Hello and welcome to another episode of Geopolitical Cousins.

It is your producer other Jacob.

Um, today Marco and Jacob Shapiro take a dive into the Ukraine war, which we

haven't touched on in a while, and, and then really spend the rest of the episode

taking a deep dive into the tariffs and what they mean for the US' relationship

with everybody else now and in the future.

That's all I got.

Enjoy the episode.

Go spend time with your loved ones and touch some grass.

See you guys out there.

Uh, we should rename the podcast, poolside podcast 'cause

I'm by the poolside in Monroe, Georgia.

In the middle of nowhere.

I magically have wifi.

This is the first time I've ever been here that the wifi actually worked.

So, uh, we're both, we're both off the reservation.

Marco.

Yes.

And I'm, uh, still recording this from interior British Columbia.

So.

There we go.

Alright, so we decided to get together here for a quick one, which for us

is probably gonna be like an hour.

Um, because our last two podcasts were our absolutely incredible

trade value leadership column.

Basically, if you haven't listened to those episodes,

you need to go listen to it.

If you haven't sent us all the reasons you think we're idiots, we want your

email, please send it to us, the email address at the end of the episode.

Um, but Marco, the last time we actually like spent time on what was going on

in the news, it was Iran, Israel, shit.

So we have lots of things to catch up on.

It was actually an interesting.

Yeah, go, go ahead.

We

haven't talked about any of this, uh, like what's going on in the

world almost in like a month, if not more.

Which is an interesting exercise to go back and be like,

well, has anything actually important happened since the Israel Iran war?

Was the Israel Iran war actually important?

Like, I actually struggled a little bit to find things, but um, and, and

like tellingly enough, like when you called me right beforehand to, to set

our list of topics for the agenda, you said the Russia, Ukraine War.

I totally forgot that the Russian Ukraine war was something we should talk about.

So it just goes to show you, but let's start there.

Um, it's been a pretty seismic shift from the White House.

I mean, a couple weeks ago.

It, it seems like Pete Hegseth was gonna try and limit weapons to

Ukraine, and he didn't tell anybody or he surprised the White House.

Um, Donald Trump turned around and said he's actually gonna dramatically increase

weapons supplies to European allies.

So they're gonna be selling roughly 10 billion, $10 billion worth of

weapons, including air defense, artillery missiles, things like that

to NATO allies and, uh, weapons that are eventually gonna go to Ukraine.

He's also given.

Russia, a 50 day ultimatum, uh, that if there isn't peace in 50 days,

they're gonna start talking about secondary tariffs, which, you know,

we're, we're parsing Trumpian language here, Trump chronology, but we think

that means secondary sanctions on purchases of Russian oil from China

and India and other countries.

That's probably what that means.

But who knows?

Um, I'll quote President Trump, uh, from Monday.

Uh, he said this about when he speaks to Putin, I always hang up and say,

well, that was a nice phone call.

And then missiles are launched into Kyiv or some other city.

And after that happens three or four times, you say,

talk doesn't mean anything.

End quote, Donna, we're glad you got here.

After however many months of dealing with Vladimir Putin that this,

you finally realized the pattern.

That's cool.

Um, where do you wanna take this, uh, at the offset?

Uh, 'cause you know, we'll probably get to the end of 50 days.

I don't think Putin's gonna stop.

Or maybe you see something different, but where, what are you seeing, Marco?

I think we have to stop.

Uh.

From the point that Jeffrey Epstein is a Russian spy.

Hmm.

Of course.

How could I forget that?

No, I just, I just figured if we're gonna get more clicks, Jacob, the

one thing that we didn't talk about at any point in our podcast is Jeffrey Epstein.

Well, I'm, I'm gonna steal this from, from X.

Isn't it incredible that the only impeached president in US history

who wasn't hanging out on Jeffrey Epstein's boat was Andrew Johnson?

Not an incredible just fact of reality.

Yeah.

So, uh, let's talk Russia, Ukraine.

That was a joke by the way.

I have nothing really smart to say about the Epstein thing.

Uh, but maybe I will at some point.

I dunno.

Hmm.

Yeah, we'll figure it out.

Uh, I think, uh, I think the Russia, Ukraine thing is interesting because

first of all, it reveals how I think stupid, the notion that Trump is

pro-Russian really is, you know, I've gotten inundated Jacob with questions.

From friends, family, clients, from everybody about, Hey, what's

this 180 degree turn to Russia?

And I'm like, what's turn to Russia?

The man is pro-Trump.

He's not pro Russia.

Mm-hmm.

He's not pro-China.

He's not pro-Israel, by the way.

He's not pro anything.

He's just pro-Trump.

And so he shows up and he says, I want peace in Ukraine.

This war is unsustainable.

And objectively speaking.

Donald Trump is correct in this, this, this conflict is unsustainable.

And this notion that the West should continually support Ukrainian efforts

to reclaim their territories is going to end Ukraine as we know it.

Like we, like the west, will bleed Ukraine dry.

This is an unsustainable conflict.

It it has to end.

Uh, so Trump says, okay, well I'm gonna end it and I'm gonna look cool doing it.

Um, and so he slaps zelensky around in the White House.

Uh, which wasn't completely incorrect because part of the

problem is that Zelensky has been given a blank check by previous

administration and many Europeans.

And so he needs to be put in line with this notion that yes, you do

need to negotiate with the Russians.

And he's like, but they're murderers.

Yeah.

Well that's kind of like what war is, you know, like, welcome.

Hello.

Yeah, thank you.

So thanks for being with us.

And so the media latches on to that.

And of course previous Russia hoaxed the stuff and it's just like, oh my God.

Donald Trump has gone fully mature and candidate here.

Um, meanwhile, Donald Trump expects Putin to react to all of this, including to the

fact that American officials are starting to take Russian interest seriously.

Whether it's, you know, not having Ukrainian nato, whether it's like,

Hey, we wanna keep these territories.

Oh, interesting.

Okay, fine.

Let's talk about it this entire time, Trump expects Putin to be.

Fair and objective.

Yeah.

And say, okay, cool.

Thanks.

Like, let's, let me reciprocate.

But what I don't think that they understand in the White House or really

anywhere, media, journalist, analyst, nobody is that Putin has a real problem.

He promised Don Bus, which is Donkin, Luhansk, together, two,

all OBLs of Ukraine make donbas.

The problem is that a third, a third of donk, a third of

this territory, like 30% of it.

Russians have not been able to conquer for 11 years.

I mean, not like three years since 2022, but since 20 14, 20 15 conflict,

there's this part of Dons that the Ukrainians are just defending valiantly

and impressively, and so Putin has a problem I genuinely believe.

Putin feels like he got 90% of what he wanted from Ukraine, so I actually

don't fall into the camp that he's just gonna keep stringing it along

until the Russian tricolor, you know, is waving across Elise in Paris.

Like that shit's not gonna happen.

He's got 90% of what he wants.

He can't conquer Donk for 11 years for God's sakes.

People, he's not gonna invade Estonia or Poland.

If he invades Poland.

Quite frankly, Poland will reinve and conquer Moscow.

Yeah.

Good luck.

That's my hot take.

Yeah, so my point of all of this is, you know, Putin has a problem,

which is that Donald Trump got elected too early, quite frankly.

He got elected too early.

He got elected about 12, 18 months too early.

And what I mean by that is that Putin, that last 10%.

Objectives that Putin needs is kind of important domestically in Russia,

which is that how do you go back to all your nationalist military

bloggers who are basically trying to say that they're out Putin, Putin.

How are you gonna go back to them and say, oh, hey guys.

By the way, Donald Trump is president.

Cool.

We got all sorts of goodies out of, uh, America.

They're recognizing our sphere of influence.

They're letting us keep these territories, they're making sure the

Kiev doesn't get into nato, so we won.

Right?

And they're gonna say, but you promised this Naya Ross, you promised this dumbass.

Like, what's up with this?

Like third of Dons we haven't conquered.

And so that I think is the fulcrum.

You know, sometimes these geopolitical events, they have like a fulcrum.

The thing that needs to be resolved and what needs to be resolved is

that when you look at the map.

The Russians haven't conquered part of Ukraine.

They promised their people.

Um, it's not about Kiev, it's not about West Ukraine.

It's not about the rest of Europe.

It's just that sliver.

I mean, if you look at a map, it doesn't look that big.

It's a third of vignettes.

Nobody cares about it.

It's just empty space.

But Putin does.

And that's, that's the problem.

That's the challenge here.

And of course, everybody in the us, most of the mainstream

media is like now shocked that, uh, Trump is turned on Putin.

I'm not.

I never assumed that he was pro Putin to begin with.

In other words, Donald Trump is very disappointed and he feels he's

being strung along, as he said.

I think that's his direct quote.

Um, and I can just imagine Donald Trump's eyes glazing over Jacob if I

was in the White House explaining to him, well, you know, Mr. President,

like the Putin wants to conquer Dons, which is part of a dump us, you know?

And I can just see him being like, I don't give a fuck.

You know?

Like this is like, this is petty.

What are you talking about?

W and that's where sometimes these domestic political issues get in the way

of rational geopolitical negotiations.

Uh, it's so hard to talk about you.

I'm literally like looking into a pasture right now where my wife and my daughter

and my niece are like driving through the fields with a, with an electric car

who says that the world sucks in 2025.

Um, there's a couple things that I, I would say to that.

The first is, I, I think you're right.

And it's, it's not even that he's, that Trump is pro-Trump, and I

think Russia makes this mistake too.

I've said this before, yes, but I think it bears repeating because I, I don't

think it's getting through to people.

I don't think Trump is strategic.

He doesn't think long term.

He is an instinctual being he's a child.

He wants what he wants, when he wants it, and when he doesn't get

it, he throws a tantrum and now he, in his mind, is the leader.

Of the free world and the most powerful country in the world.

So you better do exactly what I say when he says it.

So I'm sure that there were people maybe up to Putin himself that were like, aha,

we've got the guy in the White House.

We've got the dude who was gonna like, you know, we've cultivated this

guy for decades, uh, via Jeffrey.

And everything else.

No.

Like he's literally wants what he wants when he wants it.

And this is why I think Zelensky, like, I think if you go back to

that episode in the White House, I think Zelensky did the right thing.

I think that he actually, by pushing back against Trump and throwing his hissy

fit like he was responding, he was able to give himself space to actually come

closer to Trump and for Trump to feel like he had moved him along in some way.

I, I think when you look back, like I know you've been anti zelensky on that,

on that tirade, and maybe he meant to do it, maybe he didn't do it, but that,

that's one thing about Trump, he's not strategic, so he will change his mind.

Like on a dime, and that's something for the Russians to learn too.

The second thing I just wanna say is that I think you're right that Putin has

downgraded his desires to to Dansk, but he wanted the Russian tricolor in Kyiv.

And his promise and all of his essays and talks about Ukraine.

Like he, he wants to sort of get there and that's where I think it's

not gonna stop and where it's gonna get to what you've talked about, like

Ukraine as a, as a garrison state.

And then the last thing is just, this is also an example of

Donald Trump's charisma because.

Iran, Israel didn't affect him.

Jeffrey Epstein doesn't seem to be affecting him.

As you know, there's those people on social media burning,

make America great again.

Hats okay, like, it's like LeBron, I've, I've made this metaphor before, like

as soon as LeBron comes back, they're gonna like buy the jerseys again.

So he is just gonna get the money twice.

Um, but now he's talking about sending tens of billions of dollars

worth of weapons to Ukraine.

Now he's selling them, so you can at least make that argument.

But I assume that the MAGA folks and the America first folks, like, what does it

take for you to light your hair on fire?

Because nothing, this is not, this is not Donald Trump.

Like, oh, I'm making I America great again.

He's like, I'm, I'm arming Ukraine and I'm bombing around and I'm doing all this.

Stuff like this is not like the isolationist president at all.

People were expecting so,

well, I think, I think probably nothing.

But let, let me, let me go back to the point you said about Russians.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, Russians have a very long history of com being completely and utterly.

Like naive when it comes to American politics.

Mm-hmm.

They just cannot assess American politics correctly.

This goes back to, you know, Kennedy.

Kennedy comes in, everyone's like, oh, he's a young womanizer.

We can just like sneak stuff by him.

And then we almost go to World War III and Kennedy's like, you

know, test me, test me, come at me.

And of course that that ends up being, you know, a Soviet back down from Cuba.

So, um.

This, this Russian mentality of thinking everything is a conspiracy theory,

this Russian mentality of thinking that there's a, there's a sort of a paranoid

delusional conspiracy behind everything is, is really making them very poor

analysts of American domestic politics.

And I think that, you know, they, they actually bought the liberal

mainstream propaganda in the US that Trump is pro-Russian, uh,

that he's enamored with Putin and that he can just string him along.

The problem is that.

Donald Trump has made a promise, you know, and that promise is we will

have a ceasefire, not necessarily a piece, but a ceasefire in, in Ukraine.

And Putin is now embarrassing him domestically.

That's, that's the fundamental and that's the worst place

to be in to embarrass Trump.

And I think that's a problem.

The other thing is that the deal that's now coming out, which is

actually quite smart, I mean.

A couple of months ago, I made fun of that rare earth mineral deal is the

dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life.

I mean, it's completely vacuous, but this drone deal that actually

is going to happen is interesting.

I mean, Ukraine and Russia are probably the world's.

Greatest innovators on drone warfare right now.

'cause they have to be it's life or death situation.

The Ukrainians have developed some absolutely insane drone technology,

both, uh, aerial and naval.

And so the US is now, you know, getting all this IP out of Ukraine,

that's actually a really good deal for the us It's really smart deal.

And, uh, yeah, I mean like Trump is not like really sinking

strategic teeth into Ukraine in a way that should worry Russians.

Because I think that they're gonna have to make a deal.

And these, this 50 day deadline is no joke.

I actually think it's serious.

Mm-hmm.

I do think they will impose secondary sanctions on Turkish, India and

Chinese, who, whoever's companies.

And so what Russia has to really ask itself is, what are our

strategic objectives in Ukraine?

You know, what are they?

If it's to delineate the sphere of influence to the

maximum potential that we can.

Get the most we can in terms of delineation then, like

this, this seems to be it guys.

And the second is to ensure that Ukraine remains sort of a, um, you know, uh, a

non-aligned, it's, it, I mean, it will clearly stay aligned with the West, but

at least it's not gonna be part of nato.

But you've accomplished those two things.

And if I think they're, they're gonna have to realize over the next month and a half,

two months that Trump is not kidding.

He's extremely angry that they're embarrassing him domestically and

that that sliver of donates can be conquered five, 10 years from now.

Maybe in some sort of a future exchange, because clearly this is

gonna be a frozen conflict, but they cannot conquer it right now.

They're gonna have to give that up.

So that's my low conviction view.

I think this actually ends with, uh, Trump victory two, three months from now,

where he basically does manage to bring everyone to the table and there's at

least a ceasefire because it's just simply unsustainable for Russia at this point.

And it's gonna cost him a lot.

Like yes, they have more troops.

Yes, they have.

They can bleed Ukraine, uh, that way.

Those secondary sanctions.

Man, those are really serious sanctions.

And if you remember, 20 11, 20 12, that's how Iran was brought to heal.

The US actually imposed those.

China played along and Iran ended up negotiating J-C-P-O-A.

So I do think that Russia's going to have to abandon its gold like

conquering this third of dk.

Then nobody can even find on a map.

Let's say for the sake of argument that this, that Putin doesn't

listen and the secondary sanctions go on.

Doesn't that, don't you think that means higher oil prices?

I mean, uh, marginally speaking, obviously, you know, set their,

all other things being equal world.

Yeah.

Uh, there's demand and supply and slowing economy.

You know, there's a lot of other forces, but absolutely it's about 3

million barrels that could be impacted.

Uh, right now it seems that the sanctions would be a hundred percent of the

price, which suggests given there's already a discount to Russian crude,

that some buyers may still buy it,

you know?

Yeah.

So like, uh, and just pay the fee.

Uh, but I do think that on the margin it would mean slightly higher.

Uh, oil prices.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, which, which might be the only thing that Russia could count on that.

Okay.

He doesn't want the higher oil prices, so maybe he won't follow through on it.

But see, that's

again, I know that's again dangerous, that they're making,

you know, like, you know, I, you know, I mean, turn the TikTok camera on.

Okay.

Turn it on.

Turn it on.

Turn it

on.

Where's, where's Kyle?

We don't have a Kyle for that.

We're

Kyle.

Yeah.

We don't have a Kyle.

Fortunately, we're, we're a small operation, but like,

here's what I would say.

Uh, I wanna speak, I wanna speak directly to whoever is at the Kremlin.

Engaged in analyzing American politics.

Um, you're fired

and that's it.

That you're fired.

Bye.

I

I love that.

It's, it's the apprentice, but, but Mark Marcos taken over while, while

President Trump is busy doing anything.

I mean,

I just think Russians have no idea what's going on in the

US and, and if they think that Donald Trump gives a shit about all credit

prices going from 65 to 75, like, you know, somehow America will survive.

By the way.

By the way, look at the chart of gasoline as percent of the consumer basket.

It's absolutely collapsed since the nineties.

Americas just don't spend that much on gasoline as percent of

their total household expenditure.

So, and it's a transitory, uh, blip in inflation, and it's like 3 million

barrels, you know, you know, I can just see Trump making a deal with Iran.

Honestly to compensate for a bit.

So Saudis, well and the Saudis are already pumping.

The

Saudis have been pumping for months, probably.

He's been working through them already.

Like go back to pre COVID, like the news of the decade would've been

the Saudi Russian oil price war that got put on hold 'cause of COVID.

So the Saudis are happy to kick him in the teeth while they're there.

And by the way, I know you want to talk about the

CPI, which we can get to right now 'cause I think it's a great topic.

What better way to justify why inflation is going up than to blame Vladimir Putin?

You know, so like the Russians, if they think that an increase in

oil price is gonna hurt President Trump, I don't think so at all.

He's gonna blame it on them.

He's going to uh, you know, like say like, look, we're gonna punish them.

Oil prices will be up for six to 12 months.

We can take it as an economy and we'll move on.

And again, it's not gonna be a hundred bucks.

This isn't like Iran closing the Strait of MOUs.

This is going to be more like going from $65 to like 75, 80.

The world's not gonna end because of that, but Russian purse is

going to drain because of that.

And so I do think that Putin has a really, really interesting open window

of opportunity here to make a deal.

Set in stone that sphere of influence.

And if he loses it, then he doesn't know, uh, American politics.

Yeah.

And I don't think he does.

I think that he's misunderstanding it un unless

he has a rabbit in his hat that takes it to a hundred a barrel.

I think you're exactly right.

I don't, I don't think he can get it to a hundred a barrel.

If he can get oil to sustain it a hundred plus a barrel, I think he might

actually like, have a leg to stand on.

I think you're firing the Russian, uh, American political

analyst for the wrong reason.

Huh?

My experience of them when I was, the last time I was in Moscow.

Um.

Was, was it 2018?

2019? It was before the pandemic.

And I remember this Russian American analyst came up to me and he was

quizzing me about some congressional race in Alabama that I'd never heard of.

And he knew everything about it.

And he wanted to know what I thought about the race and how it was gonna affect the

balance of US politics and the house.

And I was like, my guy like this.

We we're not thinking about like, no self-respecting analyst gives a

shit about this in the United States.

It's very impressive that you're in back.

Woods, Alabama politics, but like, this does not matter.

So you're, you need to fire them 'cause they know too much.

They are so far down in the weeds.

Yeah.

Like, with all these very, very specific things that they're missing.

Um, the forest for the trees.

Yeah.

I also, before we Oh yeah, go ahead.

Good.

Yeah,

yeah.

No, the forest is like, Donald Trump is the president.

Don't piss him off.

Like, yeah, that's like, that's, it's simple.

It's simple.

Why would you do that?

And no, his MAGA supporters are not gonna turn on him.

For this, it's, it's like the noise in Ukraine is so much less than even on Iran.

And definitely this Jeffrey Epstein thing is just like a blob that's

taking over the Maga Civil War, which is, which I find kind of hilarious.

Mm-hmm.

But whatever, let them, you know, like, let them obsess about that.

Who cares?

The point is, you know, like there is just, Americans are

not pro-Russian, you know?

I mean, like, let, let, let's just start there like, yes.

Yes.

Ameri, uh, many Americans who voted for Trump.

We're not happy with the blank check.

Give it to Ukraine.

Yes, agreed.

But don't extrapolate that to some sort of like a nostalgia

for like Slava file, like Doky.

Love.

No guys.

Like,

to your point, this is America.

I'm, I'm in MAGA country right now, and I remember when the war broke

out, like in, in rural Georgia out here, everybody had Ukrainian flags.

They're not out anymore.

Uh, but I'm sure they're still in the garage.

Like I'm so all these people could take 'em out.

Yeah, they can take 'em out.

Like, and that's why, that's why I think they're just, I think a lot

of these guys are either like nerds that you ran into or they just are

like so far down the far right.

Twitter rabbit hole, that they actually believe Americans like love Russia.

You know, they, they all watch that Tucker Carlson episode where

he's in Moscow on repeat, and they actually think that that matters.

It doesn't, and it's a very dangerous moment for Russia because I, I do.

So you are right.

Like my base, like is my baseline here, is that Putin is not an idiot and he realizes

he needs to, to, uh, to act on this widow of opportunity with Putin, uh, with Trump.

He, he's, he's high on his own supply.

Like, going back, back to like the trade value column.

Like if we were going let, let's like bring in a wire reference to really

bring this like full Bill Simmons.

Like, it's like as if Stringer Bell started shooting up his own product.

Like that's where Putin is.

And since 2020 he's been high on his own supply thinking.

He was, you know, everything from the pandemic to the long table to the

invasion of uh, Kyiv and a Blitz Greek.

That didn't work.

'cause he didn't even tell his generals like he's high on his own supply.

It's not gonna work.

So how do we, so how do we conclude this?

Uh, the rational, let, let's conclude it this way.

So if you're watching the news and you don't know what the hell

is going on, it's that simple.

Putin just wants to conquer one last bit of territory that he really needs

before he can maybe put this war on pause for five to 10 years, whatever.

Yeah.

The rational, the rational thing to do is just to give up and say, okay, fine.

You know what, let's just take it while we can take a deal from the us.

But as you said.

Putin has made a lot of bad, uh, decisions over the past,

uh, over the past five years.

Yeah.

And so this is a risk, it's a risk of direct US Russia confrontation,

not military, I'm not talking nuclear war, but actual return even under

Trump of a very aggressive us.

Counts Russia.

So I do think that's a risk over the next six months that we need to watch.

Yeah.

Before we pivot to CT CPI, I wanna say something that is separate

but sort of related to this, which is, I dunno if you saw the Pentagon's new

changes to, um, is it doctrine policy?

I don't know the correct word about the use of small drones in the field.

Um, so rather than treating them as, um.

Basically as aircraft, they're treating them as consumables, so something like a

hand grenade or other types of ammunition.

Mm-hmm.

And they're talking about training people and training, like authorizing

people on the battlefield to be able to call these in, to use them

themselves in any kind of conflict.

So I think you're right about Russia.

Ukraine, like being this laboratory for drone usage.

We've seen this with the Houthis, we've seen this with us and Iran, and

now you've got the US military like finally taking notice and saying, okay,

we're gonna be a drone superpower too.

There's also tons of money going at Antione defense.

Like I think this is a whole area that's like changing very, very quickly.

And it starts with this, with this Rush Ukraine war.

I don't know where it ends, but like it definitely starts well,

and I think it starts, look, uh, I referenced, uh, some.

YouTube videos that our viewers can watch on Ukrainian and Russian drone

technology and how it's advanced.

And I think it also starts with the US recognizing that there's a lot

of IP floating in Ukraine right now.

A lot of ip, this is the, this is the battleground where drones

are being deployed, uh, in an incredibly fast evolution.

Uh, so it was a very, I think that's a very smart move by the Trump

administration to say, okay, cool.

How can you pay us for these weapons?

Well.

We don't need Ukraine to like sell off.

Its like Grandma Silver to pay for the weapons.

But you know what you can't do Give those drone, uh, the drone IP and

that, that was a good move, like astute move by somebody at the Pentagon

coming to you all soon.

Uh, tickers on the stock exchange that, uh, referenced Lord of the

Rings that are drones or drone defense companies all sourced from

the battlefield, uh, in Ukraine.

A hundred percent.

A hundred percent.

Although they've taken most of the good ones.

We're gonna have to really start digging in the bag of Lord

of the Rings if we're gonna.

Uh, start finding other names for these things.

Paul Baba Bombadil is out there.

Guys.

Tom Bombadil.

Oh, there we go.

I, I I need to, I need to trademark that one.

Um, okay, let's talk CPI for a bit.

This will probably be a shorter conversation, but, um, core

CPI was roughly in line 2.9%, uh, two point year on year.

Headline.

CPI was 2.6%, but there was a big jump in core goods.

Um, core services was hot, medical care services was hot.

I would describe it as a moderately warm CPI print.

And I know you're probably gonna take the other side of this, but I just wanna say

that I think people thought that after Liberation Day there was gonna be an.

Immediate increase in prices due to tariffs, and that was never the way it

was gonna work because there was stuff getting shipped via other countries

that wasn't China like look at the imports from places like Vietnam or

Indonesia or Thailand from China and trans shipments and things like that.

Like those things weren't closed off.

Lots of companies had inventory on hand that they were gonna burn through, and

they had been stocking up in preparation for something like Liberation Day.

Um, it, it just takes time.

It's sort of like a snake eating something too big for itself and

it takes time for it to digest.

But I have been thinking since liberation Day that if Trump stuck to the guns and

he looks like he's trying to stick to the guns, we'll get to tariffs and trade.

Maybe as part of this, 'cause I think we need to talk about, um, Trump and the

50% tariffs on Brazil and the ongoing free trade agreements with India.

Does he or does he not have a deal with Vietnam?

What's going on with China?

We're gonna send them, you know, ships from Nvidia, but we're also gonna

like crack down on the other things.

Like I think all that is part of the conversation.

Um.

But I was never one of these people that was expecting inflation to go to the moon.

But I do maybe think that what we could say is like, when is the, like

maybe we're at the lowest point of inflation for the last 12 months.

Like I think we're really heading towards like also this conflict

with Jerome Powell and the Fed, and are you gonna raise rates or not?

If inflation is starting to slowly tick up from here because the tariffs are

starting to have some sort of impact.

So I mean, it's not the be all, end all.

Maybe we get a couple more CPIs and they're not working that way.

But this is the first CPI where I was like, okay.

Like a little tiny signs that maybe we're gonna start seeing

like the long-term impact of these things and prices moving up.

And I think that will be, that'll be challenging for President Trump if it

keeps up, because you can do the slide of hand with Iran and Israel and Russia

and it all works for those things.

But when people's, when the price of eggs like starts going up, when the price of

all these other things starts going up, like we've seen, uh, what people do.

So tell me why I'm wrong.

Tell me why you think that's not the right thing.

No, I think politically you are right, right.

I think from a political perspective, uh, inflation is clearly the number

one concern of Americans, and the intensity of that concern has actually

increased over the past six months.

Even though CPI has come down from almost double digit levels, and

that's because, you know, prices are.

CPIs slowing down, but prices are still rising,

right?

Uh, so there's no disinflation.

And that's just where we're gonna be for the next 10 years, that like the price

increase we got is where we're gonna stay.

So people are gonna stay mad for a very long time.

Um, so from a political perspective, you're a hundred percent right And

everything I'm about to say doesn't matter from a political human perspective.

And a lot of people who listen to this, listen to our

podcast for that perspective.

Like, what?

So you're correct.

From a market perspective, however, um, I do think it's gonna be

difficult for CPI to rise a lot because shelter is 40% of core CP.

Mm-hmm.

And it's tanking.

It's tanking.

And, and the second issue I would say is that widgets, you

know, things like goods, right?

This is the stuff that we get from China and abroad.

They're gonna go up in prices.

For all of you who are listening to this, there's a very important concept, which

is that when a price of a item goes up, it's actually in a way disinflationary,

unless it's supported by wage growth or some sort of demand stimulus.

So, and that's where I would say that it's absolutely criminally

insane that Jay Powell thought inflation was transitory in 2021.

This is something that he should be fired for.

Like this is, it's insanity.

The Central Bank of Mexico is raising rates, bro.

And you are sitting there and you're saying like it's, it's transitory.

Yeah.

Because the argument is like, well, these supply chain issues

are gonna resolve themselves.

No, no, no.

It doesn't matter because there was so much fiscal stimulus in 21 and 22

that supported the increase in prices.

So the price increase ended up being sustainable.

Just kept feeding on itself.

The difference this time, Jacob, is that we don't have fiscal stimulus.

The one big beautiful bill is not stimulative.

Uh, it's very, very small increase in, uh, fiscal thrust for 2026,

and that actually becomes negative.

So there, and I mean this, this is not a disputable point that

we're so far away from the fiscal stimulus of the 2020s or 2021.

We don't have cash handouts to people where they can afford

to buy ever increased goods.

So because of that from a market perspective, the CPI increase

that we're getting right now is actually quite transitory.

And it's quite funny that Jay Powell this time around is not saying, not using

the word transitory, but he should be.

Everything that's gonna come from the tariffs will be

transitory because it's not being supported by any fiscal stimulus.

And because of that, I actually don't think that this increase

will have market implications.

I hear you on the politics though.

On the politics.

Absolutely.

And I would say the two actually feed on each other in that it's

very, very painful and difficult for him to impose extreme tariffs.

And that's why I think you will get deals.

So I think we're gonna end up with a 10 to 15% increase in

goods prices across the board.

That's like the level we should be expecting, and that's a one-off hit.

A lot of that corporates who manufacture the retailers will have

to take on in their profit margins.

Some of it will be passed on to the consumer.

Uh, and I think it will be transitory this time around.

So this time around this increase is transitory.

'cause there's just no fiscal backstop.

Yeah.

Um, you know.

We've come so far that adding three to 4 trillion to the deficit is not

considered stimulative or that you can make that argument and that it's not.

And this is, you know, one place where you and I differ, like to

me, the one big beautiful bill.

Yes, it's not direct cash handouts, but it's still adding 4 trillion,

uh, to the deficit and the cuts don't really kick in until 2028.

I also, I think this is a good time also to bring up, um, the MP

material deals, which is something I think is super interesting.

So the Pentagon has basically become, um, the largest shareholder in MP materials.

They refine.

Rare Earths and other things like that.

Um, the, the Pentagon is also basically agreeing to purchase

commitments and a floor price.

Um, a 10 year agreement establishing a price floor commitment of, for

instance, $110 per kilogram of one of the things that MP material sells.

This is sort of.

Similar to what the United States did with the semiconductor industry

in the 1950s and sixties when they were going up against the Soviets and

they wanted to put chips on missiles to create precision guided munitions

like the semiconductor companies exist because the US Comp, the US government

came in and said, we will buy all of these chips and we will buy them at

a certain price and you will survive.

And then we get chips on our phones and our laptops and the thing

that we're recording on right now.

But if that's true, like if this is what the Pentagon is

doing and they're, you know, uh.

Gearing up this capacity, you're gonna pay more for these things if,

if you're one of these other companies in general that's been importing

this stuff cheaply from China.

And this is one of the asymmetric levers that China has been threatening,

that if you go after us on all these different things when it comes to

trade, like yes, you're gonna win.

You're bigger than us, but we will make it painful for you.

And we can make it especially painful for us companies that

need to source these things.

So I think it's actually the US government signaling, hey, like this

stuff is gonna cost more because it's gonna be made and refined.

In the United States.

And so, and, and I think there's also like an interesting thing happening

here where you can hear the ambivalence in my voice and in my take because

you have this sort of thing on the one hand and then on the other it's, oh,

Nvidia, you can send the chips to China.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Which that's awesome.

Like these, these things don't make sense.

Like, are you Trump the globalist who just wants to make a deal with China and trade

more, or are you Trump that we are gonna get all of our rare earth sourced from

the United States and pay more for it, but we're gonna be secure as a result of it?

Like these are not, this is the right hand and the left hand not

knowing what they're doing to me.

But no, no.

Take it though.

Maybe you think it can make sense.

I can defend it.

I can defend it.

I can defend it.

Because look, there are certain technologies, there are certain

technologies that like, so first of all.

What is the foundation of geopolitical power and it's material wealth?

Material wealth.

I thought it was rivers.

Hashtag peters eye.

Absolutely, absolutely not.

Okay.

So, uh, it's the source, like the foundation of wealth is material power,

you know, and all obviously, you know, access to technology, but you're not gonna

access technology unless you have money.

So money is very important.

Now, I, I love the scene in the house of cards that you have before quoted

myself, I mean, it's in my book.

You may have all the money, Raymond, but I have all the men with guns,

you know, which Kevin Spacey delivers in his extremely like great act

like I'd agree with that Jacob.

But men with with guns is expensive.

And so the reason I say this is because I do think it's a simplistic view.

That one can just stop trading with China.

No, you just have to be smart about it.

So, uh, is Nvidia going to give China the most cutting edge chips that it has?

It's in Arsenal.

I actually don't know, but I'm assuming the deal with the US

government is that No, we'll give them some generation older chip.

Same with, uh, Airbus or Boeing.

Should Boeing stop selling aircraft to China?

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

First of all, Boeing airplanes suck.

So like, there you go, China, like gorge yourself on planes

that are gonna fall outta the sky.

But, but the more, the more serious, the more serious point is that this

is 1980s and 1990s technology that you're selling to China, the buy

airplane that allows Boeing to the end r and d on latest technology.

Like that's, that's the whole point of the video.

You cannot cut off the video.

And you cannot cut off.

This isn't pro globalist.

This isn't like, oh, Marco works for finance bros. He

just wants Nvidia start, go up.

No, this is like legitimately obvious point.

China's second largest economy in the world.

Huge consumer market, you are going to hurt NVIDIA's efforts to

use its revenue to funnel into r and d to develop new chips unless

you let them trade with China.

So that's the first point, I would say.

The second point is then, okay, then you can identify certain things in your

supply chain that are critical to you and you just invest a lot into those

to make sure that you can, that you can actually have that domestically.

So I think you can both be a globalist and put 50% tariffs in steel.

I think you can do both things.

If you, if you decide steel is really important at the 21st century, if you de

decide, decide that you need rare earth mineral refining in your country, fine.

Like whatever it is that you decide, you can have like a backstop

domestically while still trading with essentially your rival, and here's

where you have to trade with China.

The reason you have to trade with China, the reason that you

have to let Nvidia trade with China is because I guarantee you.

Tokyo Electron and Samsung, and you know, all these other allies of the US

are gonna continue to trade with China.

And so you're gonna fall behind, you're gonna seed marketplace to somebody else.

And then 10, 15 years from now, you're wondering why the, I don't know, the

Dutch or the South Korea under the Japanese, or at the forefront of.

Because you decided not to make the money off of the Chinese

with second or third generation goods that you were selling them.

So I think it, it requires nuance.

It does.

And I, and I, I take your point, but it can be done over a period of years.

If the federal government is gonna support the strategic sectors that you're talking

about, and that's not what's happening.

Like if you wanna do what you are talking about, then you need, sorry, MAGA folks.

You need Biden's Industrial Policy Blueprint.

You need to go in and actually support and train and set a floor, not just

for these materials, but for all the things that are strategic, what

is not happening, they're giving.

The, the size of Italy's military budget to ice and they're cutting Medicaid

and they're doing things like that.

They're not there.

They're not, they're not out there saying, in five years we wanna be making

X, y, and Z things in the United States, and here's how we're gonna retrain the

workforce and here's how we're gonna bring the factories back and here's the

countries that we're gonna near shore, some of the other components that we need.

Like, that's not what they're doing.

They're doing some of these one-offs.

So I think they're gonna reach a point where.

You're gonna get all these inputs where the price is gonna go up significantly

because the things that you're talking about haven't kicked in yet, and China's

just gonna take advantage of those things.

And I think the other thing that's in what you said is that, uh, the eu, Japan,

South Korea, uh, they were being more reticent with China until the last.

Three or four months.

Now Japan is going like, screw y'all.

We're going all in on China now.

Now South Korea is saying, fuck this.

Like, you wanna treat us like this?

We will punch back a little bit.

We are not Canada, my friend.

Like, you wanna see what this looks like?

No.

Go cook.

So, so, no, no.

So, so, so let me, let me put what you're saying and I think like, kind of rapid,

you know, I think that you're correct.

And that's where the, that's where the strategy for like

creating critical infrastructure.

Should be not just American.

And that's where I think the Trump administration's treatment

of allies really will hurt the US over the 10 20 year horizon.

Like why not set up some of this rare earth refining, you know, it's

very difficult to build a refiner for rare earth because the, uh,

basically what's left after your.

Refine.

Rare earth is toxic, extremely toxic material, and toxic waste.

So how are you gonna set this up in the United States of America?

Like it may make sense to move it out of China to an ally.

And your point is like, well, you've kind of, uh, you're not

really thinking about that.

Seriously.

You want to put everything into the us You want us to produce steel

and you treat Canadian steel as somehow a national security threat.

That will significantly increase cost domestically, whereas just spreading

it around, quote unquote the West writ large would've been a cheaper strategy.

And I think a strategy that would've ensured that those allies, you know,

see America as a reliable partner.

So I think, I think your criticism of the Trump administration is very valid,

you know, and uh, and I think that they are going to have to explain themselves.

For that attitude that they had both in the first term and this term, which is

what it's, uh, you know, this thing that Jerry Kushner said in the first term,

it's, what have you done for me lately?

World Use that term.

Similarly, you know, it's this whole idea that the rest of the

world owes something to the US and so the US is gonna cash in on it.

I think that that was, that was a mistake.

And you identified why?

Because if you have to onshore all of this stuff domestically,

it is gonna increase prices.

It also ensures that those allies are no longer reliable partners.

So no counter for me on that one.

And you know, Jared's not around anymore.

We can't even go to Jared now because Jared's busy making

money off the first term.

'cause he realizes that the second term is kind of crazy.

But this, I think it's, it's a perfect bookend of what we were talking about

earlier because I think that Trump.

Instinctual nature.

His non-strategic point of view helps him with Russia, Ukraine, because he

has a real instinct for where is power, where is weakness for getting what

I want for pushing my finger on the place that is gonna get me what I want.

Heran in Israel

too.

Sorry to interrupt you, Jacob.

Yeah.

But like, why are we not talking about Iran and Israel?

Because it was actually handled extremely well by Donald Trump.

And here we are, like a month later, nobody cares.

Where's the instability in the Middle East?

Where is it like, you know, I'm looking at,

well, well, it's, it, it's, it's in southern Syria because

Israel is now bombing southern Syria.

'cause the Jews are in the Syrian sectarian issues.

And that's all we're gonna talk about because it's not that important.

But like, it's there.

It's not like.

Israel is acting like a great power.

Now, by the way, in the Middle East, I said this on Twitter, Kurds, if you're

listening, watch what's happening with the Drews in southern Syria.

Like if you have any hope for an independent state in

your lifetime, like what?

Like you should be taking notes.

Um, but that's the only thing I'm gonna say about the Middle East.

But I was, I, you know, I said something nice about President Trump.

Now I'm gonna say something not so nice about President Trump because the way,

all the things that made him good at Russia, Ukraine, and make him good at

this Iran Israel thing are making him yes.

Yeah.

Extremely incompetent when it comes to trade.

This idea that they're, you're gonna throw 50% tariffs on Brazil because

you're mad that that's the best Boro's getting it kicked in the teeth.

That's the best one.

Like, it's asinine.

Let's, lets cook that.

Let's cook with that.

You've just, you've turned Brazil against you.

Like go look at oh h social media.

They're furious.

Like it's a center right leaning country.

And you're like giving Lula support.

Like what do you do?

Sorry, go ahead.

Listen.

No, no, no.

Don't, don't apologize.

I just, I just, I just wanna build on this.

This is, uh, uh, uh, Brazil has a trade deficit with the United States of America.

Let me, lemme break this down.

Really simple for people in the administration who don't

know a math Peter Novarro.

So basically you have a country that imports a lot of stuff from America

and doesn't send anything back.

That's Brazil.

It's one of the few.

It's one of the few countries on the planet that actually finds

Americans goods, American goods useful

and it doesn't send anything back to America.

Americans don't buy anything from Brazil.

It's like there's nothing to buy.

It's perfectly fine.

It's the one country that actually.

Has a negative trade balance for the United States of America where the

US is winning according to President Trump's like heuristics, which

obviously I don't, don't matter with matter because trade balance is not

a be all, end all, uh, in the world.

My point is like, this is fascinating.

Like Brazil, you cannot tariff Brazil at 50%.

You cannot, because first of all, whatever Brazil buys from America,

you can buy from someone else.

Let's just be very clear.

There's absolutely nothing critical.

United States of America send to Brazil.

Nothing.

It can all be replaced by other countries, Europe, China, whatever.

And on top of that, it's a big country on a continent where

US power is kind of relevant.

It's the Western hemisphere, and as you say, Jacob, you're pushing

it into the arms of China for no real good strategic reason.

And I agree with you, Todd.

Uh, president Trump's.

President Trump is like a hedge fund manager.

You know, in in finance we've got hedge fund managers.

You have sovereign wealth funds and pension funds on the other side, in

terms of time horizons, hedge fund has a total of time horizon from

zero to like three months maybe.

You know, an institutional investors is gonna have time

horizon of five to 10 years.

President Trump is treating his job as if he's a hedge fund manager and,

and in many ways that's a good thing.

As you pointed out when it comes to Israel, Iran, he

handled it I think very well.

He understands game theory and negotiations really, really well.

What he doesn't, I think, care about is how the consequences of those

negotiations and those mini game theoretical moments where he crushes

everybody really, really well because he negotiates better than everyone

because his counterparts have never freaking bought a car at a used car lot.

You know where he is, he.

He's been dealing with contractors all his life actually lived in the real world.

Nine out of 10 American policy makers have basically gone from an Ivy League

college to a job in the State Department.

So they, they have no idea how the real world works and it's fine.

Like that's his specialty.

The problem is that those negotiating moments, yeah, they ignore the long

term and Brazil is a great example, but you can really make many others.

Canada is also a good example.

Yeah.

Well, I, I wanna make a few others.

So, I mean, let's talk about a few.

Like, I mean, Mexico is the one that is the top of my mind.

We're talking about tariffs again on Mexico and some

demerits maybe for Shane Baum.

If both thing, if those things get through, Mexico's your era in the hole.

And what you really need to do with Mexico, and I think Mexico would be

open to this based on what I've read and learned over the past, you know,

eight to 10 months is they've got a cartel problem and a security problem.

So.

Light 'em up, like go in there and make Mexico secure and like make

Mexico a manufacturing center that is completely dependent on the United

States and make that like a cheap labor workforce that's going for that.

That's what you want and there's something that you can do hand in hand there, and

it will affect all these other things.

There's, um, India, they just wrapped up their fifth round of talks.

They're trying to get some kind of interim deal or some deal in before August.

You know what the sticking point is?

The United States is insisting that we sell milk or dairy products into India.

Than other farm goods.

And it's like everybody who, all the farmers who listen to this, who have

seen me at events, especially those at dairy events, you know, I love y'all

and you know, I'm rooting for y'all.

Like I, but like this idea that we're gonna use India so that we can sell

dairy products into the Indian market.

India is what gave the British Empire a second lease on life.

If you can get a real free trade agreement with India and all these

other different concessions from them on trade, you're gonna hold it up because

you want to sell them dairy products.

Like that's not gonna help you.

Like India's gonna surge dairy production and in 10 years they're not gonna buy

from the United States anymore and the deal's gonna be done and you're just

gonna piss the Indians off just like you did with the India Pakistan stuff.

One place in which his game theory stuff was not so wrong.

Think about Vietnam, thought they had a deal.

It's a different deal than they negotiated.

And now they're like, well, we can't even trust this guy 'cause we thought we had

a deal, so maybe we should look to China.

Maybe we should look to some of these others.

And that's before we get into Japan and South Korea and others.

So it's just.

It's this really short term thinking, and he's pushing away

all these allies otherwise would want to be part of this system.

And I think in 3, 5, 7 years, like I, the, the, the metaphor

I've used is radiation sickness.

Like, I think you'll get a time horizon where things look

like the patient has improved.

That's what happens when you're exposed to a lethal dose of radiation.

But the cellular structure has been so damaged that you can't like,

replicate yourself again, and then you die a terrible, horrible death.

I don't think we're gonna die a terrible oral death.

But like you're setting up the same pattern here where, okay,

you did the shock, now things are gonna look okay for a minute.

And then, but inside the cellular structure, the patient is damaged

in Japan and South Korea on even Canada who just sent their first

LNG shipment to South Korea.

Mazeltov to the Canadians.

Like, they're all like turning on you while saying nice things to your face

and you're just running around declaring victory and going to Jared rant over.

No, I think I, I, I really like that analogy because, uh,

you know, one counter to your rant.

Is Europe, right?

Mm-hmm.

It looks like Europe has found, uh, a way to deal with Trump and,

uh, you know, you like Mertz.

Friedrich Mertz came out, gave an interview, uh, recently, I think,

uh, in the UK where he basically said like, look, president Trump was right.

We were free riding and you know, like, I have no problem with JD

Vance's speech at uni conference.

This is an example.

I mean, look it up if you don't know what I'm referring to.

For our listeners.

You know, but, but it underpins exactly how you defined it.

It may just be that all these countries have figured out how to

deal with Trump, send him basically love letters through text messages.

Mark Ruta did.

Mm-hmm.

The NATO Secretary General, like so effectively just go on TV and

say, president Trump is awesome.

He's right, but then work on.

Divesting yourself from your security trade and economic links with America,

which is obviously not good for the us.

So I really like the radiation analogy, and I think that, um, a lot of people

listening to this would say, we're being unfair to President Trump because

your appeals have fallen in line.

I would raise the question, but are they falling in line by increasing

defense, uh, spending, or are they simply becoming geopolitically mature?

Exiting the geopolitical adolescence that actually served American

interests for the past 70 years.

And so they've just learned how to massage this rhetorically like, oh,

president Trump, you're awesome.

You're our daddy.

Meanwhile, hey guys, let's build up our own capacity.

'cause Americans are unreliable.

Um, so yeah.

I think you're right.

I think that's the, and about Europe.

Like

I, I've been reading this quote from Emmanuel Macron, uh,

who, who was fairly down on our trade value leader list, but because he is

a lame duck 'cause he can't run again.

And I know that like he's got lots of problems as a politician, but he's

still one of the smarter ones out there in terms of diagnosing geopolitics.

He said this in a speech last week when he was celebrating, uh, a c day quote.

To be free in this world, you must be feared.

To be feared.

You have to be powerful.

The whole nation must be stronger.

End quote.

You could put that in the 1930s leader and you wouldn't know that it was

Emmanuel Macron speaking in 2025.

So sure.

That's why Mark Red is saying, great.

I got the $10 billion worth of weapons from the United States for

NATO and Ukraine and everything else I sent in my life letter.

Everything's fine.

Meanwhile, France is like, eh, like we were gonna increase spending and build

French products out to, you know, 20, 30.

Now we're gonna do it in two years, and now here's 10 billion euros more.

And by the way, Boeing, we've got Airbus over here.

We can sell that shit to China too.

We're gonna have a new relationship with China as well.

So like it's.

Yeah, Europe is right there.

Like he's created a poll, like both.

It's funny, like Russia and the United States for generations have

been fighting over Europe basically.

Um, and now like Russia by invading Ukraine and Trump, by prosecuting a

trade war, have created the strong Europe that both sides didn't want.

They both wanted them, like in between.

It's just like totally self-defeating.

Um, last word to you, Marco, and then we gotta get outta here.

Uh, no.

I think, uh, I've compared Donald Trump to, uh, cod liver oil in the past.

So cod liver oil is what?

Was fed to children, uh, all across the world.

Uh, I grew up in basically the third world.

So we used to, uh, we used to have this even in the seventies

and eighties, you know, so, uh, basically you, you swallow it.

It's extremely stinky and it tastes terrible.

So Donald Trump, if you are a foreign country, he's stinky

and he tastes terrible.

But the truth is he's very good for you.

Like the truth is that Donald Trump is really good for the rest of the world.

Because he basically takes away this American benevolence to

allies and, and forces everybody to basically take stock of their own

capabilities and their own failures and fix them and start fixing them.

And so there's two ways to look at this.

Jacob, you've taken the approach that this is not good for America.

Like he's caught liver oil for the rest of the world.

Mm-hmm.

But not for the us.

This is, this is bad.

I see that and I agree with it.

From a purely kind of political science, international relations perspective.

Yes, you're correct.

Uh, America's effectively kind of losing some of these alliance relationships.

Allies are just being sy of fans and saying nice things to President

Trump or sending him sexts as rooted it, you know, but they're,

but they're really like, moving on.

On the other hand, I will just say one thing.

Maybe this all doesn't end in a radiation sickness death.

Maybe what it produces is a more balanced world.

You know, where like, is it really a, a risk to the United States of

America that Canada solves some of its idiotic domestic economic issues

that Mark Carney's trying to do, like God bless him first time in 250 years,

provinces can trade with one another.

Is it really a problem that Europe can stand on its own two feet?

Is, are Canada and Europe truly ever going to be enemies of the

United States relative to Russia or China or some other country?

And so in a way, maybe there is a more hopeful vision where the world

just becomes a little bit more balanced and the US retrenches by

building up some of these countries.

And yes, it's not direct positive for the us you are correct, but maybe a, maybe a

vasal vasal relationship was not really in anybody's interest to begin with.

So I'm just gonna leave you there.

I don't have an answer.

Because instinctively I agree with you, but maybe you and I are looking

at this from too much of a game of risk perspective from a Machiavellian

purely realist political science view, and not from a different view, which

is that, hey, maybe this will lead to a more balanced world where, yeah, Europe

may have the capacity to say no to America, but maybe that's not such a bad

thing, you know, at the end of the day.

I think it's certainly not a bad thing for markets and investing.

That's why I'm so bullish, like in general on the next decade or two.

I think there's a monster waiting at the end of this period.

Just like in the 1890s there was a monster called World War

I waiting at the end of it.

So I worry about sort of that, but the, exactly what you just

said is why you should be like skeptical and risk, uh, aware.

If you're into geopolitics and if you're in investing, you should be like.

The party is, is just getting started.

Like,

no, Jacob, I love that you are completely right.

And I kind of feel the same way.

That's why like, I'm not bearish right now on, on markets at all.

Uh, not this year, not like I don't think the world is ending,

but you're right, you're right.

A multipolar world is not a bad place to be.

We can be in it for 20, 50, a hundred years or when it ends.

Usually doesn't end well.

Oh

boy.

Yeah.

So,

all right, on that note.

Good to see you, cousin.

I'll see you next week.

Same.

Thank you.