a result of kinetic operations and then the administration
into kinetic operations itself. Obviously, leaders obviously the organization is
doing is suppressing, but you have to consider what else
Aron's ability to retaliate. Who would they retaliate against US
spaces and Israel. So one, let's make certain that the
defense of those systems are as good as they can be,
and that has to be taken into consideration. And then
what do we do about the target set in reducing
Iran's capability to conduct those retaliation attacks. These are all
things that are laid out to the President and making
decisions and options, and obviously that means we would have
to expand the target set to make certain we take
down some of Iran's ballitfictic missiles. I assume, I don't know.
I don't ask those kind of questions, but just looking
at the portfolio and what needs to be done, you
always have to consider what is the retaliation that Iran
is going to do?
Speaker 3: Hen and let's get something straight.
Speaker 8: The objective of this attack has never been they're going
to go to collapse this regime.
Speaker 3: And we're going to get a regime change. I mean
that article.
Speaker 8: I totally disagree with it. The president, and there's known
that from the outset. At best, what would come of
this is we put the Iran regime on a pathway
to its collapse. That's at best, we don't have an
organization to take it over. If there was an organization
out there ready to take over the regime, what would
Iran do with that? They would be killing them and
they would be putting them in jail and hanging them.
So this is a process that's taken place. We're focused
on holding the people accountable for what they have done
and then putting it on a pathway to so weaken
the regime, which is already politically, economically, and military the
weakest that has been in forty five years. Our actions
here will further weaken it.
Speaker 2: He makes a great point about the fact that, well,
if we take the regime down, who's going to run
the place? Now you've got a vacuum, and we know
that has not worked out very well in other places
in the world. But you look at what's going on
with Iran. How weak are are they now versus Oh,
let's go back to two thousand and nine, and Barack
Obama was president at the time, and also in the
twenty twenty two the people were uprising and they did
not succeed. The people did not succeed, the regime did.
So what's the general how does he size up this
regime compared to those other events.
Speaker 8: Oh? Yeah, it is absolutely better than nine when we
did nothing. Certainly better than what took place in twenty nineteen,
largely economic issues. Twenty twenty two dealing with Mashamini when
she was killed. Yes, but of course the regime has
reacted considerably more violently than than they have done in.
Speaker 3: The past as well.
Speaker 8: This is a huge opportunity because going in, as I said,
the regime has never been this week, and that's fundamentally
what's taking place. And the people peple on the streets
understand that. That's why they keep coming out what the
regime is doing. Right now, they're in all the neighborhood
with guns pointing at the houses.
Speaker 3: Every street has.
Speaker 8: Guns out there and not wanting them to get out
of the house, and they come out of the house,
they're going to shoot them. And that is what has
taken place in terms of suppressing the people's ability to
get back out on the street. President Trump said he's
going to hold them accountable. I take him out his word.
Speaker 2: So there's the analysis on the military side from General Kean.
As far as doing something about it, Lindsey Graham is
probably the biggest hawk in the Senate and he has
never seen a conflict that he doesn't want to dispatch
the military too. Here's here's the Senator Lindsey Graham's view
on what to do.
Speaker 3: Iran being slaughtered in the streets.
Speaker 9: If that's not a distraction, that's the moment where we
need to add the idea. We're dealing with the most
vicious regime on the planet. If you don't understand this
is the biggest moment for change since the follow the
Berlin Wall, you're missing a lot. This is a religious war.
Speaker 2: So Lindsey Graham's predictable. But remember he also has the
President's here. He's one of his regular golf buddies, So
you know the President listens to Lindsey Graham at least
when they're out on the golf course, And well, let's
just talk about the politics of this, because, like I said,
the polls are Democrats don't like Trump, the Republicans do.
The independents are the ones you got to keep an
eye on. But as far as economics go, let me
just weigh in just a little bit here, because the
president's been repeating some things that I want to just clarify.
He talks about the fact that growth is exploding. It
is growing, We have a growing economy, and it's growing
fairly well. I don't think anybody will argue that he
talks about investment is booming. That's true. He's bringing in
lots of investments into this country. Incomes a rising and
inflation is defeated. Well. Consumer prices are rising too, and
they rose again last month, higher food and higher rent.
In the numbers job the labor market is looking at
best that it's steady, but the worry is that it's
maybe starting to get sluggish. Affordability is still the top
issue when people are asked about what they care about.
As far as the factories, employment in factories actually went
down eight thousand jobs in December, and that was below
any number regarding employment in factories in his first term.
So it's down. And as far as the the investment,
that's great about the investments that are going to come in.
And apparently a number of factories are starting to be built,
but it takes probably a year to build some of it,
maybe more to build some of these factories. And you
can't have manufacturing jobs unless the factories are built. And
so the manufacturing jobs have been down, not up. But
a lot of people that want to criticize the president
are focusing on, well, look at that manufacturing jobs are down. Okay,
but wait till the factories are built and then they'll
fill those people into those factories. He likes to brag
about the tariffs are prompting a new wave of auto factories,
but there's little evidence about any auto factories being constructed.
And when it comes to automobiles, let me start there.
Canada has just struck a new deal with China, which
included in that is Canada is going to allow fifty
thousand new EVS electric vehicles from China. Now, these Chinese
electric vehicles, some of them are beautiful. They're out selling
Tesla in China, and the price for Chinese automobiles in
US dollars ranges from the cheaper models are down around
ten thousand dollars, and they go all the way up
to the most expensive model of Chinese cars about seventy
thousand dollars. So I listened to some of the like
Jamison Greer talking about, you know, the president's trying to
protect American jobs. That sounds like what they said in
the nineteen sixties they were trying to protect Detroit, and
instead the Japanese moved in with their small, efficient automobiles
and changed the entire economics of the Big three in Detroit.
So Canada is going to be allowing fifty thousand Chinese evs.
I could imagine people in the US will want to
fly up to Canada, buy one of those things and
drive back down here. I don't know whether they will
allow you to buy one of those cars and drive
around in the US or not. Here's a little bit
from Jamison Greer. He and Sean Duffy and Lee Zelden
were at him Otto factory in Ohio, and this is
what Jamison Greer had to say.
Speaker 10: Well, I think it's problematic for Canada. There's a reason
why we don't sell a lot of Chinese cars the
United States. It's because we have tariffs to protect American
auto workers and Americans from those vehicles. You know, the
Canadians were trying to get some tear for leaf on
their own to get ANAG into there. I think in
the long run they're not going to like having made
that deal. All that being said, you know, American cars
are still going to be sold into Canada. We have
a huge market share there, and I think that the
Canadians dependence on the United States are their GDP. The
United States is always going to have an outsize role
in that economy.
Speaker 2: So it's going to be what you got to keep
an eye on what the Canadians are going to do
if they're going to have a choice between buying a
US made car or buying a China made car. And
Chinese cars, I'm telling you the quality of them looks
really good. I don't know what the Canadian citizen is
going to choose, but I mean, especially if the Chinese
cars are less than half, substantially less than half of
the cost of an American car, what would you do?
Phil Lebou, who covers Detroit and the automobile sector for CNBC,
Listen to what he has to talk about regarding how
expensive US cars are at this.
Speaker 11: Sticker shock and the administration's efforts to remove some of
that sticker shock by making vehicles more affordable. Take a
look what the average price paid is for a new
vehicle right now. If you went out this is according
to Cox Automotive, if you went out to a dealership,
you'd be paying fifty thousand, three hundred and twenty six dollars.
That is an all time high. And for the Trump administration,
they realize, and they've heard the complaints from people across
the country, Wait a second, it's too expensive to buy
a new.
Speaker 3: Vehicle right now.
Speaker 11: Heck, use vehicle prices are close to a record high
as well. And so this is the beginning of their
efforts today to say, look, we need to make vehicles
more affordable. The average monthly payment, and this is how
most people look at buying a vehicle. The average monthly payment,
according to Edmonds, right now is seven hundred and eighty
one dollars. You really want to be surprised, look at
the percentage of auto loans that include a monthly payment
of at least one thousand dollars, if not more. It
was five percent back in twenty nineteen. Now one out
of every five auto loans, according to Edmunds, has a
monthly payment of at least one thousand dollars. For GM
Ford Stilantis, they're going to be part of the tour
today with the administration where representatives will be talking about
auto affordability. Look, their profits have been growing, and the
argument that you will hear from people in the auto
industry is it's not my job to tell people they
can't afford a particular vehicle. My job is to give
the market what it wants, and right now the market
is willing to pay more for vehicles.
Speaker 2: So there's a little bit of deja vu going on
with me because I remember when there were big expensive
forward in Chrysler and General Motors cars and they were
gas hogs. And the Japanese came in with good quality,
cheaper cars and they completely upended the big three in Detroit.
And I just as like I said, a little dja
vu going on about we're trying to protect the American
automobile industry. Well, wait until people get their hands on
some of these foreign made cars, if that are at
much cheaper prices. Sean Duffy, the Secretary of transportation. He
was with Lee Zelden and Jamison Greer and they were
at a it's kind of noisy in the background, but
they were at an auto factory in the Cincinnati area,
and Duffy's talking about what they're trying to do to
get the price of cars lower.
Speaker 12: Well, first off, President Trump has put his whole team
in place to make sure a pushing to have rules
and regulations that are going to drive down prices. So
you not talk to about this a little bit, but
Cafe standards were the Liberals the Democrats wanted to have
a transition to electric vehicles, which are driving up the
cost of gas powered autos, and the American people were
paying the price. We are taking that standard, the Cafe standard,
from almost sixty miles a gallon back down to our
reasonable standard of thirty five miles a gallon. What that's
going to mean is at least one thousand dollars enterprice
cut for those who are buying vehicles in America. Not
only that, President Trump has been focused on energy prices
or gas prices are at a six year low. And
so again it's all of government approach, and that's why
we're here together working on these policies, but also make
it so the other workers know that this administration is
paid attation.
Speaker 2: So back to what Phil Lebo said, the average price
of a new car not the top price, but the
average is over fifty thousand dollars, and that twenty percent
of people buying cars are paying one thousand dollars or
more per month. So it's they got a lot of
work to do. They got to find more than just
one thousand dollars to trim off the price of automobiles.
So one of the reporters that this tour of these
officials asked about can you can the government or should
the government put in some mandate It says that ottot
want makers have to make cars that are no more
than thirty thousand dollars in price, And Duffy went, no, way.
Speaker 12: No, you can't have I mean failed, you can't have
a mandate like that.
Speaker 3: I mean places have gone up.
Speaker 12: But the reality is, when we have good policies and
great American workers, you're going to see more affordable cars.
I mean, we don't want an old Soviet union style
set of price fixing in autose that doesn't make any sense.
But what you want is good policies, great companies and
amazing American workers to produce cars that Americans actually want
to buy and that are safe, high quality, and with that,
I think you're going to get better pricings.
Speaker 2: And that sounds like he took his speech right out
of some dude back in nineteen seventy and here came
the Japanese, and the Japanese may do it again, or
if it's not the Japanese, maybe somebody else in the
world besides China. But if the cost of a car
average is fifty thousand dollars, there are opportunities for foreign
automakers to try to move into this country. Because when
a push comes to shove, all the things about the
American automaker and all that wave the flag patriotic, that's
all good. But I've seen people too many times go
for what's the lowest price. And again I'm not trying
to sell Chinese cars to you, but what I have
seen and how they're doing versus U West cars in China,
the Chinese are well, they subsidize they're automakers heavily, and
that's why they're able to produce a high quality car
for a very very low price. I'm going to keep
an eye, especially on of those Canadians and find out
for all of you in Canada which car you're going
to buy. I can hardly wait to see what happens. Meantime,
speaking of politics, so Chuck Schumer is now making a
bunch of noises about the Senate and he says they
only need to flip The Democrats only need to flip
four seats in order to take control of the Senate.
A Carl Rov who already in his Wall Street Journal article,
is already saying that it looks like the Democrats are
going to take control of the House. Yes he is,
So let's see what he says about Chuck Schumer and
his idea about flipping the Senate.
Speaker 13: Well, he's got to say that they've got a shot
because he's the Senate Democratic leader.
Speaker 3: But think about this.
Speaker 13: Alaska, Dan Sullivan won an election last time around by
thirteen points at the same time that Donald Trump was
winning Alaska by eleven He ran ahead of the president. Maine,
Susan Collins won last time around by nine points, while
Donald Trump is losing the state by nine points. That
says she's pretty strong. Strong as an acre of garlic.
North Carolina the last midterm election. At the time that
people voted, the Democrats had a registration advantage of two
hundred and seventy six thousand more Democrats and Republicans. As
of this month, there are now five thousand more Republicans
in North Carolina the Democrats the first time in the
history of the state in which there have been more
registered Republicans than Democrats. And finally Ohio, Donald Trump won
the state by eleven points. The Republican Senator John Housteed
was lieutenant governor, and the ticket of Mike Dwine and
John Houstead in the last midterm election won by twenty
five points. So, you know, Chuck is always an optimistic guy,
but he's got a big uphill he'll decline.
Speaker 2: So Carl covered the for state that Schumer thinks that
they're going to be able to win. Carl Dost think so.
But what about this business about the House and how
Republicans could lose it?
Speaker 13: Well, I put it in my column of predictions last
week in the Wall Street Journal, It's I think the
House goes Democrat.
Speaker 3: You're right.
Speaker 13: In the modern yar e go back to the end
of World War Two, there have only been two mid
term elections in which the president's party gained seats. Nineteen
ninety eight, the Republicans that overplayed their hand on impeachment
of Bill Clinton. His approval rating was in the sixties,
and the Democrats picked up seats in the House in
nineteen Actually, in two thousand and two, George Bush's approval rating,
George W. Bush was at sixty some odd percent, and
the Republicans picked up seats in the House and Senate.
I happened to be in the White House then knew
a little bit about what was going on. And let
me tell you, even with a sixty percent approval rating,
it was really tough. So with a narrow margin, you'd
have to bet on the Democrats taking the House.
Speaker 2: So we still have, what is it, ten months until
election day. We'll see what happens. There's a lot that
can have eternity. Let's talk about Wall Street. It was, well,
we've got a three day week in markets, clothes on
Monday because of Martin Luther King Junior Day, So today
not much. Markets kind of stayed close to home. The
doubt fell eighty three down to forty nine thousand and three,
fifty nine, SMP down four Nazdack down fourteen, gold fell
twenty four dollars is now at forty five ninety nine
for an ounce of gold, and oil essentially unchanged today
fifty nine dollars for one barrel of oil. That's it
for today. Have yourself a wonderful weekend. I know it's
a holiday on Monday, but we'll be here. I hope
to see you then.
Speaker 3: This one