BTC Sessions - They’re Not Saving the Republic, They’re Building Fortress North America | Brent Johnson

Starting point is 00:00:00 We could see the fall of the American Republic, but it would be replaced by an American empire as opposed to China or Europe or Russia. It's pretty clear they're trying to build fortress North America. Was there a particular moment we're like, oh, this is it. It's over. We're never going back. I don't speak of what I would like to see happen. I speak of what my analysis tells me as likely to happen. If you don't think that the U.S. Treasury has better information than you do, I'm sorry, I'll bet at the other side of you every day of the week. But I would think that if we're going to a more chaotic time, that you would see capital flowing into, and dollar assets as well as gold and Bitcoin. They will not want to completely dismiss the overall ecosystem of digital assets.

Starting point is 00:00:39 The United States will not, under any circumstances, surrender hegemon. China kind of wants this too. All right, good morning, Brent. Thank you so much for joining me today. I've been really looking forward to this conversation, particularly because I feel like you have one of the most interesting takes on the monetary system focusing not just on the demand side, sorry, the supply side, but the demand side for dollars.

Starting point is 00:01:00 So we've got lots to get into today. Scott Bassan's buybacks, him on the news telling people he's got asymmetric information, the unrealized losses that might be sitting on banks balance sheets, the ongoing war in Iran, and of course where stable coins and Bitcoin fit into all this. So to begin the conversation, I actually wanted to start with Iran because I believe you have a very interesting take on this situation. So what are you currently seeing and how does this kinetic war relate back to the dollar system? Yeah, so I think it's pretty easy to say that things are not going perfectly in Iran. You know, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Starting point is 00:01:32 But I also think many, many people are jumping to way too many conclusions regarding it being a failure. Or they're not being any plan or this happened, you know, without an understanding of the situation. I think that is all wrong. And I think anybody who's ever studied military tactics or been in the military themselves will tell you that no plan survives first contact with the enemy. And so my take on it is that it's not going fantastic. Of course, they would have liked it to go much easier. But these are not stupid people.

Starting point is 00:02:11 I think it's very easy to label, you know, government leaders as stupid and idiots and couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, et cetera, et cetera. But many of these people, especially at the high levels of the military, have the equivalent of two or three PhDs. They've been studying this region for decades. The reason this hasn't happened for several decades is because they know how hard it is to do. It is not an easy thing to do. Not to mention the fact it's on the other side of the world, right, from the United States. And the other thing is, I have even said myself that in the short term, just Iran surviving is a short-term win for Iran.

Starting point is 00:02:55 but their short-term win has come at an incredible cost, an incredible cost. And even if things go back to normal tomorrow, it will take them years, if not decades, just to get back to where they were a couple months ago. So this is why I'm a little hesitant, I guess is the right way to say that this is the U.S. Suez moment. This is, you know, the signal that brings America down. this is the defining thing that shows the dollar is on its last legs. Again, I think people are just jumping to conclusions way too quickly. And I can cite many examples just from my lifetime,

Starting point is 00:03:34 forget about the 50 years before I was born in 72, that I could make similar arguments that the U.S., for better for worse, has the ability to mess up better than anybody else, and still remain, you know, in power, quote, unquote. And I think many people are trying to, you know, project what they want to see happen onto the world as it actually is. And I just think the world is much differently than the way I would want it or other people seem to want it. No, fair enough.

Starting point is 00:04:10 Would you, would you say that the ongoing conflict is putting strain on the treasury market? Do you think those two are essentially related? And do you have any ideas or theories as to why they continue with the, with the conflict, why they continue to push it forward. It's gone way longer than I ever would have thought. And I feel like even particularly even good going into midterms. It's not necessarily the greatest idea. Yeah, so a couple things. So is it putting pressure on long-term yields? Yeah, I think it is. But I don't think the Treasury is worried that the Treasury is not going to be able to pay its bills. Again, those are two different things. Again, there's a lot of people who,

Starting point is 00:04:45 you know, we're in this kind of immediate gratification world now. You know, you swipe, if you don't like, you just swipe right and you go to the next thing. And as a result, we've gotten accustomed to decisions being made immediately and the conclusions come in immediately. And so, and I think people will then put that on the treasury market. Because yields are rising, that means the government is not going to be able to pay its bills and it's going to go bankrupt. Well, again, if you play that out to the very, very extreme, then yes, yes, that could be the case, but I don't think that we're anywhere close to that level, and I don't think Scott Besson thinks that we are either.

Starting point is 00:05:23 Now, would he prefer that interest rates are lower? I think there's unquestionably a question, an answer of yes there. But I don't think he is worried per se about the government not being able to fund itself. What I think he is worried about is if yields spike, which they could, and I have said for a long time, in fact, my entire thesis, when I started it six, seven years ago, five years, whatever, I forget what year it is now, 2026 to 2019, was that yields were going to rise. For the first time in 40 years, yielded yields were going to start to rise. And that was going to cause all kinds of pressure

Starting point is 00:06:00 all over the world and cause all kinds of problems. And so I think, you know, the problem with yields rising is not just that it costs the United States more to fund itself. The problem is that it costs the whole world more to fund itself. And as interest rates rise, bond prices fall. And the thing that sits on every central bank balance sheet and every commercial bank in the world is bonds. And so as those bonds fall in price, that decreases the amount of collateral in the world off of which new money gets loaned into existence. And so it contracts liquidity. And when you contract liquidity, that exacerbates problems and once one problem start, other problems can happen. You can get contagion and then you can get a crisis. And that's why, you know, a week ago when Bessent was talking about, you know, one of his

Starting point is 00:06:49 programs, he says, why would I want to start a global financial crisis? Again, that doesn't help anybody. You know, the United States does not want to collapse China. That doesn't help anybody. China does not want to collapse the United States. That doesn't help anybody. What they want to do is control everything. And that's a lot harder to do, right? And so I think, you know, with what Bessent is doing is they're doing their best to control a very complicated situation. Now, and I know I'm rambling a little bit, but I think this is important to understand. Yeah. I think this is important to understand is I have also said that eventually they will completely lose control. And that includes the U.S. Treasury and that includes the U.S. Fed.

Starting point is 00:07:31 But I think that comes a lot further down the road. And I think they have. a lot more tools at their disposal than many people seem to think they have. And I think they are better at using the tools they already have and kicking the can down the road than many people seem to think that they are able to. I can tell you, I've been doing this for 26 years now. And I started right before the dot-com crisis. And shortly after the dot-com crisis, I started hearing that the Fed is trapped, they're out of bullets, there's nothing else they can do. It's 25 years ago now. Yeah. They seem to, and yet every time they need to, they walk out and in the middle street with a loaded gun and it fires, right? So, you know, the stuff, this, these ideas that the government

Starting point is 00:08:17 is helpless and that Scott Besson has no idea what he's doing and he has no tools at his disposal. Well, I would be very careful about betting against that. Very interesting. I'm curious then what in your estimation has his attention right now. What I'm thinking about is it seems like, although I don't even know is necessarily meaningful amount. So with regards to the long-end buybacks, that program doesn't come into effect, I think, until November. And if I understand correctly, it's basically matching the short end with the limit they already had there. So I'm curious, with regards to Bessence's announcements of the buybacks, it almost feels preemptive. Like, why go out and do that if there's not any immediate stress or concerns going on? And then is it even really all that meaningful? So this is where I would

Starting point is 00:08:58 argue that he should not have done this. But again, I try not to say, I do my best not to say what I would have done or whether I think this was a good move or a bad move. I just try to say, this is what's going to happen as a result. Because the minute you start saying, this is what you want to see, or this is what should have happened, then all of a sudden you have an emotional investment in it. And I try to, I try my best to stay neutral on all of this. But I don't think it was necessary for him to do it. I think why he did it was because there was on those off the run treasuries, it was a, you know, there's not a lot of issuance there. There's not a lot of liquidity there. One of the thing, one of the treasuries job is to manage the debt of the United States,

Starting point is 00:09:43 just like the treasury or the corporate finance department of any, or I'm sorry, any treasury department of any corporation in the world manages their outstanding debt. That's one of the the tasks that they have. And so I think, you know, this was just more of a liquidity and debt management program than it was yield curve control or QE or going back to money printing. And the other reason I think he got involved, and this is a little less known, but I think equally important. I'm not sure if you know who Mike Green is or not, but Mike. Yeah, I've interviewed. Yeah, so Mike is, you know, Mike's a friend of mine, and I've been lucky enough to kind of be with him on his ride of the rise of passive management over the last 10 years. And his thinking has greatly influenced my thinking.

Starting point is 00:10:33 And what we have seen is that over the years, the rise of passive management has an impact on prices, not just in the equity markets around the world, but in the fixed income markets around the world. And the treasury market and other sovereign markets are not immune to this. And so if you get into a thinly traded market in a thinly traded time of year and there's passive management involved and something starts to fall in price, the falling in price can get exacerbated due to the effects of passive management. Now, this can have the same effect on the way up as it can on the way down, but it's when things start to fall in price dramatically, the bad things happen. And so my guess, and again, I don't know. My guess is that best, well, I know for sure

Starting point is 00:11:21 the Bessent knows about the rise of passive, and I know he understands the impact of it, whether he was doing this as a shot across the bow, so to speak, to try to keep that passive impact under wraps, I don't know, but it would not shock me to learn that. And then the other thing I would say, and this gets a little bit more from a zoomed out big picture perspective, is that I think it's important to remember that all Central Bank and Treasury programs that have been run for the last 50, 60, 70

Starting point is 00:11:56 years have all been run during a time of the rules-based order with regard to geopolitics. And the rules-based order was a system of cooperation and also control

Starting point is 00:12:11 set up by the Allies after World War II. And it was done as a means to keep the peace, so to speak, to keep the world from going through another crazy war where a million people die. And so the rules-based order is a real thing. It was a system by which the world interacted with each other.

Starting point is 00:12:34 And there was a pace to it. There was an organization to it. And with that pace and with that organization came stability, right? You didn't have as many outliers, things just happening out of the blue. And that provided some stability to the geopolitical landscape and therefore it provided some stability to the financial markets. the rules-based order is dead. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, you know, I don't really care.

Starting point is 00:13:06 I just know that it's dead. And I don't think it's coming back anytime soon. And so this is a long way of saying that I think Fed programs, treasury programs, and all of these extraordinary monetary policy functions that took place in the last 50, 60, 70 years, did so in a much different geopolitical environment. And in many ways, they were reactive.

Starting point is 00:13:30 Once something started to bubble up, the monetary authorities, the government officials, they would react to whatever it was happening. But as we've moved from the rules-based order and now moving into this America first, and by the way, I think even if Trump, you know, even if the Republicans lose the midterms and even if a Democrat gets into power in 2028, I don't think we're going back to the rules-based order. And so I think these programs that get rolled out now, they are going to be done from an America First perspective. And that, by definition, is more of a proactive set of actions as opposed to merely reactive. And so I think you're going to see, again, for better for worse, Besson being more involved in markets. He's made in the last 18 months, maybe less than 18 months, he's made four.

Starting point is 00:14:24 He's made four pretty big proactive moves in the last 18 months, whether it was Argentina, Japan, the treasury market, Iran. And so I don't think that's going to stop. I think if anything, it's going to speed up and be done to a greater extent. Now, again, I don't particularly like that. It's not the way I would prefer the world is, but that's the way I think it is. And so I think him acting a week or so ago now, I think it was a kind of a combination of all those things. but I don't think it was because he sees a crisis imminent. Now, maybe a crisis will pop up next week.

Starting point is 00:15:00 I'm not smart enough to know that, but I don't think that's why he did it. Interesting. Okay, there's a few things I want to unpack there. I want to make sure I touch on the mechanism for which the passive flows would change based on the price point that we're currently at. But the one that jumped out at me immediately

Starting point is 00:15:14 was the idea, well, one, I want to understand when you say the rules-based order is dead, how do we know that what are you looking at? What are you seeing there? But I would think that if we're going to a more chaotic, time that you would see capital flowing into dollars and dollar assets as well as gold and Bitcoin, that sort of thing. So I would anticipate the yields. I'm almost pulled in two directions. Like if yields are also accounting for like growth expectations, inflation and risk,

Starting point is 00:15:35 or risk is going up. But again, I would feel that like maybe everybody else's yields would be rising, but not the US. So lots there. How do we know that the rules based order is dead? And wouldn't that strengthen dollar assets? Well, I think you have to be careful of which assets you're looking at, right? So remember, bonds are inversely correlated with interest rates. And so when interest rates go up, bond prices fall. It doesn't matter whether flows are coming into the United States or not. Now, you could argue that flows coming in are helping to offset some of the sales, right?

Starting point is 00:16:14 But as interest rates go up, bond prices fall. So I don't think you can just look at treasury prices and say capital is not flowing in into the United States. Capital is flowing into the United States. Last year was one of the biggest inflow years in history. Since 2000, I think 16, I might have this right. I think in the last 10 years, the net investment, the net international investment position in the United States went from like 18 trillion to negative 35 trillion or something like that. So it's doubled, which means it's a negative, which means more capital is coming into the United States than is leaving. So that, that again, shows that capital is coming into the United States.

Starting point is 00:16:54 But I think it's going into things like real estate. It's going into things like U.S. stock market. It's sitting in money market funds and T bills where it can earn 4%. So there's no doubt that capital is coming into the United States. It may be rotating out of long-term bonds, but it is definitely without question coming into the United States. Now, I forget some of the other questions. I apologize.

Starting point is 00:17:20 I know that's quite right. The rules-based order, Oh, yeah. Dead. How do we know that? What was there a particular moment we're like, oh, this is it. It's over.

Starting point is 00:17:29 We're never going back. No, I think it's one of these things where you can't, I don't know that you can necessarily put a, and maybe I shouldn't say dead. Dying is probably a better way to say it. But again, by definition, the way the rules-based order would work. It was a bilateral way of dealing with things.

Starting point is 00:17:48 So whether it was the WTO. So it was, It was characterized by a number of institutions, most notably the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, the G8, the G20, the WTO. All of these different institutions were put in place by the allied powers subsequent to World War II as a means of, again, cooperation and control. And many treaties, many trade agreements, climate change initiatives were all based on this rules-based order, common good or greater good scenario. And then Trump came to power and said, we are no longer doing things for the good of the world if it is not also for the good of the United States. We are going to negotiate things on a bilateral basis between countries, rather than. than for the greater good.

Starting point is 00:18:42 He has been very clear about that. And that is diametrically different than the rules-based order. Another thing that you could point to is both J.D. Vance's speech last year at the Munich Security Conference and then Remarker Rubio's speech again this year at the Munich Security Conference. They very clearly said the United States is no longer going to fund all of the defense initiatives for the world. The rest of you need to start pulling your own weight. And if you don't, there will be consequences. J.D. Vance was much more hawkish or mean-spirited about it, if that's the way you want to characterize it. Marco Rubio this year, I thought, gave one of the best speeches I've

Starting point is 00:19:28 ever heard. And I have asked people to listen to the speech. And if you think that he gets anything wrong, let me know which part you think he gets wrong. Because I can't find it. And it doesn't mean that maybe he is wrong about something. So I mean that sincerely. If anybody has listened to that speech and thinks that he was really wrong on that, I would love to hear the arguments against it. And the fact is, is during that speech, he received two or three pretty loud responses of applause from the European audience when he was doing it. But what he essentially said is, you know, we are not, we in America are not going to stand by and oversee the fall of Western civilization. and in order for Western civilization to survive, we think hard choices need to be made and things

Starting point is 00:20:13 need to be done. And we would love for you to be with us. I mean, he said, listen, we're always going to be part of you. We came from you. We want to remain with you. But if you don't want to come along, we're going anyway. Again, that is diametrically opposed to the rules-based order. That is, we are going to do it this way. You're either with us against us, right? Now, again, I don't particularly love ultimatums. Anytime somebody gives me an ultimatum, I typically do the negative, right? Just out of pure spite. But that doesn't mean that, but spite isn't necessarily wisdom, right?

Starting point is 00:20:47 And I think, and I think, but I think that's where we're at. I think, I think we're at a point in history where, unfortunately, you know, if, if you, if you want Western civilization to continue, I think things need. to change. Now, people may disagree with that, but that's kind of my view of it. And so I think this transition from the rules-based order to America first, regardless of whether you like it or not, it's a real thing. I think it has huge impacts for not just the global economy. I think it impacts the Western Hemisphere dramatically. I think it affects relations between Canada, Mexico, South America, and the United States dramatically. And the other thing I would say is, you know, it's not just the United States that wants this. China kind of wants

Starting point is 00:21:40 this too. It's kind of an, it's kind of a, like each side is kind of decided, listen, we need to get divorced, right? We had a good 25 years in some ways, you know, we accomplished a lot together. We raised some kids, but we just no longer see the world the way we used to, and it's time to go our separate ways. And I don't think China's diametrically opposed that. And in fact, I think they are working very hard for that same thing. But when the divorce finally happens, I think each side wants to get the better end of the stick, right? I think the United States, no question, wants to remain atop the global order. And I think China wants to take that spot. And I think both sides would prefer to do it in a nice, friendly manner without violence involved. I think that's

Starting point is 00:22:27 the preference for everybody. But I think each side is furiously preparing. in case it doesn't go amicably. And as soon as one side feels they have the upper hand on the other, I think the plug will be pulled and the divorce is final. In the meantime, we're kind of going through boxes and you can have this and I'll take that and, you know, playing nice. But, you know, I don't think that the pendulum of history is going to swing back towards cooperation. interesting. I'm curious, do you view that there's actually going to be a new, like, King of the Hill kind of coming up as this transition progresses? Or do you think that we're going to see more of a multipolar world and kind of a regional breakoff, or maybe China owns their side, their hemisphere,

Starting point is 00:23:15 and we kind of have our position over here in North America, which to me feels in line with what's happening in Venezuela and trying to get a better handle over basically the continent here, but maybe foregoing any sort of influence in their region of the world. Just kind of curious your thoughts on that? Well, I think this is where it's important to define multipolar. I don't think we are going to have a multipolar world of equals. Okay. In other words, I don't think the United States and China are going to be totally equal. And I don't think either side will be willing to accept being lesser than, right? At least not willingly. It doesn't mean it won't happen. And so do I think that we could have different poles of influence around the world, then absolutely. But I don't think

Starting point is 00:24:02 we are going to have two or three different poles of equal strength. I don't even think we're going to have two poles of equal strength. I can be wrong about that. And if that turns out to be the case, you know, so be it. But as far as the United States losing its position in the world, I don't think that's going to happen. And I'm quite sure it's not going to happen with a big fight along the way. In other words, the United States will not, under any circumstances, surrender hegemony. It might get taken from them. I don't think it will, but it might have to be open to that possibility. But it won't go willingly, I don't think. And I think what is much more likely to happen, and again, this is not something that I like, but I think

Starting point is 00:24:47 in that process, I think what is more likely to happen than not is that we could see the fall of the American Republic, but it would be replaced by an American empire as opposed to China or Europe or Russia or some other, some other entity. Bitcoin Well, you know them, you love them, long-time supporter of the channel and one of the easiest places to buy Bitcoin directly to your wallet in the U.S. and Canada, but that's not all they do. So for anyone looking to make a big purchase, there is Bitcoin Well Infinite. Because the hard part is in the buy, it's making sure you don't leave a giant mess for your

Starting point is 00:25:18 family. Taxes, estate planning, even mining and lending. Bitcoin Well Infinite pairs you with your own. dedicated advisor to help you every step of the way. And for the Americans, they're launching their own Bitcoin IRA and the wait list is open, verifiable and on-chain. So, sign up today, visit Bitcoinwell.com slash BTC sessions or scan the QR code on the screen. One company I like pointing people to when they ask about Bitcoin mining is abundant mines. They were founded by Beau and Christine Turner, after losing over half a million dollars to broken promises in the mining industry. And they built

Starting point is 00:25:49 their hosting model to remove the usual headaches. With abundant mines, you own your machines and keep 100% of the Bitcoin you mine. There's no revenue share, no hidden skims. Pricing is simple. One flat monthly fee covers power, parts, labor, and repairs. They also guarantee uptime. If a machine goes down, their hash rate redirect system routes hash power from their fleet, so earnings don't just stop. And every machine is insured at full replacement value. Everything is hosted in the U.S. powered by hydro, and mining equipment may qualify for 100% your one bonus depreciation. Learn more at abundant minds.com slash sessions. Can you expand on that a little bit in terms of what you mean by like Republic versus

Starting point is 00:26:34 Empire? Because almost like the way that I'm thinking of, and I think we may have like teased that a little bit too. I've heard people reference the idea of switching to more like a Hamiltonian system and this idea of going America first. Well, I would think that in the America first kind of mindset, then the basis and the galavanting around the world, isn't necessarily good for the domestic. It may be good for the, I would actually say the empire, but not necessarily good for the American people. So when you say, follow the republic, but the birth of the American empire, break that out for me a little bit. I'm trying to get my head around it. Well, so I think this is another thing that I think is important to understand. Whenever you talk

Starting point is 00:27:05 about these topics, people say, well, how is that good for the American people? You know, I don't know that it will be good for the American people. Okay. Yeah. Right. It might be really bad for the American people. And again, this is, I don't speak of what I would like to see happen. I speak of what my analysis tells me is likely to happen. It's important to remember that when you analyze a country, governments and the people are on opposite sides of the table. They are in, for the most part, direct opposition to each other. Now, they can be in a cooperative agreement or a non-cooperative agreement, but regardless of whether it's cooperative or non-cooperative, they're on the opposite side of the table from each other. Typically, governments lay down the rule and the citizens,

Starting point is 00:27:54 you know, live within those rules. Now, what made the United States so interesting, and I would argue what made it so strong for so long was that it was the first time in history where the people laid down the rules and the government had to abide by them. That is extremely unique in world history. is not the norm. That is by definition, the exception. And that's why they will often refer to the American experiment. It was an experiment in self-governments. And so over time, that the rules that the people laid down for the government have very much gotten blurred. And I would say in all but name, the government now lays down the rules and the people have to follow. Right. But we do still have a say, perhaps not as much as we used to. But my point is that before the U.S.

Starting point is 00:28:46 Seeds authority over the world or hegemony, however you want to define that characteristic, I think we will see a more authoritarian environment in the United States. And in some ways, I think if it means protecting the lifestyle that we have grown accustomed to, I think many in the U.S. would say, I don't really like the way the U.S. is headed, but I would prefer that to China telling us what to do, or Russia telling us what to do, or, you know, one of the BRICS. nations telling us what to do. And so I just think that is the more likely path. I have a really hard time finding a path where the United States definitively loses a great power competition from a military perspective and from an economic perspective. And we are then subjugated by a foreign power and they are the hegemon and we are the lesser than. I have a really hard time seeing that happen.

Starting point is 00:30:00 And if that does happen, it won't happen without a huge battle and lots of volatility along the way. And I think in that battle and in that volatility, I think the United States would become much more authoritarian than it is now. I can't help but completely agree. I mean, we already kind of are. Even just thinking of things in recent memory of like flock cameras and even the rise of social Democrats with the youth is like people are calling for it as they're struggling as well. They're quite okay with it. They'll trade that safety and security for their rights and their privacy along the way. And they constantly have.

Starting point is 00:30:34 Every time we have a new catastrophic event, COVID 9-11, whatever it might be, they're happy to hand that over to kind of feel like the way things are. I will say in this whole transition, though, I am looking forward to President AOC, even though she's going to be a dictator because I think it'll be at least interesting and a little bit fun. So continue that a little bit, Brent. If you're not liking the way that things might be going, if you're worried that the US is going to go into maybe a little bit more of an authoritarian play. Well, one, even just from an

Starting point is 00:31:02 investment standpoint, what in that chaos do you think is actually going to perform and do well? Where would you maybe want to, you know, place your eggs in which baskets? And also, how should people think maybe even about their own, I don't know, geographic region where they're living in the world, how to position themselves? It feels like there's potentially quite a bit of a change on the horizon that we are essentially in or has happened with the death of the rules-based order. what should people do? Well, what I have done for myself and my clients is that we haven't really done a whole lot differently, but we're doing it.

Starting point is 00:31:39 We're kind of doing the same thing, but doing it for different reasons. So what I mean by that is, well, we've changed a little bit. So I started doing this, again, 25, 26 years ago. And through the first 10 or 15 years, I probably had a much larger allocation to, global assets and international equities and a more globally diversified world. And over the last 10 years, that's become more concentrated in North America and specifically in the United States. And I think that is the best place to be for at least the foreseeable future. And the reason, Although I will say I am becoming increasingly interested and open to allocating to Central America and South America.

Starting point is 00:32:30 But that is more of a play on the fact that I think, you know, North and South America are going to become more integrated as a result of the bifurcation of the world. And I think they stand to gain more than any other part of the world. in that transition, more so than Asia, more so than Europe, and more so than, you know, Africa. And so I should probably say I'm more focused on the Western Hemisphere. Because I do think that's what's happening. Like, again, whether you like it or not, it's not, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. When you look at the things that the United States has said about Greenland, the things that it's done with Panama, the actions that it's taken in, Colombia. The fact that when Trump was first elected, the first place he sent somebody was El Salvador.

Starting point is 00:33:28 Then you look at Venezuela and you look at Iran. It's pretty clear they're trying to build fortress North America. And if they're going to leave the rest of the world and go home, they're not going to leave the rest of the world in better shape than the United States is. Right. And so, and again, I don't think I'm saying anything super secret here or, you know, I think there's other people who see it this same way. So I think we're moving more into a, well, you kind of mentioned it early. Maybe we're coming into a more regionalized world. I think that's probably correct. But I do not think it's a world where the United States retreats to the western hemisphere and no longer gets involved in the rest of the world. I mean, anybody who thought

Starting point is 00:34:14 that Donald Trump was going to leave the rest of the world and just go back to Washington, D.C., and not like step on the top of the table at every global event. I mean, they just haven't been paying attention, right? I mean, that guy loves the spotlight. He loves to have his face on the front page of the newspaper, and he loves to have his name quoted and being involved in everything. And so, you know, I don't think when they put out that national security document almost a year ago now, a lot of people interpreted that as the United States retreating from the global stage.

Starting point is 00:34:47 I don't think that's what it is. I think it's maybe perhaps, you know, paying more attention to their own backyard than they previously had. But I don't think that that was a retreat from the rest of the world. And I think this year has shown that to be definitively true. I think I would largely agree. And actually, funny enough, just think about him standing on the table and loving attention. Being at Canuck, I can't help but reflect on Lake America and all the wonderful things that have been happening as of late. I'm curious your view on the relationship right now, if we're thinking about Fortress North America, between Canada and

Starting point is 00:35:18 and the U.S. And actually, one thing that I want to throw in there with the idea of getting away from the rules based and kind of, you know, having their own bilateral agreements, I'm reminded of Scott Bissent talking about anyone doing business with Iran, we're going to cut you off. Now, I don't know this for certain, but I actually have worries there that Canada is potentially one of the, or Canadian banks might actually be some of those players involved with Iran. There was a story I just thought today even briefly that it was son of someone from Iran was here in Canada, and I believe they're military involved to do.

Starting point is 00:35:45 And like, our government was paying them $2 million. dollars. Like, I don't know what necessarily is going on. So a lot to kind of unpack there, but your views and even the relationships within North America between Canada and the U.S. So I think to a certain extent, my views with Canada and United States are a little bit misunderstood. And it's probably my fault. So I'll say that out of front. So I'll state it clearly now. I think that the United States and Canada, they're going to work this out. They're, they're going to continue to trade with each other. There's way too many similarities and way too many advantages of cooperation for it to go towards, you know, complete disagreement.

Starting point is 00:36:24 So I think a lot of the rhetoric is, you know, to influence elections or, you know, play to people's political base. But at the end of the day, I think the United States and Canada will become more integrated, not less integrated. I'm actually involved in a few things that are, is trying to do that on a more institutionalized basis behind the scenes, and I hope that it is successful. And I can tell you that the people in Canada that I'm speaking with feel the same way. Having said that, I do think to a certain extent, I got to be careful, because I don't want to make this worse, but I do think Canada, to a certain extent, specifically Carney is a little bit delusional in some of the things that he says.

Starting point is 00:37:12 Oh, you don't have to pull your punches. I'm in Alberta. I view the rest of Canada a little bit differently. Yes, I would agree. So, I mean, again, I understand why he's doing it. He's playing to his base and he wants to get reelected. And okay, I get it. But I'm going to give you a really good example. So I used to live in San Francisco for 20 years.

Starting point is 00:37:32 And I love San Francisco. And I was just back there a couple months ago. And I actually think things are getting better in San Francisco. Really? I happened to know the mayor. When I lived there, the mayor was not the mayor, and he was just some guy that I knew. And I was, you know, and he was a nice guy. He and I disagreed politically, but I liked him.

Starting point is 00:37:52 He's a nice guy. He was honest, all that kind of stuff. And when he became mayor was about the time Trump was threatening to send in the National Guard to clean up San Francisco. And at the same time, he was threatening to do it to show. Chicago and L.A. and all these other places. And the mayor of Chicago and the mayor of L.A. came out and said, you know, Trump is a Nazi and, you know, we don't want him here and he's an embarrassment. Like, I don't remember exactly what they said. But basically they said, screw off. We don't want you. We don't recognize you. Right. But Mayor Lurie in San Francisco

Starting point is 00:38:31 said, hey, I really appreciate you calling. You know, we do have problems in San Francisco. I've only been in office for a couple months. I think we're making progress. Please give me some time to continue with the programs I've started because we see the progress. And I'm afraid that if you come in right now, it will not only cause confusion, but will inflame the situation and actually make it worse. And I'm not against you helping, but right now we just don't need it. But I appreciate, but it's something to that effect, right? Yeah.

Starting point is 00:39:06 Like he was actually diplomatic. And Trump said okay. And so my point is, I think a lot of times, and again, I understand why, but I think to a certain extent the Canadians are trying to out-trump Trump, and the Canadians just aren't Trump. They're just not. And they shouldn't want to be. And they don't need to be. But you also don't need. I mean, the reality is if this went to a full trade war, right?

Starting point is 00:39:35 And let's use energy as an example. And I know in many of these trade deals, the energy is exempted, right? Because it's so important, right? But let's pretend that got to that level. Okay. So is that going to hurt the United States? Unquestionably, it's going to hurt the United States without question. And people will lose jobs.

Starting point is 00:39:56 Prices will go higher. Growth will slow. But if the energy does not come to the United States, where does Canada think it's going to go? How's it going to get there? Who's going to buy it all? And by the way, you now have the global hegemon, who is your next door neighbor, who just started a war on the other side of the world to control the flow of energy. How are you going to ship that oil to the other side of the world when the United States Navy

Starting point is 00:40:28 is sitting right next door to you? Now, again, I shouldn't even say that because it's not helpful. it brings up, people jump to conclusions that I'm, you know, advocating for this. No, I'm just saying that's the real world, right? And the idea that Canada can just flip a switch, ship all their oil to Vancouver, and that it goes across the ocean safely and is insured, even though the U.S. no longer guarantees the sea lanes, and China's going to buy it all, and everything's going to be fine, and it's going to happen on day one, that's delusional. That's just not going to happen, right? And so, you know, I do think

Starting point is 00:41:11 wisdom is the better part of valor sometimes. You know, is Trump a bully? Yes. Should he say things the way he says things? No. But should you want to be an ally of the United States? Of course you should want to be the ally of the United States, right? We have a lot more in common with Canada than we do with Brazil or India or China or Japan or whoever it is, right? And so I think to a certain extent, everybody just needs to like zoom out a little bit, kind of get down to brass tax, forget the way people are saying things, and just say, hey, what makes the most sense for the people? Now again, I know the people aren't, they're on the other side of the table and the people's, the people's interest isn't always going to be what served here. Anyway, I kind of got off on a tangent there

Starting point is 00:42:03 regarding Canada, but my point is, is everything that is going on in the world now is not something that was just dreamed up in the last 12 months. Everything that's going on now has had some formulation of an idea that one day this would happen going back 50, 60, 70, 80 years. And there's maps that prove it. There's plans that prove it. There's different dialogues that have taken place that prove it. It's just that they're now actually playing out, right? And it's for someone like me who has to analyze all this stuff and then gets the privilege of placing capital to try to protect it.

Starting point is 00:42:46 It's fascinating. It's scary. It's hectic. It's volatile. But it's also fascinating. And so in a weird way, I feel lucky to be able to do it. it. No, 100%. There's a few things we want to touch on there. One, like, Carney's time at Brookfield, his time at the bank of England, like him and Trump know each other. And I think about

Starting point is 00:43:04 like, you know, it's funny how we assume other people don't do what we already do. I don't know about you, but I got a whole bunch of like back chats with my friends and group chats going on. I'm sure they have communication lines that will never see. Of course they do. I am not. They absolutely do. They know, they know a whole bunch of things that you don't know. And we know from the like the previous election, conservatives in Canada were like 98% ahead. they made Trump the boogeyman and the liberals just won. And so when I see like an NDP socialist mayor being angry with Trump, a conservative premier of Ontario being angry with Trump,

Starting point is 00:43:32 and a liberal Carney being angry with Trump, it just feels like political posturing. Like I'm sure this will probably blow over in just a couple of weeks. But on that note, there was something, I believe I heard it from you, and I'll need to help a little bit unpacking it, this idea that like these guys all know each other, I think I heard it from you that both Bacent and Drucken Miller and Warsh were all involved with the Soros trade in the 1990s that broke the Bank of England.

Starting point is 00:43:59 I just found that fascinating how we always kind of get these same characters that have been playing this game for quite a long time together. I was just wondering if you even just touch on that and expand and even just give me your thoughts on now those guys now being involved with both Treasury and Fed. Yeah. So first of all, I don't think that Warsh was involved. I think he worked for, he worked for Druck and Miller, I think, from like 2010 to 2020. something like that. Druck and Miller worked for Soros back in the late 80s, early 90s when they broke the Bank of England. And Bessent worked for Drucken Miller who worked for Soros. So Soros's company, and then Drucken Miller was kind of his right-hand man, and then Bessent worked under Drucken-Miller. And it's my understanding. I might not have this perfectly, but it's my understanding. I might not have this perfectly, but it's my understanding that Bessent was the guy who came up with the idea of the

Starting point is 00:44:56 trade, brought it to Drucken Miller, said, hey, I'm looking at this. This looks pretty interesting. And Drucken Miller was like, yeah, and he's the one who knew how to actually play it. So that's, that's, and this isn't actually interesting thing. You know, having an insight into something that could play out and then knowing how to structure a trade around it are two completely different things. Yeah. And that, that's something that I've learned on. you know, 25 years of doing this is you might have a brilliant idea, but if you don't know how to play it, or if somebody else knows how to play it better, they, even though it's your idea, they may make more money on it or just because you have the idea, it doesn't mean that you

Starting point is 00:45:33 will. But I, but I, but the point is, is, I think it's very easy to kind of negatively say, oh, Trump's playing 3D chess or Bessent thinks he's playing 3D chess and kind of a, you know, kind of a negative sense and they'll, but then they will immediately say China's playing the long game because they're long-term strategic thinkers, right? And so, first of all, I want to make it clear. I don't necessarily think that Besson is a grand chess master who can't make a mistake. But the idea that these guys don't play chess is ridiculous.

Starting point is 00:46:11 Of course they do. That is what geopolitics is. Geopolitics is statecraft at a pretty high level, and it involves things as disparate as social policy, military policy, economic policy, you know, all of these different, it's pulling all of these different levers to accomplish goals, right? And the idea that that does not happen is just silly. Of course it does. Of course it happens. Now, that doesn't mean that these puppet masters can just do whatever they want, and it doesn't mean that it doesn't blow back on them. And I've stated many

Starting point is 00:46:46 times that I think ultimately this is all going to blow up on everybody. But that could be 10 years from now. It could be 20 years from now. I don't think it's helpful to every day go out there and say the sky is falling crisis tomorrow. And I don't think it's helpful to go out there every day and say, you know, all these people in charge are a bunch of idiots. Many of them are, but many of them aren't, right? And I think it is a mistake to think that Besson doesn't know what he's doing. Right? again, it doesn't give him perfect control. It doesn't give him perfect power. But he's a pretty smart guy. He's been doing it for quite a while. He's had success at it. Has he had perfect success? No. Has he messed up along the way? Yeah, he's messed up along the way. But he's got some pretty good mentors. He's got a

Starting point is 00:47:34 pretty good history. He's got pretty good knowledge. And he does have asymmetric information. If you don't think that the U.S. Treasury has better information than you do, I'm sorry, I'll bet at the other side of you every day of the week. Like, again, these are, they're not all knowing. They're not the wizard of Oz, but they're not also totally incapable, right? And so if you want to bet against Besson, you can do that. But, you know, the people that constantly call for the collapse of the U.S. Treasury market and the death of the dollar and the failure of the United States, you know, their corpses are littered for decades long. And I think it does yourself a disfayloration. And I think it does yourself a disfavor to think that these guys can't accomplish anything.

Starting point is 00:48:19 Yeah, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to even, like, one, I agree with like the long-term perspective, completely. I'm a Bitcoiner, of course I do. But the idea that like the US would fail before Canada, I'm not sure how I could possibly square that circle or come to that conclusion. That makes no sense to me. I would think that all currencies would kind of collapse into, say like the USD beforehand. So with that, actually, want to touch on market outlook, kind of macro thesis, where we're going, how you're viewing things going into the end of the year. I think Dixie I saw is around 99, gold and Bitcoin. or catching a little bit of a bid?

Starting point is 00:48:47 What kind of has your attention? How do you think things might play out? I think it's going to be violently sideways, probably, between now and the end of the year. I don't see a big crash. I'm not saying it can't happen. And I am always ready for the downside. And this is one thing I should say.

Starting point is 00:49:07 I think this is probably a good point to say it. I think one of the things that when I see people, or when I talk to people and they've gotten themselves into a bad place, either from an investment perspective or a trade perspective, it's usually because they bet too much on one thing. And they had a very high degree of certainty that something was going to happen in a certain way, and it didn't happen that way. And so I have conviction on things, and I have confidence,

Starting point is 00:49:36 but I don't have certainty on anything. And even the stuff that I have high conviction on, I always, always have some kind of downside protection in case I'm wrong. In other words, I try to always be prepared for everything. And if I'm prepared for everything, the upside kind of takes care of itself because we own stocks, we own gold, we own real estate, we have short-term fixed income, we have some tactical play. We own wheat and corn, which have done well. So we, in other words, if we don't have the crisis and assets that go up and to the right, my portfolio will kind of take care of itself. So I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what can

Starting point is 00:50:11 go wrong and having some kind of contingency plan in case it does. But I don't bet the whole portfolio on the contingency plan. I have insurance in case it happens, right? So that could be something like having a higher cash allocation. It could be having an allocation to short-term fixed income that can be liquidated very quickly and deployed if some other asset goes down. I've owned gold for 20 years and I don't ever foresee myself not owning gold in some form or another, right? We We have some exposure to volatility, that if volatility explodes, those positions should do well. Now, in years where we don't have volatility and we don't have any downside, those positions are a drag on the overall portfolio. So if the S&P 500 goes up 17% and we're up 13 or whatever it is, 14, I can live with that.

Starting point is 00:51:04 Because inevitably what happens is there will be a year where the S&P's down 20 or 25 and we're down 4, right? or whatever it is. And so that's, and over time, that works out pretty well. And so this is a long way of saying that I don't know what's going to happen between now and the end of the year. What I know is there's a lot of stuff on the table over the next three or four months, not the least of which is several elections around the world. And anytime there's elections around the world, governments are going to get involved and try to either manipulate markets to the upside to stay in power or manipulate them to the downside to gain power. And I think we're going to see a lot.

Starting point is 00:51:43 And not to mention we have a trade war going on, not to mention we have a real war going on. And so I'm just trying to be prepared for everything. But this is not mean I'm sitting in cash. This does not mean I'm predicting an imminent collapse. I actually think if I had to guess between now and end of the year, the stock market will be higher. But I'm prepared for that not to be the case.

Starting point is 00:52:07 No, fair enough. kind of similar view. I think that things are going to go. I think we're looking a little bit up into the right going to the end of year. And I'm even thinking about, like, Bissent's already kind of playing around a little bit in the treasury markets. I think that they're going to try to get yields down. I think going into the midterms, they're going to want to have things look a little bit rosier. And I'm thinking like if you get treasury yields coming down, collateral values up. There's more cash flowing around. Like, we're seeing Bitcoin catching a bit of a bit. I would anticipate that to maybe grind up slightly slower to the right kind of threat. I don't

Starting point is 00:52:32 see the big catastrophic thing happening. I think they would paper over it. Like even I hear people talk about the AI situation. I'd love to get your quick take on that. But even if there was going to be some collapse in AI, it is this, I do think it is a bubble, but personally, but I think that the bubble is going to end up being supported. And we've seen language about them talking about it as like critical infrastructure and for national security. I think this, I think this just goes on a lot longer than people necessarily think. So lots there. Maybe AI. What do you think in Brent? Yeah. So I think you said it very well. I think AI is now a matter of national security. And that's not something I'm speculating on. I know that that's the case. Now, how it plays out, I don't know.

Starting point is 00:53:12 But I know that it is an issue of national security. I know that the United States and other governments around the world are all trying to move as fast as they can in order to, quote, unquote, win this race. And I would argue that in many ways, everything that's influencing the world, everything that's happening in the world right now is the result of the great power competition between the United States in China, right? And everything else is a subset of that. I think the biggest subset of that is the AI race. And in many ways, I think whoever wins the AI race, it will be very tough to lose the AI race and win the bigger competition. And as a result, I don't see the United States, you know, not supporting this industry. Now, that doesn't mean that we couldn't have a hard sell-off that causes them

Starting point is 00:54:05 to come in, right, and support it. And I think that's probably more likely than not that that is what ends up causing the government to make it a national security officially would be something along those lines. But this is not something that's going to stop. You know, one of the things you're seeing now is the protests against data farms, totally understandable. That's not something that those data farms are not going to go away. They may go to a different place, but they're not going away. And because they can't. From a national security perspective, they can't. And then people say, well, how does that help the people? Again, maybe it doesn't help the people. But it helps the government and they're going to support it. And I would also say, though, I would also say

Starting point is 00:54:52 that this is a brave new world. This is going to change the world. AI is a step, I believe, a step function change in world history. And I think it will benefit people. So I'm not somebody who I'm not one of these AI doomers. And I'm not an American fatalist who think this is all guaranteed to come crashing down. It's just a matter of time. I think AI is a big part of how the United States can remain atop the world and continue to grow. And I think it's just a new form that it's going to take place. And anytime there's this big of a change, and this is an enormous change,

Starting point is 00:55:36 this is probably, this is bigger than the Industrial Revolution. It's bigger than the Internet. And it might take many decades to play out, but I do think it is a complete step-function change for humanity. And I think ultimately that will help humanity, but it doesn't mean there won't be scary episodes

Starting point is 00:55:58 along the way. And so that's another thing where Canada, the integration of Canada in the United States could really benefit everybody. I mean, think about all the unused space in Canada, right? That's cold. What is it? Right? And cooling those things. Exactly.

Starting point is 00:56:14 And it's cold. And so it helps with cooling. It helps with space. You know, you get up there in the Northwest Territories. There's not a lot of people to hear that humming of the data centers. You know, by the way, I drove from Calgary to Fairbanks, Alaska one time. Incredible. Everybody in the world should.

Starting point is 00:56:30 And listen, I know I give Canadians a hard time, but Canada is an amazing place. And anybody who ever wants to do an epic road trip drive from Calgary to Fairbanks and you will be blown away at how beautiful nature is. It's absolutely gorgeous. I would agree. I actually, when I was 16, I took a motorcycle all the way to the West Coast and then went up to Port Hardy and then came back down. It was gorgeous. One thing I want to touch on there quickly with regards to AI, because I agree, and I do think it is a stamp function in line with the Industrial Revolution, in line with the internet as well. I'm curious

Starting point is 00:57:03 if you view it as at least in the short or medium term, a risk to employment, because to be completely on then as a downstream effect, it also had impact then tax receipts. But I actually don't. I don't think it's the big risk to employment that people think, but I'm curious your view. I think short term, it might be a risk to employment, but long term, I don't. because I think the benefits largely outweigh the detriments. And I think the people that will learn how to use AI, I think will create some incredible industries that maybe we don't even know yet and some incredible companies that will end up employing people that don't even know that these jobs exist yet.

Starting point is 00:57:45 And related to this, we didn't talk about this, but I think it's important to understand is this is part of the reason why I think the dollar's not going away either. I think that this AI economy is probably going to be as big, if not bigger, than the traditional economy. And the money of AI is stable coins. And the reason it's stable coins is it has to be because traditional finance is not open 24 hours a day. The rails can't, are not as fast. They're not as efficient. They're too expensive. The money can't be chopped up into the micro payments that can happen with stable coins. And as the AI economy, especially the agentic AI economy expands. And I know people are like, what the hell is agentic? It's like, even I don't really totally understand it, but it's basically

Starting point is 00:58:39 computers doing business with other computers and deciding for themselves how and how and when to do it without humans getting involved. I think that is supportive of the U.S. dollar. I think it is supportive of money velocity. And I think that is part of the reason that we could see some tremendous growth because money velocity is important for growth. But as this happens,

Starting point is 00:59:04 I think the dollar becomes more entrenched in the world rather than less entrenched in the world. No, I largely agree. I agree with the sentiment that the dollar particularly becomes more entrenched to be before, as other currents, I think, start to struggle. And as it pertains to AI specifically, I think that Bitcoin plays a role there. But I don't even think you and I would necessarily disagree on stable coin usage, because you can even have stable kinds going over things like Lightning and

Starting point is 00:59:29 using the Bitcoin network to transfer a dollar value. I don't see, I think at some point in time, my viewpoint is very much that not yet. I view Bitcoin and US dollars and stable coins kind of going up together and being used in these sort of systems, depending on what the person on the other end wants, right? There's so much dollar demand. Do you think about somebody in like a, I'll just say like a developing country, they might not want the volatility of Bitcoin. I can understand why they'd want to park in stable coins in the meantime. But as things grow, as their, as their livelihood increases, they might have more savings. They might actually want to park some of that in Bitcoin down the line as well. So I see them kind of growing in tandem in

Starting point is 01:00:02 the short term. I don't think there's necessarily a head-to-head until much later on down the road. And I very much could see even stable coins going over things like Lightning using the Bitcoin network as the system that undergrids the whole thing. You know, I tend to agree. I'm the first to admit that I am not an expert in the domain that you probably are. But from a big picture perspective, I see it pretty clearly. And I think the rise of stable coins to us in it, I already know how this is going to sound and I don't mean it to sound like a negative.

Starting point is 01:00:35 But to a certain extent, I think that the rise of stable coins is legitimizing things like Bitcoin and Ethereum. I know that the true believers will say it didn't need state legitimization. It was the grounds up and I agree with all that. But my point is, is I think the rise of stable coins and the fact that the U.S. I think now sees the advantages of it, they will not want to completely dismiss the overall ecosystem of digital assets because it now benefits them that it's there. I completely agree. And even just from a strategic standpoint, if the U.S. were to actually at some point go, and I'm not, of course, I'm not advocating for the state buying Bitcoin, but if they work, because I don't want them to have it, I want it for the PLEPS. If they were to do it at some

Starting point is 01:01:22 point in time with the gold reserves and everything else that the rest of the world and China is hanging on to going back to that bifurcation, it would be a pretty sneaky move to basically stack a lot of Bitcoin and then try to push that as a perhaps a reserve asset on a balance sheet or is an alternative to gold. I think that there's no getting away from the digital and the information age and so the digitally native currencies are going to be in high demand

Starting point is 01:01:45 and I do agree that that's going to be good for the dollar. I agree. Beautiful. Brent, was there anything else that we didn't hit that we want to make sure we leave the audience with before we close out? No, you know, I think there's one other thing and I'm actually getting ready to write a paper on this.

Starting point is 01:02:02 It's probably going to come out in like a month because it's going to take me a few weeks to do all the research before I actually start writing it. But I think one of the, this kind of goes back to the rules-based order versus America first. You know, in many ways, the institutions around the world were set up for the rules-based order. And you could argue that the United States institutions were set up for the same thing. But it's a new world.

Starting point is 01:02:28 And I think in this new world and in this new great power competition, I think the institutions that we have are going to change as well. So not only are the institutions, some of them are going to go away, the ones that will remain, I think will change in their function. That's what I was saying. I think the Treasury will probably be more proactive rather than just reactive. And along those same lines, I think what we're going to see is a blending of the Fed and the Treasury. You know, for much of its history, the Fed has been independent. Or for all of its history, it's been independent. Now, I've made the argument many times that they have autonomy, but they don't have independence. And then that, and it's, in many ways it's the biggest myth that they teach at business school. But I think even if it doesn't change officially, I think unofficially, you're going to see the merger of Fed and Treasury. And I think you're going to see them be more proactive in the markets rather than reactive. And I think that, again, that's a wholesale change from the world I grew up in and the one I was involved in for the last 25, 26 years. And so, but I think that's, that, that's, that, That change, I think, is going to be as big and profound as any other in the markets for the next 20 or 25 years.

Starting point is 01:03:47 I would completely agree. It's fourth turning, right? We're turning down institutions and new ones are being built. Brent, this was absolutely fantastic. I can't wait to maybe do it again at some point. Where can everybody go to follow you, your work? Where are all the good links? Where should they check out?

Starting point is 01:03:58 Sure. So if you go to research. Santiago Capital.com, that's where you can find our written work. Every week, we do a show on YouTube called milkshakes, markets, and madness. You can find that every Sunday. And then I'm pretty active on Twitter. If you go to Santiago AU Fund, that's the handle or at Santiago AU Fund. I can be found arguing with people there just about every day.

Starting point is 01:04:22 So anyway, I appreciate you having me on. I'm happy to come back. If you enjoy this episode with Brent Johnson, do me favor. Hit that like and subscribe button. It really does help us out. And check out the previous episode with Luke Roman and Lynn Alden.

BTC Sessions - They’re Not Saving the Republic, They’re Building Fortress North America | Brent Johnson

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.