Speaker 1: And here we go. Welcome to the Big Podcast. It
is Friday, the fourteenth day of November, Year of Our Lord,
twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan. And well
there's a lot to go over as usual, busy, busy
Friday day. Affordability that you know. A week ago I
brought up affordability. I said, I think this is going
to be important. The exit of polling coming out of
the elections in Virginia and New Jersey were very much
about the fact that the economy was the number one issue.
It always is, it always has been, and so people
are trying to come up with all of us, Oh,
we've better get on the affordability game here. And the
President was very dismissive of it. And somebody has gotten
a hold of him and said, hey, this is not
something we should dismiss. This is something that's going to
determine the midterm elections one year from now. So jd.
Vance was talking last night about this. It's coming up everywhere,
even in the Republican circles.
Speaker 2: We inherited the highest peacetime debt and deficits in the
history of the United States of America. We inherited the
worst inflation crisis and at least the last forty years,
and I think probably longer. So a lot of Americans
when we took over, they were struggling. Blue collar wages
are going up, working people's wages, middle class wages are
going up. And that's how we ultimately chip away at
the Biden affordable theility crisis is that we make an
economy where people can afford to buy the things that
they need.
Speaker 1: I think his comments are right, but it's I had
to kind of smile because it's every administration does that.
They blame the prior one, and there may be a
lot of truth to that. But when election day rolls
around next November, nobody is going to be trying to
figure out what Joe Biden did. They're going to look
at their wallets and they're going to vote on how
they feel about their economy and how they are doing.
I played a clip yesterday from Kevin Hassett, the Chairman
of the Economic Council to the President, and he was
out in the White House driveway earlier today and basically
repeating the exact same line.
Speaker 3: The way I summarize all the stats we look at
is that real purchasing power for a typical worker dropped
three four hundred dollars under President Biden and has gone
up twelve hundred dollars so far today. But Americans rightly
are frustrated that they're still two thousand dollars short. And
that's something that we're going to fix it. We're going
to fix it right away.
Speaker 1: Told you before, I like Kevin has it, but he
knows how to speak politically as well. I'll tell you
what they lost thirty We lost thirty four hundred dollars
worth of purchasing power. We've gained back twelve hundred. And
then that that gap is what we're going to fix it.
We're going to fix it right away. Kevin knows that
you can't fix it right away. They are chipping away
at it, and you know around the conference table at
the White House, they're going, we got to get this
chipping away at a faster pace. We need to make
sure that by next summer people are feeling much much
better about the economy. So they have they have a
fuse that is burning that they've got to fix this
in some way to make you feel better. Even goofy.
Tim Walls, Governor of Minnesota, former Vice presidential nominee for
along with with Kamala Harris, and he recognizes the affordability problem.
Speaker 4: President Biden was talking truthful and he said, look, compared
to the rest of the world, our economy is pretty good.
But the average person said that doesn't do squat for me.
It's not that good. And I don't think we address
the affordability issue as openly.
Speaker 1: I think Tim Waltz ait the nail on the head.
You can talk about our economy is better than any
other country of the world, all that stuff that Biden
was talking about, and it did not mean squat. According
to Tim Walton, He's right. It always comes back to
your pocket, how you feel about how you're doing. So
it's so some people have come up with this idea
about a fifty year mortgage. One of the biggest issues
that's not going well. It's trying to get started to
get better, but it hasn't. And that's the housing market.
The housing market in history has been the first one
to lead us into a recession and the first ones
to lead us out of a recession. So housing is
important because it's not just a house. When you buy
a house, you buy furniture, and especially if it's a
brand new house. You buy window coverings and bushes and
do a lot. A lot of money goes into a
house besides the actual brick and mortar of the house.
So people are trying to figure out how to solve this.
The problem I see with is I commend them, and
I think they should do everything they can possibly think of.
But you can't turn around housing quickly. It's like a battleship.
It's going to take a while to turn the housing
market around. The mortgage rates have come down a little bit,
but they're still with a six in front of them,
like six and a third roughly average, better than seven
from a year ago, but it's not that much better.
And you still have a lot of people that are
stuck in their homes with those three percent two in
some case three percent mortgages and they don't want to
give them up because you can't get one of those today.
And I don't see any of that on the horizon.
People used to when you talk about mortgages, it almost
wasn't all that important what the interest rate was. Oh yes,
it made a difference, but most people historically would live
in a home five to seven years, and for whatever reason,
moving up or moving down. You have a bunch of
new children, you need more bedrooms, or you're an empty nester,
you need less best bedroom. Whatever it might be, death, transfer, divorce,
whatever it might be. Housing is a five to seven
year deal. It used to be. The average length of
homes right now that people are living in their homes
is eleven years, so it's more than double. It's about
double where it used to be. So people really are
stuck in their homes. I'm guessing a lot of you
are happy with your home. So this fifty year mortgage
idea came up, and it's just a terrible idea. Would
it reduced the monthly payment on your house a little bit,
not a lot, and you won't build much equity? And
the first time home buyers have gotten older and older.
The first time home buyer now is a forty year
old person when they used to be twenty year old people.
A forty year old person with a fifty year mortgage,
well no, they're not going to live in that same
house until they're ninety. But you do have to stop
and think about that. Larry Kudlow, my old buddy over
at Fox Business, he's he doesn't like this.
Speaker 5: Either, well, I got to look at the details. Some
of that stuff sounds okay. I wasn't crazy about the
fifty year mortgage. In fact, I don't think that was
a good idea at all. So but if you want
to let people come in on a pre tax basis,
let me take a look at it. I'm not quite
sure I think that, you know. Can I just come
back to this what I regard as the essential point.
You have a program which is starting to kick in.
I mean, if the Democrats would stop sabotaging it by
shutting down the government. But you had three point eight
percent growth in the second quarter for Trump. The Atlanta
Fed says four percent in the third quarter. All right, now,
the date is going to be sketchy, and Kevin has
It is saying because of the shutdown, we're going to
lose whatever one and a half to two points on
GDP in the fourth quarter. That's very unforse It was
a pointless shutdown.
Speaker 1: But bye bye bye next.
Speaker 5: Year with holding tables changed, So these tax cuts are
going to kick in. The business tax cuts have already
kicked in, and there's a business boom going on for
machinery and equipment and factories. And whatnot, and that's great
for income.
Speaker 1: Still, he's a good guy, he's a very smart economist,
but he's falling into the trap of, well, the GDP
and the growth and the business tax cuts and all
that's going to be great for this and that. What
about what about my pocket? What about my economy? How
am I going to be feeling when I go vote
next November. That's what they need to focus on, and
all these other stuff they need to work on, but
they need to focus on making it so that people
can buy homes. But that's going to take a long
time to turn that housing market around. And fifty year mortgages,
I guess some people think it's a good idea. I
just did a back of the envelope calculation. If the
if the I think the medium price of a home
in America is now four hundred and some thousand dollars.
So let's say you get a three hundred thousand dollars mortgage,
you scraped together one hundred grand for a down payment.
You got three hundred thousand dollars mortgage at six and
a third percent something like that. So your three hundred
thousand dollars mortgage for thirty years at six and a
third percent. Your payments are going to be eighteen hundred
and fifty bucks a month. The total amount that you
will write checks for over that thirty years, if you
live in the home for thirty years most of you
won't is six hundred and sixty eight thousand dollars. All right,
Let's take that same mortgage and make it a fifty
year mortgage fifty years, six and a third percent, three
hundred thousand dollars loan. Your payments are not eighteen hundred
and fifty, they're sixteen hundred and fifty. So you saved
two hundred dollars on an average mortgage out there. Two
hundred dollars can mean a lot to some people, but
I don't think it's going to make a buying decision
where people to run out and buy that home. And
here's the part why I think is just just bad advice,
is that instead of the total cost that you will
pay an interest on the thirty year mortgage with six
hundred thousand, on the fifty year mortgage, it's nine hundred thousand.
A three hundred thousand dollars mortgage, you'll pay nine hundred
thousand dollars. I knew a guy many years ago that
was a car salesman, and I was talking about the
method of selling cars and he said, oh, it's easy,
he says. All you do, he says, you find out
what people want. And what people want more than anything
else is they don't care about the cost of the car.
They care about what's the monthly payment. That's he said.
Was everybody said, what's that going to cost? What's the
monthly payment on that? And so what he would do is,
instead of making it a three year car loan, he'd
make it a five year car loan, and the payment
would look cheaper, but they were going to pay much
much more money for that car by having a longer
term loan. And so people that are saying, well, so
they go from thirty to fifty year. It wasn't that
long ago. When I was a young man. I remember
the longest mortgage you could get was twenty five twenty
five year mortgage. And speaking of car loans, it used
to be a two year or a three year. Now
they're five years, six years, seven years, and the reason
they're doing it is to get that monthly payment down.
So I'm not a real big fan of all of that.
Scott Turner. They went to him. He's the HUT Director
Housing and Urban Development, and well'll let you listen to
what he had to say about this housing issue.
Speaker 6: Absolutely, and you put up on the screen the average
age right now is forty years old for first time
home buyers, and we know that that is not sustainable.
I mean, I hear from young people all the time.
You know, how am I going to be able to
afford a house? And I like how, Secretary Best and said,
you know, increasing wages and people taking home more, and
that comes from getting our fiscal house in order and
creating jobs here in America, and then from our standpoint,
taking regulations down, not just from a federal level, but
also encouraging very firmly encouraging localities in the states and
cities mayors and economic development to take down your regulatory
environment so that developers can develop and builders can build.
Right now, you guys, it costs about forty percent in
costs and regulations just to build a multi family development,
about twenty to twenty five percent of cost of regulations
to build a single family development. So we have to
attack the regulatory environmental.
Speaker 1: I don't disagree with the thing he said but the
problem is that it's not a federal issue. Washington, DC
is not the issue. There certainly had their finger in
the pie. But the problem with regulations, it's local regulations,
your city or your county or your state, your planning department,
the housing, hooking up water and sewer and doing all
the things that cost a builder to build a home.
Then builders are not going to build a home that
they can't sell. So it really comes down to local, local, local.
Now the other thing, maybe the federal government can help
in this respect. One of the things this is this
is come on, we can do We can do basic economics.
There can't we supply and demand economics one oh one,
the more supply of apples. You're a grocery store and
you've got tens apples were delivered to your store and
you've got to get rid of them. How are you
going to get rid of them? You've got a huge supply.
You got to drop the price. People are not going
to buy those apples if they're expensive, so you drop
them to be cheap. You maybe have to take a
loss on them. But if you increase the supply, the
cost will diminish. If you decrease the supply, the cost
will go up. What have we done in this country?
We have a lack of supply of homes. We don't
have enough homes for the population. The population growth alone,
and I'm not even talking about illegals, just population growth.
We don't have enough homes. So we have a shortage
of the supply of homes. What do you think the
cost is going to do. It's going to go up.
So you've got just basic economics. Plus you've got local
housing permits and builders that are are not going to
build home that's way too expensive. And so can they
get this turned around before next year? Don't count me
as thinking they can. I'm hoping they can, but I've
got my caution on that. Talked about gambling yesterday, Man,
gambling has taken off in this country billions and billions
of dollars. So they have a bust. They busted a
bunch of college kids and high school kids in New
Jersey that are part of a gambling ring run by
the Luchesi family, the Mob, one of the Bob families.
New York's Attorney General had a big announcement about the
bust earlier.
Speaker 7: Organized crime unfortunately has not gone away. It has changed
its form, they have changed their tactics, they have changed
how they operate. But you see a multimillion dollar sports
betting ring run by ledged members of the Mob. That's
not going away. That's just changing.
Speaker 1: No, it's not going away. Been around for a long time.
Paul Morrow, former NYPD, talks a little bit about it here.
Speaker 8: I've seen numbers where if you are a male under
let's say thirty five, the chances are like ninety percent
that you're on one of the apps betting. It is
an enormous business. So the question becomes, why then, excuse me,
if that's legal and you can do that online, which
you bother with a MOB linked bookie, And the answers
are multifold. And first of all, you'd have to pay
the taxes, all right, So if you're winning, and you're
winning big and you're betting a lot, mob doesn't collect
the taxes. But secondly, remember something, if you are in
a sport, like we saw in the previous case the
basketball players, you don't want a record of the fact
that you'll betting on your sport, maybe your own games. Well,
the Mob is not going to keep that record, So
you'd rather bet with them. The problem is now they
own you because they know you're betting on a game
that you're playing in. You shouldn't be doing that. And
that's why these cases always spider web, you always get
other people.
Speaker 1: Well, the Attorney General in New Jersey was also talking
about how these rings that they've bufted up were getting
young people gen zs in there. We're talking about, you know,
nineteen twenty year old people.
Speaker 7: This operation relied on gen Z gamblers and a network
of sub agents. They effectively recruited younger gamblers or players
that they knew would be able to pay up or
those that they can leverage payment from, namely college students
and student athletes. I mean, it's a federal level thing.
It's legal period understory, and you know before the it
was legalized. What the reason they went to legal route
is because people were doing it anyway, but where they
had it and there was moblink, they had them all overseas.
All right.
Speaker 8: We had a case we bumped into that was mob related.
They were in Costa Rica and I'm going back now,
I go about twenty years. But the numbers with this
big but it was still online the internet is really
what did it?
Speaker 9: Yeah?
Speaker 1: So no surprise. But I think the gambling problem is
going to just get bigger and bigger and become more
a problem with society than we have right now. We
haven't really talked about the actual document of the ending
the shutdown of the government. Remember everybody said it's just
a clean c arc continuing resolution, nothing added, nothing to Well,
there was stuff added, and there was apparently some verbiage
in that agreement, one of them that allows senators to
sue if the federal government comes in and taps their phones,
which is those eight senators that got tapped by the
federal prosecutor Jack Smith. That's in the agreement. The other
thing is is that they are banning products made from hemp. Now,
the states that have legal marijuana will probably still be
able to have those products in their states, but at
a federal level, there's a I mean, there's a lot
of these CBD stores around. I don't know what they're
going to do. But Harry Enton points out the fact
that marijuana when it first became legal, became very popular,
but in the last couple of years, all of a sudden,
the thrill of using marijuana has kind of gone away,
or at the very least reduced substantially.
Speaker 9: Yeah, in the issue of legalization of marijuana, it sort
of hit a wall. You know, we had this great
momentum at the beginning part of this decade states that
newly legalized marijuana. From twenty twenty to twenty twenty one,
it was eight new states. Twenty twenty two to twenty
twenty three, with six new states in the last two years,
it's zero.
Speaker 2: It is zero.
Speaker 9: There were twenty four states that legalized marijuana from twenty
twelve through twenty twenty three, and then in the last
two years it has been absolutely zero. And in fact,
there were three ballot measures back in twenty twenty four
that failed. We had all the success for ballot measures
on marijuana from twenty twelve through twenty twenty three, and
then in twenty twenty four, boom, it hit a wall.
There's been at least some sort of backlash against legalization
in marijuana, and we're stuck at twenty four state. Marijuana
has a positive effect on users in society. Look at this.
In twenty twenty two, fifty three percent of Americans said
that marijuana had a positive effect on users. Forty nine
percent it had a positive effect on society you jumped
to twenty twenty four, look at this. The numbers went down.
They went down as more people encountered folks who in
fact had used marijuana. It turns out there was a
bit of a backlash. In twenty twenty four, forty three
percent of Americans said that marijuana had a positive effect
on users, down ten points from twenty twenty two, and
forty one percent said it had a positive effect on society,
down eight points from twenty twenty two. In twenty twenty four,
so what we've seen is is more people have gone
out there as we'd has become more public, more people
smoking it in public. We have seen that there's been
a bit of a backlash, and people are not so
hot to trunt on weed as much as they workay,
So you know, I think this is part of it, right,
this effort that sort of backlashes, especially happened in Red states.
Marijuana had not really been much of a partisan issue.
But look at this. Marijuana should be illegal or I llegal.
Among Republicans, fifty percent twenty twenty three, a corn To
gallop said legal, forty five percent said illegal. Look at this.
A giant switcherou by twenty twenty five. Now fifty eight
percent of Republicans say it should be illegal, up thirteen
points in just the last two years, and that legal
percentage dropped fifteen points in just two years, back down
to where we were in the twenty teens. So we've
seen this real backlash, and it's been especially true on
the right. As Republicans have moved against marijuana. We've sort
of had this rise and then all of a sudden,
this fall a backlash against marijuana legalists.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not sure if it's because they legalized it
did not have the allure of some dangerous illegal drug,
or whether there's a lot of people getting old and
it was maybe fun in college, but not so much anymore.
So that whole business about hemp, the ban on hemp
products was in the document that President Trump signed to
refund the government late Wednesday night. It's a derivative of
the cannabis plant. It was legalized into twenty eighteen Farm
Bill for industrial use like rope and textiles and seed,
but the laws broad definition created a loophole in federal
rules on THCHC, which is the part of cannabis to
get you high. So the new band that was tucked
into the legislation outlaws products containing more than four tenths
of a milligram of total THHC per container. Guy by
the name of Jim Higden. He's in that business and
he's not happy.
Speaker 10: Hemp products have become incredibly popular in America on a
low THC dose in Seltzer's and also in non in
toxic Kating's full spectrum CBD products. We see real popularity,
you know, especially among older adults for the CBD products.
And you know, this is no surprise that this could
have been coming. Senater McConnell made his intentions well known
over the summer. We've been working with his office trying
to ameliorate the worst of it, and unfortunately we were unsuccessful. Sure,
I mean, you know, some of these loophole products like
Delta a THHC or easily taken care of THC a
flower smokable hemp flower. A lot of people criticize that
as a loophole that could have been taken care of
while still protecting non intoxicating CBD products and low dose
THC seltzers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you heard the guy correctly. It was Mitch McConnell.
That was the guy. Who pushed for the banning of HEMP.
Speaker 10: Unfortunately, the bourbon industry, who you know funds McConnell's efforts,
don't like the beverages, especially because they're popular. So the
opportunity to save bridges was not on the table because
it was the beverage's popularity that was the greatest threat
to the bourbon industry.
Speaker 1: So who knew. Apparently there were beverages with THHC in it,
and Senator McConnell is from Kentucky and bourbon is king,
so that is what he blames for all of this.
So let's go to my hometown. I was born and
raised at Seattle, Washington, and I just hold my head.
It was such a beautiful city. It still is a
beautiful city, but it has become more liberal than I
think San Francisco. And it's also all places changed over years,
and it's been a long time since I grew up there.
But I told I was. The rest of the media
has caught up with it today. I told you a
couple of weeks ago that there was a woman running
for mayor in Seattle that is a socialist, just like
Zoran Mandani. And the reason Ma'm donald got all the
publicity was because he's in New York and that's where
the media is, so nobody paid attention to the city
of Seattle. Well, a guy by the name of Bruce
Harrel has been the mayor there for four year. They
keep changing marriage. That hasn't been a mayor that's had
two terms in decades, so they're very unhappy about what's
going on, so they keep changing leadership. And Bruce Harrold
is a Democrat African American, so he's got checks all
the boxes for the Democrat Party and he's done a
decent job. But this woman named Teddy Wilson is a
self avowed socialist and she put herself up on the
ballot to run for mayor and it was close, but
she has won. Here's a little bit from the new
mayor elect in Seattle nine months ago.
Speaker 11: I made the decision to run for mayor because I
sensed that the people of Seattle and its government were
out of staff, that voters were in search of a
new direction. Our problems required new leadership.
Speaker 1: Those were her comments after she was declared the winner.
It took them about a week to count the votes.
I don't know what why it takes so long for them,
but they have a problem. So this is going to
be an interesting test to see how this works. She
wants to trump proof Seattle, whatever that means. Seattle is
deeply in debt. They have to raise a lot of
money in order to get the books squared away. She
wants policies that are rooted in equity. She wants to
spend a billion dollars. Again, I've repeat, Seattle is broke.
She wants to spend a billion dollars for affordable housing.
She wants city owned solar panels to be installed. And
I don't mean to make a st snarky comment about Seattle,
but I can get them from there. It's mostly cloudy
and rainy most of the time. I don't know what
the solar panels are going to do, but I guess
maybe on some Sunday days. She wants green union jobs.
She wants the police. She's not for the police at all.
She wants to replace them with an alternative of social
workers responding. And by the way, Seattle already has that element.
It's not working well. The police are not embracing the
social workers apparently. She wants a corporate tax and a
tax on the rich to pay for all of this.
She wants free daycare. The big taxes on the companies
that are headquartered. They're like Amazon and Starbucks and Nordstrom.
There's a bunch of big companies that are headquartered in Seattle.
She wants a capital gains tax on individuals that live there.
If they sell their home for a profit, if they
sell a car, there's a capital gains tax on. She
wants a landlord tax, which will drive up the rents
for people that rent. She opposes jail for misdemeanors. She
wants to build Well, let me go back one to
three mayors ago. A mayor suggested building one hundred tiny
homes for the homeless. That mayor got booted out after
one term. The next mayor said, let's build two hundred
homes tiny homes for the homeless. The next mayor, which
is the colonel one who just got just defeated, he
wanted to build four hundred tiny homes for the homeless.
She wants to build four thousand tiny homes for the homeless.
She lives in a six hundred foot apartment with her
husband and a small child. She is supported by her parents.
They pay they they she relies upon them for her money.
She's forty three years of age. Let me just play
a couple of these are from various appearances that she's
made recently. This is thank you forgetting her name. Katie Wilson,
the new mayor elect of Seattle. Our people have.
Speaker 11: Been calling me the Zoran Mamdani of Seattle. As we
all know, Zoran is charismatic, telligenic, and stylish. I, on
the other hand, am deeply awkward. WILL need to presume
new progressive revenue in order to fund our priorities and
make sure that we're delivering services to the people of Seattle.
I want everyone in this great city of ours to
have a roof over their head. I want a city
where your health and your life expectancy, and your children's
future doesn't depend on your zip code or your race.
I am a community organizer, and I will not stop
being a community organizer when I step into the Mayor's office.
The working people of our city are tired. They are
ready for something new, something more hopeful and just and equitable.
Speaker 1: I guess we should start a betting platform on which
city do you think is going to financially collapse? Which
city is going to lose the most people New York
or Seattle. But it's going to be a race because
these are died in the wool socialist and it's going
to be a laboratory to actually find out how socialism works.
Oh my, it's just a disheartened need to see what
she's doing. Hewett chimed in on this as well, because
if she's getting money from her parents to live in
a six hour foot department with her child and her husband,
isn't she essentially living in her parents' basement. Here's you?
Speaker 12: Seattle is so screwed. I like to think of this
as a political equivalent of a double blind drug story.
We're going to study. We're going to run municipal Marxism
in New York City and municipal Marxism in Seattle, New York,
Saint Million, Seattle's eight hundred thousand. New York's got a
lot of colleges. Seattle's got fifty two thousand students over
at U dub and thirty six thousand staff there. They
are going to try and raise local property taxes, local
estate taxes, local wealth. Path is she wants a local
death tax, and she wants something called a digital services tax.
Which I think would text you and me talking to
people on their devices right now. Wildly unconstitutional, and it
will add up to one thing. People will leave Seattle.
It's got eight hundred thousand people watch the people of
wealth and means leave that city if she gets any
of that done. And I would add she ran on
affordable housing, homelessness, and Trump proofing. Trump proofing included sanctuary
city in including a tax on Israel. She was endorsed
by care. She is at the shadow one tenth of
the shadow of Mondannie. But it's just a disaster for
the Emerald City. It is a six hundred foot apartment,
so she's not living high on the hog with the
assistant she's getting from her parents. But I want to
point out something that we just heard. She has no
experience running anything except a small activist not for profit.
She's a community organized. City of Seattle is a big,
complex place. It's like the Mamdani experiment in New York.
If you take an idealistic Marxist, and I do believe
she's a Marxist, and I do believe she's at least
anti Israel and possibly anti Semitic, and you drop them
into a city of diverse cultures and you say fix everything.
Seattle lost more than a dozen affordable home projects in
the last year. They are going down because of rigid
rent control, the prospect of rigid rent control, the prospect
of increased costs for building, and they're not over COVID.
So it's the exact wrong recipe for a city that
needs to grow. They're going to put every impediment in
the way of free market growth, the fuel that has
built the country, and they're going to drive out the producers,
and they're going to do it in the name of
the little guys. But the people who are going to
get hurt are the little guys in the little gals
who will find no opportunity When those employers leave, They're
not going to leave behind their money. They're going to
leave with their money. And I should point out Washington
State voted fifty seven percent for Kamala Harris, so we
shouldn't be surprised the deep blue city in a deep
blue state. But I hope the Manhattan Institutor or some
great think tank drops the metrics on her first day
in office and at the end of her term, because
we're going to see more homelessness, higher prices, fewer jobs,
and people fleeing the city except for the college kids.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So again, it's going to be a lesson to
watch Seattle and New York City and find out whether
they're going to actually be able to implement their socialist
ideas or whether they're going to give up on them,
or whether the city's going to be in trouble with
population will stay or leave. So a lot to watch there,
all right, Wall Street, we watched it today and it
was pretty tame during most of the session, but then
some more selling. As far as the Dow, Dow down
sharply yesterday, down sharply in the day, down three hundred
and nine. The Dow at forty seven seven, SMP down three,
the Nasdaq went up thirty points. Price Old big drop
down one hundred and thirteen dollars to four thousand and
eighty one. And Oil had a big increase, up a
bucket of quarter. It's now at sixty dollars for one
barrel of oil. That's it for today. Thank you for
coming by, have a wonderful weekend. We'll be back on Monday.
I hope you are too. We'll see you then.