Moody's Talks - Inside Economics - Nervous Economy, Nervous Economists

Episode Date: August 29, 2025

Mark, Cris, and Marisa talk about the increasingly shaky state of the economy after reviewing the week’s data. They preview next week’s jobs report and the likelihood of further downward revisions and negative payroll numbers. The trio then ponders some dark scenarios regarding Fed independence or lack thereof, and what that could mean for the growth and inflation outlooks. Hosts: Mark Zandi – Chief Economist, Moody’s Analytics, Cris deRitis – Deputy Chief Economist, Moody’s Analytics, and Marisa DiNatale – Senior Director - Head of Global Forecasting, Moody’s AnalyticsFollow Mark Zandi on 'X' and BlueSky @MarkZandi, Cris deRitis on LinkedIn, and Marisa DiNatale on LinkedIn Questions or Comments, please email us at [e-mail]. We would love to hear from you.  To stay informed and follow the insights of Moody's Analytics economists, visit Economic View. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to Inside Economics. I'm Mark Sandy, the chief economist of Moody's Analytics, and I'm joined by my two trusty co-host, Marcia Dina Talley and Chris Dorettes. Hi, guys. Hi, Mark. Can I get a salutation, Marissa? I did.

I said, hi, Mark. You're delayed. You're slow. You've got to be quick. Quick on the draw. It's good to see you. You're back from, I see from, where were you, Cabo or San Maritz? Where were you exactly?

Catalina. Catalina. Yeah. Oh, that same deal, right? Not quite. I've never been to Catalina. It's lovely. You'd recommend?

Yeah, it's great. It's a hour and a half ferry ride from Orange County or L.A. And you're still in L.A. County, but you feel like you're on a little island in the middle of nowhere. It's great. Wow. Yeah. Can you see land when you're on Catalina? Can you see, like, L.A. in the distance?

Sometimes, depending on how clear. It is. Sometimes not. It just depends on the weather. But yeah. It's interesting. It's like 35 miles away. Oh, okay. So, yeah. Yeah, you can see it. Oh, interesting. Very cool. Yeah, it is very cool. We're going to make this a short podcast. A lot going on. It's Labor Day. We're heading into Labor Day weekend. And I thought we talked a bit about the data we got today. This is Friday, the 29th of August and got a data dump. And also in the news is the concerns about the independence of the Federal Reserve Board, so-called the Fed Independence. And we need, you know, I think we'll talk about, I want to talk about that here because, you know, this came to the fore again this week given events.

And we'll talk about it more in the future because this could be a big deal, but just maybe begin the conversation with this podcast. What do you guys think? Is that sounding a good game playing, Chris? Yeah, absolutely. No game, no frills. You know, we're just going to dive right into it. So, Marissa, do you want to highlight kind of the data this week? Yeah, we got quite a bit. So I guess one of the bigger data points was the spending data that we got that includes the personal consumption expenditure deflator, which is the Fed's preferred measure of inflation. And I would say just kind of, In summary, that was in line with what we were expecting. So looking at a 0.2% increase on the overall PCE over the month, it keeps the year-over-year rate of inflation at 2.6%. In the core PCE, so this is excluding the volatile energy and food price measures, core PCE rose 0.3% over the month.

so little hotter than overall. And Core PC is now up to 2.9% on a year-over-year basis. And just for some context, we were at 2.6% year-over-year in April. So we are seeing inflation picking up in the past few months. We saw, we got some spending data. We've talked about how consumer spending is pretty weak this year compared to last year. spending did pick up over the month, but a lot of that is still kind of skewed by people trying to buy ahead of, you know, what they perceive as prices that will rise due to tariffs or

the expiration of certain incentives. So, for example, this past month, we got an uptick in spending that was particularly healthy in motor vehicles, buying cars. We know. We know. know that the $7,500 credit incentive, federal incentive for buying electrical vehicles, expires September 30th. And we are seeing in the data, there's a lot of people going out and purchasing or leasing cars ahead of the expiration of that tax credit that will happen next month. So that juiced up spending over the month. If you take that out, pretty anemic and still, you know, some evidence that people are pulling back on discretionary stuff like eating out, hotels, airfare, right? Like some of those categories continue to fall over the month and have been weak in the past

few months. So there's definitely, I think, some evidence here that people are pulling back on some of that discretionary spending. So just a lot of moving parts there, income spending, the inflation measure, take a step back, extract from the vagaries of the monthly data, the ups and downs and all arounds, how would you characterize the economy and inflation? I think clearly inflation is picking up, right? And if you dig into the details of it and you look at, we talked about this when we were talking about the CPI, right?

If you look at the details, you can see that a lot of the stuff that is being, particularly stuff being imported. is starting to see some very big jumps in price. I think spending is weak. We know the job market has weakened significantly. We got a reading on unemployment insurance claims, as we always do every week. They held steady, fortunately,

but they are now elevated above a bit, above where they were earlier in the year. We got a measure of consumer confidence. That fell pretty significantly over the month. So, you know, again, consumers aren't feeling great about the economy and inflation expectations picked up as well. So people are, you know, what we're seeing in the spending data where people are kind of pulling forward purchases or they're pulling back on some discretionary stuff seems to be in line with how they feel in

the direction of inflation will go. So I think people, I think it's a nervous economy, right? Like I think there are signs of, signs of weakness. It's still, it's hanging in. in there. I mean, we're still, we got a reading on GDP as well. And that was actually revised up a little bit. So if you look at the aggregate data, I think it all looks okay. But I think when you look a little deeper into the details, you definitely see weakening here across almost. Nervous economy. Nervous economy. I hadn't heard that. If you heard that anywhere else, just to make that up right now, I made that up. Yeah. I think that's a pretty apt description. Yeah. I thought that kind of resonates with me.

Chris, what do you think about this data that Marissa is pointing out? Yeah, same opinion. Same opinion. Makes sense. You know, a lot of the data this week kind of fell in line with consensus, but, you know, consent, that doesn't mean it's good, right? Inflation is high. 2.9% on the core is high.

And if you look a little bit deeper, you look at core services, you exclude housing, that's quite high. That was up 0.4% on the month, 3% on the year. That's indicating that maybe there are some other factors here beyond tariffs that are causes for concern when it comes to inflation, particularly I think the immigration deportations that might be having some effect and some of the costs for services. Yeah, I mean, kind of at the top level evaluating the economy's performance, you know, I think about inflation and growth in in terms of inflation, the data feel unambiguous. Inflation is too high. You know, core consumer expenditure inflator is 2.9.

The target is two. The inflation target is two. And the direction of travel here is clear. Inflation is accelerating. And there's no reason to expect that that's going to change because the tariff pass-through will continue. And as you point out, Chris, the effects of the highly-resum highly restrictive immigration feel like they're starting to bleed through in terms of service

prices, that kind of thing. So that, I, you know, I feel very confident that, you know, we're going to be uncomfortable with the car due inflation over the next six, 12 months. On growth, there too, it feels, as you said, Marissa, it's okay, but it feels, the word I would use is maybe punk. Maybe we should call it a punk economy. What about that? Right? Isn't that, No, Chris, you don't think that resonates as well? And not as good as nervous. Nervous economy. I don't know.

I like the word punk. It's punk. I mean, consumer spending in July, even with that bump you talked about, Marissa, related to vehicle sales, is no higher. I don't think it's any higher. Maybe it's a little bit higher than it was in December of last year. So real consumer spending all in. Take everybody's spending, account for inflation has gone nowhere since the beginning of And actually one of our colleagues, Matt Collier, did this really cool chart where you showed the growth in consumer spending, you know, by month compared to the fourth quarter of the previous year, did this going back, I think, 25 years.

And if you look where spending is in 2025, he did it through June, but I don't think the picture is going to change for July. In those 25 years, there's only two other years where spending was weaker than it was. was in 2025. You don't really want to guess what those two years were? Marissa? Going back to what years? Did you see this? Matt Collier's work? Did you see it? Yes, but I don't. Chris, did you see it? I did. Do you remember the two years? Was that what it were? 2009? 2008, 2009. GFC, great financial crisis. I mean, it gives you a sense of how punk things are. So, you know, it just feels like the economy. It's not, you know, recession. I'm. I I'm not arguing that.

But it feels punk to me, kind of going nowhere fast. And again, on the inflation side, it feels pretty unambiguous that inflation is going to continue to accelerate. So has your views on the kind of the general state of the economy changed it all, Chris, as a result of this week's data, are you still kind of sticking to our baseline with kind of weak growth? and uncomfortable high, uncomfortably high inflation. I am. Yeah, I still see those warning signs

kind of looking forward. We did get the GDP number, as Mercia mentioned. And that actually was revised up. And nobody was let go. I was surprised. Big revision to GDP. Nobody was fired.

You mean at the Bureau of Economic Analysis? I'd be concerned because it was a pretty big revision. Pretty big revision. Yeah, pretty big revision. Yeah. That's called inside baseball. What's that? Is that called inside baseball, those comments?

That's an Easter egg. It's an Easter egg. Okay. All right. Yeah. But, you know, taking that number did show some strength in the second quarter, right? Consumers were a bit stronger than we originally thought. That's a positive.

So, again, there is some momentum here, but certainly very concerned about the future still because of the trends we're seeing when it comes to the inflation. particular. Right, right. And I guess next week is the job numbers, right? If we get the jobs numbers, hearking back to your Easter act, I mean, there's been some conversation about the BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics not releasing that report. That would be, I don't know how, I guess we shouldn't even contemplate that. That seems. No. Has the well been poisoned already though? Even if, so, I saw the GDP number, for example. Yeah.

And one thought immediately in the back of my mind, I didn't want it, was, well, is there a sum on the scale here, right? Yeah. I don't think there is. I'm pretty sure there's not. But, you know, now I've got this little bug in my ear that's going to look through this. So even if the number is perfectly fine released on Monday or on Friday next Friday, am I still going to think, oh, is there something nefarious? but if it's good. You mean if it's like unexpectedly good.

Yeah. Now I can't accept the good or the bad. Right. Right. Merced in your thinking as well when you saw that GDP number? No, it didn't. I mean, not yet. I don't think we're there yet.

I still trust these numbers and nothing's going to happen at BLS in the near term. Really? Like, I mean this month, right? I mean, there will be a new BLS commissioner that will have to be confirmed. And we'll see what that looks like. But, I mean, as of right now, I'm not worried about, you know, the August data. You're not. You're not.

No. No, not at all. The BLS will release the data and the data is what the data is. Yes. I'm very confident in that. Because the acting director is a long time. He's been there for a long time. That's right.

We get the revisions, right? We get, well, I think the BLS release. Well, we get the preliminary benchmark. Right. Yeah. Yeah. For March of 2025. Yeah, it's going to be a fun week next week.

Yeah. That'll be a big report. It's already a big. What you're saying, though, that the BLS is going to tell us next month or next week when they release the data for August on September 5th, their estimate of the benchmark revision for employment, payroll employment, as of March of 2025. That's what you're going to refer to you. And in all likelihood, looking at other data, the quarterly census of employment and wages,

which is the UI claim data, which this thing is benchmark to, suggests that there's going to be a pretty sizable downward revision as of March of 2025. Yeah. And that's in addition to the typical monthly revisions, you know, you could two months back, you get revisions. We're going to get those as well for the month of July and I guess June and July, right? Yeah, June and July. Right. Okay. And they were already pretty weak. Yeah. So it's very conceivable, isn't it, that we could get a negative employment number? Yeah. And I think we're going to see a lot of downward revisions again. And someone's not going to be

happy about that. Okay. So if the BLS comes out and there's an upward revision, would you believe the data? Chris's point? Yeah. Yes, I would. I would. Yeah. I don't know. Yeah. Really? I guess, you know, I'm just saying. But, you know, why am I in this position that I have to think, even think this? Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. That's the point. Have me a break. You know, she's Louise. Now I got to, but we now know who's the cynic in our group, though, Marissa. Yeah. We do. The cynic is. Healthy dose of skepticism. That fits with the crypto, you know, the whole thing, the whole crypto thing going on.

It really does. Yeah. Okay. Chris, any other data this week you want to call out? You mentioned GDP. We talked about spending, inflation. Did you mention income, personal income? I guess that was kind of on the margins.

I was up, right? Yeah. I didn't mention it. Yeah. that came out. I think it was a increase in savings, I think. I think it was constant. I think it was constant.

4.4.4. 4.4. Yeah, it stayed the same. They stayed the same. Any other data you wanted to call out? I think the inflation expectations from the University of Michigan survey at least were up. That's right. At least in the short term.

So clearly consumers are concerned about. I missed that. I missed that. So you're saying the University of Michigan sentiment survey, because they ask questions about people's future inflation for one year out and like five years out or something. Yeah. And they rose, both those rows? Those inflation.

Yes. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. I'm sitting with that nervous. Nervous.

Nervous. Economy, nervous consumer. Yeah. Right. And this is before the real price increases related to the terrorist immigration policy kind of show themselves, right? I mean. That's right. That's right.

And the backside of all the forward buying, you were talking about, Marissa, right? So, okay. Do you think people are factoring in expectations about the Fed into their, there's the tariff part? And then there's the makeup of the Federal Reserve Board in the coming year. You mean all the controversy now over, Lisa Cook, the Fed governor, and the potential that President Trump firing her, that's what you're referring to.

Yeah, and that, the fact that there is an open board seat that he will appoint someone to. We know Jay Powell is out next year. So what does that mean for the trajectory of inflation? And are people, do you think people are factoring higher inflation in because they're expecting? affecting much lower interest rates. Oh, oh, oh, oh. I don't know. What are you think, Chris?

I think that's a stretch at this point. I think for that general consumer survey, I think I might be a stretch. Too wonky for... But for economists, that's, I don't know. Fair game. That's fair game, right? I mean...

Yeah. Well, can I... Like, in our forecast, our baseline forecast, the most likely forecast that we produce every month, we've got the Fed cutting rates beginning in September, the September meeting, in which we've had that for quite some time, quarter point. And then quarter point, that's a quarter percentage point, each quarter until the

fund's rate falls to three percent. Right now it's four and a quarter to four and a half percent. We get down to three, three and a quarter percent by this time next year. If you follow that kind of timeline. Three percent is what we consider and what the preponderance of members of the Fed consider to be. based on their projections, the equilibrium rate, the R-star, the natural rate, the rate at which monetary policy rates aren't influencing the economy one way or the other, supporting or restraining growth.

And that's the end of the story. We're back to equilibrium. I'm wondering whether that we should change that forecast. You know, it does feel like between now and this time next year, the composition of the Fed is going to change quite significantly, and that there could be a majority of members on the board that are appointed by President Trump, who has made it quite clear, not quite,

it made it unambiguously clear that he wants lower interest rates. And he's going to appoint folks to the Federal Reserve, including the chair of the Federal Reserve, because Jay Powell's term is up, is in May of 2026 that want lower interest rates. So given that, and you know, historically when we do the interest rate, our federal funds forecast for the Fed, it's based on the economy. It's based on our projections of what's going to happen with inflation.

It's based on projection of what's going to happen with growth. And, you know, we have a so-called reaction function. We take all these factors into consideration. and that there's no political overlay on top of that forecast. But if there's going to be a political overlay, if we're going to get members on the board that are aligned with President Trump's view that we need much lower interest rates, don't we need to consider that in our forecast?

You know, shouldn't? Because this is a forecast of what we think is actually going to happen. And historically, that's what actually is going to happen is what they should do, but in this case, it's going to be influenced by, it feels like, by this political overlay. Therefore, maybe the federal funds rate a year from now shouldn't be 3%. It should be, I don't know, 2%, you know, 1%, something else. Well, I don't know. Well, how should we think about that? It's something that's bothering me. We haven't made any change, but I don't know, I'm not, I'm kind of noodling over how we should respond to all this.

what do you think, Chris? Am I making any sense here? It makes sense. I've been thinking about this as well. Oh, you have? Okay. Yeah. But I think a lot comes down to what your expectation then is of inflation under that environment, right?

Let's say these new regime comes in, devilish. They cut 50 basis points, day one, right? Just have that. And then we see inflation, though, taking off, right? At some, at what point does the board kind of go against the wishes of the administration, right? If inflation's climbing up to three and a quarter, three and a half percent on the core PCE, is that enough for them to say, hey, wait, we need to, we do have an inflation problem here. We can't fulfill the wishes of a lower rate, right? Or do they, you know, they take the marching orders and that's it?

I think the timing of all that's pretty difficult, right? You lower rates. I mean, the inflation doesn't show up, you know, you cut rates, inflation is there. You know, you cut rates that juices growth, which is the intent. You juice growth. You're at a full employment economy. Then you get the inflationary pressures developing. But that's six, 12, 18, 24 months down the road.

So I don't know that that you're saying the Fed members might have that forecast and therefore lose their nerve and therefore don't cut interest rates. Oh, interesting. Yeah, or not as aggressively or yeah. They're able to talk. I don't know. Lock the administration down. Let's wait.

Let's take a little bit more of a gradual approach versus, right. So do you think, I guess the question is, do they, okay, administration wants lower interest rates. Does this new board cut immediately to whatever that target is or do they take a more gradual approach and say, hey, we're moving in that direction. But, you know, we still need to balance. If we take a big cut, it's going to be, it's going to have cyclone. psychological impacts as well, right? We want to take a... Well, okay, let me frame it this way.

Because I don't know the answer to the question. I'm perplexed as to what to do here. You know, our, we have a forecast for inflation. We have a forecast for growth, jobs, and unemployment. That forecast suggests that the Fed should cut rates, but slowly. You know, cut rates because the economy is weak. We have, you know, everyone can tell from our conversation that we're nervous about the state of the economy and the job market,

negative job number. Therefore, you cut rates, but inflation is going to pick up because of the tariffs and immigration policy. Therefore, you cut slowly to make sure that the inflation doesn't get embedded into inflation expectation, so forth and so on.

So that's our forecast. So now President Trump appoints folks on the Fed that are in line with his view, his stated view, that he wants lower interest. rates. And the question is, you know, with that political overlay, should rates be lower than should we go lower than 3% on our forecast? Even though, you know, the forecasts that members of the Fed may have may change, I'm going to get stronger growth, I'm going to get

stronger inflation because of the lower rates. Does that mean we don't change our forecast? I mean, that doesn't feel right, right? It feels like maybe you're saying we don't go to two, maybe or one, maybe we go to two and a half is what you're saying. Exactly. I'm saying less of a radical. Right. So if you throw in another cut or two,

you front load it faster than what you would have anticipated. That certainly is a change I could make in response to this. But I think the stated goal at, oh, one of the stated goals was 2%, right? A 2% rate. Did the President Trump actually say two? At some point, I think that was the number. That was the number. Okay.

Yeah. Oh, that's right. That was the number. You're right. Yeah. So I, you know, I don't think they go all the way to two in one step. No, no. Even with the pressure at their back, I think they can say they can take bigger steps.

They could take 50 basis point cuts. And again, see what happens. They won't get the full story. but they'll get a pretty clear story pretty soon if that's starting to spark a lot of growth and inflation. Yeah. What do you? Marcia, how do you think about this?

I think for the remainder of this year we keep the forecast the way it is. I'm more worried about next year. Like I'm more worried about when Powell is out. But we're doing a forecast for next year now. That's right. So I'm saying leave the forecast for 2025 as it is. Okay. Two 25 basis point cuts this year. Right. And then maybe as you get into Q2 of next of 2026, I'd do some more aggressive.

So you'd actually change the baseline forecast to include a lower funds rate a year from now. Yeah. You would. Interesting. What would that, what would you cut it to? Two and a half? Two, one and a half, one? So I would just get there quicker. But you just go to three.

Yes. Oh. So you get what, like, because if you cut two times now, there's only a couple three. So you're saying do a 50 basis point cut early next year. Yeah. And go to three. That's what I, that's what I'm saying. Interesting.

Interesting. Here's the other potential issue, though. If rates are, if the Fed does cut rates more aggressively, that would suggest long-term rates should rise, right? I mean, because lower short rates, juices growth, juices inflation, inflation expectations should shift higher. And that means a higher tenure, treasury yield, higher mortgage rates, higher everything else, right? No? No, Chris? Yes.

Yes. Yeah. I'm thinking the administration won't like that, though. Okay. So then does that mean, wait, because if you do, if the long rates rise, then the net of all this on the economy may be a wash, right? Because I might get a little benefit from a lower short-term rate, maybe credit card interest rates come in,

but I lose everything with a higher fixed mortgage rate in the housing market. So the net is I don't, I'm not getting any, I'm not getting what I'm not getting what I want. I'm not getting any more growth here. You could even get the opposite, right? You could even get the opposite. You know, the bottom market throws up, which, I mean, they haven't shown any inclination to do that. But, you know, at some point they may say, no, I can't take this anymore.

I'm going to sell. And you see, so you're absolutely right. So, but let me throw in one other potential possible step. Resumption of quantitative easing. Couldn't the Fed underpresent. couldn't a fed under pressure. They lower short rates, long rates go up, and they go, oh, oh. Then they go, let's go buy long-term bonds.

Let's go buy long-term bonds to bring down long-term interest rates. This is so mind-numbing. Let me take one more step further. Could it be the case? You know, we've been kind of, you know, ruminating in the last couple, a few podcasts, as to why we're not seeing any reaction in the stock market. is still at a record high. The credit spreads in the bond market, corporate bond market are very low, not consistent with the idea that the economy is struggling at all. And we're kind of,

well, what's going on? Could it be one explanation that investors believe that this is in our future, that we're going to see a Federal Reserve that's going to drive down short-term rates and then drive down long-term interest rates as well? And what about if I'm an equity investor and I see the government, federal government buying a stake in Intel, does that mean that the federal government can step in at any point and start buying equity in any company to try to support the market? Right? I mean, so if I'm an investor,

maybe it's a put, right? A put option. Maybe I keep buying regardless because I've got the federal government, you know, there is it going to step in? I don't know. Am I taking things too far? Chris, what do you think? I'm not advocating.

I don't know what I'm advocating in terms of our forecast. I'm not quite there yet, but does that, is that scenario that far-fetched? So you're trying to justify the market behavior that we're seeing. Is that the, I'm asking. That would explain. If you were an investor and you thought, you know, the Federal Reserve is going to cut rates, both long and short, and if you thought that, you know, the equity market was going to stumble and the federal government could step in and start buying more equity,

isn't that cushioning your downside? I mean, making it reducing your tail risk and therefore wouldn't that bid up the price of stocks and corporate bonds? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Whoa. But you have to believe the government's able to pull this all off.

What's that? You have to believe that all of this can be pulled off in a graceful fashion. Well, no, eventually I can't see this ending at all. It can't. It's going to be a complete collapse at some point. It doesn't work. But you know, you could do this for a while. You could do this for a while.

Investor Horizons, I don't think, are, you know, they'll think out the next year maybe. I don't think they think out much beyond that. You know, I don't know. Versa, what do you think? Yeah, it's a dark, it's a dark scenario you're laying out. But with each passing day, I believe it more and more that it's a real possible. possibility. Yeah. I mean, holy cow. I mean, you could also just undermine the data, right? So you could also just say, right, let's say the Fed aggressively cuts. Let's say inflation is high, rising. You could just say,

well, we don't believe that inflation data. Yeah, right. Well, yeah, that's kind of the standard approach, right? Right. Argentina, Turkey. I've just, I'll make up the data. I'll make up the data. Of course, in a case of prices, that's harder to do because you can actually measure prices. You can scrape the billion. When we're going to do this, we're going to go, you know,

going back to trust but verify, I think, Mercia, you trust, but you've got to verify as best we can. We're going to go verify that some of these price data. What's happening in the oil prices? What's that? What's happening to oil prices under your scenario? Yeah. Why do you, well, why do you ask? That's the signal that is most obvious to many consumers, right?

So in terms of inflation, right? I think if it juices demand, it should all else being equal push up oil prices. But there too, you know, maybe that's oil is a political price, right, at the end of the day. I mean, it's determined by political actors, you know, that particularly in the Middle East, like the Saudis, whatever they decide to do or not do, and that could be, you know, part of what's going on here. So I don't know. A lot to contemplate there, you know, to the point where like everybody else, like every business person, like the Federal Reserve Board so far, you know, there's so much uncertainty you just kind of sit on your hands because, you know, what do you do with this? You know, how do you, you know, handle this? But we're going to handle it through scenarios.

So we've got to start thinking about scenarios where we go down the path and consider these alternatives. But anyway, okay, that was a little – I'm really nervous now. Geez, Louise. Nervous economist, nervous economy. Ooh, that's the title. Isn't it? I think that's the title. That's the title right there, baby.

All right. Okay, we're going to call this – because, again, it's Labor Day weekend. Chris is bailing on us. You know, he's going to get on his crypto. crypto yacht, you know, so, no? Am I making, am I making that up? Am I? The whole crypto yacht?

The whole crypto thing? No, yeah. I wouldn't even know how to buy crypto if I wanted it, but I like the idea. I like imagining this Chris out there that, you know, I love the cryptochris. I love crypto Chris. Yeah, Crypto Chris. Mercy, you're next, though.

I know. It's my persona. Yeah, I know. Work on your persona. I got to work on that. All right. Well, guys, I think we're going to call this a podcast. What do you guys think? Go enjoy the weekend. Yeah, okay. Happy Labor Day. Happy Labor Day. All right, guys. Dear listener, thank you very much for tuning in. We'll talk to you next week. Take care now.