Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of the Chicks on the Right
podcast with our friend and sponsor of the show, Zach
Abraham from Bulwark Capital Management. Zach, there is a lot
going on. I don't know if you've realized how busy
things are, but in particular in light of the debate
that we just had recently, there's a lot of chitter
chatter about Trump and his plans for tariffs, which of
course Democrats are saying that's going to raise prices for everyone,
like they care about that. All of a sudden, we
want to know your take on the tariffs, and we
also want to find out what you think about all
these strikes, the port strikes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, my thoughts on the tariffs aren't and
I took some heat on this one. So my thoughts
on the tariffs aren't that different from the first round
of tariff Trump did when he was in office, which
is everybody throws a fit because in economics classes we're
taught that tariffs are bad, right, and they are to
a certain extent, meaning if you have two countries trading
with each other and one slaps on tariffs, first of all,
that cost gets put directly onto the shoulders of the consumer, right,
and then the other country is going to answer with
tariffs and you get a trade war going and it's
not beneficial to anybody. Okay, But here's the part they
always left They always they always left out, and they
always leave out they're acting as if we're doing this
on our own volition. China tariffs US. China tarifts tariffs US.
They artificially suppress the value of their currency. They've done
that in the past. Now they're trying to artificially inflate it.
But they're playing all these games. When you answer back
with a tariff, you're effectively reinstituting fair trade. So if
they're tariffing our goods and we're not answering back.
Speaker 3: That's idiotic. It's just it's just stupid. Now.
Speaker 2: The other thing is, and I think that this would
be eventually good for both countries, but China isn't looking
for a solution that's good for both counts trees. They're
only looking And I just wish our politicians would be
a little bit more like that.
Speaker 4: Right, Trump did well Trump, that's what precisely. He's like,
they're punching us, we got to punch back, which is yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because when you don't, all you're doing is transferring
that money directly into the pockets the PBOC and.
Speaker 3: The and the CCP. Typically it's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: So the whole debate to me is a joke. Like
they're acting as they're acting, like it's this autonomous move
that Trump's just pulling off, and you're like, he's.
Speaker 3: Responding in kind, that's what you should do.
Speaker 2: And I remember the first round, everybody was going, oh,
fair trade, what's he doing then?
Speaker 3: And I was and I said the same thing back then.
Speaker 2: I went, hey, guys, this is this is a step
closer to fair trade that it just is.
Speaker 3: That's what it is.
Speaker 2: So the whole thing, to me, I feel like it's
sort of a any any politician that doesn't advocate for
tariffs on China is either economically illiterate or I've got
to really question their motives because.
Speaker 4: You want it from you want it from a politic,
you want it from a friendship, you want it from
a financial advisor, you want somebody to advocate for you. You
know you have it back basically, well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's not like we're trying to stick it
to the people in China.
Speaker 3: We're answering in kind and to not do that.
Speaker 2: So the situation you've got right now is, first of all,
China has We've effectively been exporting our inflation to China
and they've benefited from it, right, all the manufacturing jobs
on top of that, and they know, they know exactly
what they're doing. They know that they've been the biggest
beneficiary from quote unquote globalization in any country on the
face of the earth. And in response to that, then
they're hitting us with tariffs in addition, Like it's just
it's it's complete nonsense, and I would love to have
a world where there weren't okay, but that's not really
our call. China, China, this is the game that's kinda started,
and to not respond in kind is stupid.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well will that help, Like I mean, will tariffs
help make companies do stuff here? Because this is you know,
we've been talking to about our on our show about
the port strikes and just how infuriating that whole situation is.
And we showed a video the other day during our
show of China's ports and how they operate completely automated, right,
and like it's incredible, and it just it made us
so mad about how entitled and greedy and just jerky,
these long Storm especially the boss that Harold Daggett guy,
like he's so awful and so would would tariffs, like
do those things kind of play together where putting tariffs
on China would ultimately help keep more more manufacturing in
the United States because there'd be an incentive to do that,
And then would there also then be an incentive to maybe,
you know, not rely on these people so much, because
how why do they want to stop progress? This is
what I don't get about the long Storm. I get
that they want to keep jobs, but like they're doing
it at the expense of our entire higher country.
Speaker 4: And see, I feel like I feel like they're doing
it they don't care about our they just care about themselves,
like it's a selfish motive.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, if you listen to the words day
get used like will hurt you? Or you know the
word the vernacular use, yeah, crush you. You're sitting there.
Speaker 3: Going, who's you? Are you talking about the rest of
your countrymen? That's right?
Speaker 4: And you live here too, yeah?
Speaker 2: I live here?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: And the whole thing like, uh, the unions, the unions
to me are are kind of one of those things
where first of all, I think people should be able
to should be free to form unions. I think that's
an economic expression of freedom. I don't think that most
of the time they're particularly useful, but there are situations
in which they are. I think a lot of companies
bring union formation on themselves, meaning if you treat people
the right way, now, eventually you can get entitlement and
all that kind of stuff. And people will push that
direction anyway sometimes. But you know, there's several different studies
of companies. You look the company like Lincoln Electric, Okay,
they make small electric motors.
Speaker 3: They've never been unionized.
Speaker 2: And one of the reasons they've never been unionized is
because they're every single employee that works for them. We
actually modeled bulwork after off of that model. But every
company that works for them a good and I'm talking
twenty five to forty percent of their annual salary is
based on incentive bonuses, right, And so they just tell them,
they're like, hey, look, you can make more money this way,
but it's going to be tied to your productivity, or
you can get paid less and be a union and
the people are always like, you know, no, you know
we're good. And so in a lot of ways, this
to me is what the liberals, especially the far left,
have done for so long, which is they've been like
feeding and growing this monster in a cage, and eventually
the monster was going to get out, invite them, and
they were going to be able to control it. And
I think that the unions are kind of an example
of that, right because they have kowtowed did the unions
for so long, because it's baked in political support, it's
baked in political funding, and they've gotten out of control.
And it's really easy to see when a union is
basically threatening economic terrorism.
Speaker 3: Because that's what it is.
Speaker 2: Yekay, Now you're not doing good to anybody. Okay, And
now now we like and I'm not advocating for like
any type of violent action or anything like that, but
in a way, you're becoming a domestic enemy of the
upplying economy. Right yeah, So now do the two interplay?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 2: Right? Like do But everybody's like, oh, tariffs are going
to cause inflation. I'm like, well, where were you on
the Inflation Reduction Act? Like, now all of a sudden
you care about it. May by the way, mayor Pete
put out a tweet the other day where he's like,
you know, we passed the Inflation Reduction Act eighteen months
ago or whatever he said, and he goes and isn't
it unbelievable that inflation is down?
Speaker 3: And I'm sitting there going because and you're sitting.
Speaker 2: There going, dude, it's because you have the biggest and
fastest interest rate increase in history, and they like it.
If anything, the reason that inflation still has a pulse
is because of the inflation reduction And the truth just
doesn't matter here. Now do the tariffs? Will they increase
inflation a little bit? Sure? Right, those prices will get
passed on to consumers. Is what's going on in the
port increase inflation? Yeah, if it was allowed to go on,
it would, right. But here's the question, right. This is
the other thing that is so infuriating to me about
modern political discussion. You act as if there's a good
and bad idea. Whereat we as adults understand that everything
is a cost benefit analysis.
Speaker 3: Every decision we make.
Speaker 2: Is going to have a benefit and it's going to
have a cost. If you're advocating for no tariffs on China,
then what you are advocating for is another twenty to
thirty year run of the complete desolation and dismantling of
what is now referred to as the rust belt. Right,
used to be the Bible Belt. Now it's the rustbelt.
All the manufacturing jobs left. So what I would say
in a scenario like that is all inflation is not made.
Speaker 3: For instance, if.
Speaker 2: You brought all of those jobs back, or let's say
you brought forty percent of those jobs back, Okay, that's
gonna be a big boon to the underlying economy.
Speaker 3: Right, consumers are gonna have more money.
Speaker 2: What I would argue, and I think it's really easy
to argue this, is that any inflation that was realized
by those tariffs would be more than made up for
in the economic gains that you'd get. And look the
way that we've gone about doing this, just letting China
loot our working class and loot our manufacturing base.
Speaker 3: It's insane.
Speaker 2: There's no benefit from it other than it's created a
lot more billionaires. Why because they can double their margins. Right,
they move over, They pay slave wages in China, import
the stuff back in to sell to our consumers. And
it really is it's pulling the the supports out from underneath.
What a free market capitalism or capitalist society is supposed
to is supposed to function on, right, that you sell
the goods in the markets in which you employ people. Yes, right,
So there's a feedback loop there. The money you're making
is going back to employing people. Well, what a lot
of American corporations did is they just cut.
Speaker 3: Out the middleman.
Speaker 2: He said, hey, we still want to be able to
sell to the richest consumer base in the world, the
US consumer.
Speaker 3: We just don't want to pay them to generate the product. Right.
Speaker 2: And I'd look at and go, hey, we're a free society.
That's fine, you want to do that, You're more than
free to do it. But here's the catch.
Speaker 3: We're going to tear it for stuff.
Speaker 2: Right. So I was still under the illusion that the
Democrats were the party of the working man.
Speaker 1: And yeah, that's not true anymore.
Speaker 2: No, this is the clearest example of it. Every blue
collar worker in this entire country should be sitting there going, uh,
wait a second, what.
Speaker 3: Do they want to do?
Speaker 4: Well, they should be, but it's like, but that narrative
has been so ingrained in their brains. I mean, it's
been so pounded into them that oh, the Democrats are
the party of you, and that's not necessarily.
Speaker 1: But they're waking up.
Speaker 4: I think a lot of them, even the unions. I
think a lot of the union folks are waking up
and they're like, wait, these aren't our people, right, Like the.
Speaker 2: Teams still haven't announced somebody for president, right, Well, they
haven't announced anybody. They haven't announced an endorsement because they've
announced an endorsement, right. His unions just don't like what
the members of the union have say, which is again
another example of unions not representing the interests of their members.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: You look at a guy like Daggett that's never actually
made anything in his entire life, but he's making nine
hundred grand driving Betley's in.
Speaker 4: Yachts has a yacht. Oh my god, it's infuriating.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So when he says that we're stopping the port to
support work, no he's not. He's stopping the port to
secure his bag. Right, He's stopping the port to make
sure that he's stuck in the middle and he continues
to get paid ten x what his average union member makes.
If that's what he's doing, right, Yeah, this isn't an
interest what he's also doing, especially in the age of
AI and like mock pointed out, go look at how
go look at hout China's running the airports. What he's
doing is he's expediting the elimination of the unions completely.
That's what he's really doing. And if the left can
how does he not see that? How does he not?
Speaker 1: I mean, because if anything, this should this should make
companies want to automate even harder and even faster because
they don't want to have to deal with bullshit like this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I can't.
Speaker 1: I mean, how much can they? What do you expect
is going to happen from this? Because I do worry
that they're demanding. It's not just the seventy seven percent
raise they're demanding. They're saying notally no automation whatsoever, that
has to be in the contract.
Speaker 2: Can they?
Speaker 1: I mean, can that happen where they actually stop progress
just to enrich themselves.
Speaker 4: Yeah, when everybody else in every other country across it,
if everybody else is saying yes, the progress or they're
already there, which is crazy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, I mean it's a completely irrational position and
the only reason, the only reason he's taking it is. Look,
if we look around society right now, we look around
the economy, or we just look around our government, there's
all of these things that if you're looking through the
lens of just normal people, that don't make sense. And
for instance, look at the border policy right like what
you're sitting there like you're going, wait, wait, wait a
second kind to people. If that's kind, then why don't
we all get rid of.
Speaker 3: Our front doors?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: We got to come up with a solution.
Speaker 2: We got to come up with an answer to this
that actually makes sense because all the answers we're listening
to don't right. Well, if you understand George Soros and
the whole free society movement that he pushes, then things
start to fall in line. And I think the dagg
it is kind of one of those lackeys then, like
why are you doing something that's going to harm you?
Because as long as these folks are in line with
those in power at the top of the heap, they've
been told they're going to be fine. Right, it's the
only thing that makes sense because what they're doing isn't
economically rational.
Speaker 3: It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 2: Why would we want fifteen million people that we don't
even know who they are pouring into our country every year. Well,
it's because if you believe that the world should resemble
John Lennon's song no war and no religions and no God,
then that's what you do, right. You get rid of
sovereign lines and you create a one world government, and
so that makes sense. People are like, oh, it's a
conspiracy theory, and I go, no.
Speaker 3: It's not.
Speaker 2: Go read George Soros's website, Go read what he's after,
Go look at how many things he funds. Yeah, you
don't think these people are influenced by the billions of
dollars he throws around. Absolutely they are, and that's why
they'll make these decisions that on the surface look completely
uneconomically rational and you're scratching your head. But if you
put it in that context, then it makes a lot
of sense. You're like, oh, this is all you know,
This is all making sense here, it's all evening out
and strategiery.
Speaker 3: Yeah, quote rush right with all its strategicy. Same thing
on at the ports.
Speaker 2: It's what you are effectively doing is you are giving
a tunnel into, or you're giving a look through into
how potentially unnecessary those jobs are in the not too
distant future, so you're actually jeopardizing those people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's just it's crazy. I'm sure you are
probably spending a bunch of time on these topics on
your own radio show. Where can people listen?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So Know your Risk Radio podcast? Just google it
on all the different podcasts websites we do. Our Daily
Dots is a daily update of everything that's gone on
economically and politically that has to do with the markets
and the economy. And yes, is Google Know your Risk Radio.
Know Your Risk Radio Podcast. We're pretty easy to find,
all right.
Speaker 4: Thank you Sack, Thanks.
Speaker 3: Bach, thank you ladies. Fun as always.
Speaker 2: Investment advisory services offered through Trek Financial LLC and SEC
Registered Investment Advisor. The opinions expressed in this programmer for
general informational purposes only and are not intended to provide
specific advice or recommendations for any individual or on any
specific secure Any references to performance of security so thought
to be materially accurate and actual performance may different.
Speaker 3: Investments involve risk and are not guaranteed. Past performance doesn't
guarantee future results. Track twenty four three zero Week