The Canadian Bitcoiners Podcast - Bitcoin News With a Canadian Spin - Is Canada's Economy COOKING or COOKED? (w/ Millennial Moron)

Episode Date: May 1, 2025

FRIENDS AND ENEMIESJoin Millennial Moron as we dive into the Canadian economic picture, exploring the current state of the Canadian economy for millennials. We'll discuss how these factors impact pensions, employment, and unemployment, particularly among boomers and millennials. Learn how to build wealth, increase savings, and create passive income through equities and real estate investing. We'll also examine pension funds, retirement planning, and housing policy, including the role of Mark Carney and the Canadian government in shaping the economy. Get insights on unemployment solutions, the housing market, and asset allocation strategies for wealth management. If you're a millennial looking to grow your equity and secure your financial future, this video is for you.#finance #investing #bitcoin #canadianeconomy #canada #housing #immigration #pensions #wealthJoin us for some QUALITY Bitcoin and economics talk, with a Canadian focus, every Monday at 7 PM EST. From a couple of Canucks who like to talk about how Bitcoin will impact Canada. As always, none of the info is financial advice. Website: ⁠www.CanadianBitcoiners.com⁠Discord:   / discord   A part of the CBP Media Network: ⁠www.twitter.com/CBPMediaNetworkThis show is sponsored by: easyDNS - ⁠⁠www.easydns.com⁠⁠ EasyDNS is the best spot for Anycast DNS, domain name registrations, web and email services. They are fast, reliable and privacy focused. You can even pay for your services with Bitcoin! Apply coupon code 'CBPMEDIA' for 50% off initial purchase Bull Bitcoin - ⁠⁠https://mission.bullbitcoin.com/cbp⁠⁠ The CBP recommends Bull Bitcoin for all your BTC needs. There's never been a quicker, simpler, way to acquire Bitcoin. Use the link above for 25% off fees FOR LIFE, and start stacking today.

Friends and enemies. Welcome to Canadian Bitcoiners Podcast. We're here tonight with a first time guest, the Millennial Moron. You guys have seen this guy on Twitter, YouTube, TikTok. I know a lot of you guys are TikTokers, which I can't believe. I don't know. Like I don't use TikTok. We post there, but I don't actually browse there. This guy shares a lot of the same concerns that we have in Bitcoin about the state of the Canadian economy, the problems that Millennials are facing. Our listeners are predominantly Millennial, a few younger, a few older, but predominantly in that Millennial range. So we're going to talk about all these things and we're also going to see if we can sort out some of the problems that might be coming down the pipe.

The policies might be coming down the pipe, all these things. So hang out. You're going to like, excuse me, this hour. As always, though, we're going to start with the sponsors. EZDNS, the best place for you to host your content. Mark has been a friend to the show for a long time, partner of the show, friend of ours. He is your friendly neighborhood registrar. What does that mean? If you want to start a website, you can go to Mark, find a domain, he'll set

it up for you. You can buy a domain somewhere else, unadvisable, but he'll help you set that up too. You can bring it over to EasyDNS, port it over, as the saying goes. Lots of virtual private server options. If you're a Bitcoiner, you want to run a node, Nostra Relay, BTC Pay Server. It's all available for you. You can do that with Mark. For a couple extra bucks, you can also get DomainSure, which is a service he offers. Keep your data safe, your client list safe, your email safe. No one's spoofing your domain. No one's taking your important information. You can't really have that happen to you these days, as you guys know. So go there. CBP media is the code.

Get 50% off your first round of buys. I know a bunch of you guys are doing this already but I'd like to see it continue. Second sponsor Bull Bitcoin. The best place on the planet to buy or sell Bitcoin. These guys are extremists in both official languages. They just launched their new platform which is extremely clean. Saw a lot of comments on that today. Actually meant to pull some up for this ad now that I'm thinking about it, but I don't have to. You can actually go on Twitter

and see all the people talking about the new platform. And obviously Francis was here the other night talking about it at the end of our election stream. You buy, sent to your own wallet, non-custodial. Fantastic. No rug pull threat, nothing like that. Private by default on the way out. You can use your Bitcoin there too, not just to buy gift cards, but they have like payees the same way your bank does, right? So if you want to use a

payee like, I don't know, city of Hamilton for me, I want to pay my property taxes, had to pay those last night. Stings to pay that, you can go to Bull Bitcoin and pay. University tuition, if you're roped into that racket, pay it there. Cell phone bills you name it they got all sorts of payees there and of course if you want to buy gift cards you can do that too. Don't forget new promotion here from these guys although a lot of you already have accounts obviously tons of volume coming through the CBP promo code but if you don't have an account yet you can go sign up use our code I think it's just CBP but the link is in the description of the video and podcasts every week. 25%

off the fees for life. Can't beat that. That's a lot better than the $20 they were offering before, which was also a good deal, but 25% off the fees for life is great. So go there. We're going to bring in our guest, the millennial moron, founder and CEO, millennial moron media. Having a nice chat before the show, I was asking him if there's something I should call him besides millennial moron, doctor, professor moron. We agreed that names don't come up often in the show. I'm gonna see if I can change that

because I got some nicknames I could think of with that sort of baseline. What's going on? Thanks for coming. How are you? Good to see you. Yeah, thanks for having me. I'm doing good. How are you? I'm fantastic, man. I have a little one here and she is sleeping less and less, staying

up longer and longer. So I've had a couple of cups of coffee in the afternoon and I'm on one right now. I see you have a nice cloudy IPA there, which I'm envious of. I have to be honest. I had a coffee right before this. It's smart. It's smart. I love the mix. Let's get into some of your background first. I won't ask you any questions that, you know, you probably won't want to share.

Like I said to you before, I've not heard you ever mention your name, your, you know, official nine to five. I know you're working with rentals.ca now, but there's a lot going on in the finance world and you're covering all of it. So I just want to know maybe one or two things about you before we start. Do you have a background in finance? Not finance, no.

Okay, good. This is like 20 questions with the guest. We don't usually do this. Do you have a background in real estate? Also no. Okay. Then you must have a background in accounting, maybe? Not exactly.

I had a background in, let's say, data analysis and mathematical modeling. And some of that involves money. Some of it doesn't. OK. So that's a vague answer. So for people in my head, I'm thinking this guy could work for an MLB team or he could

work for KPMG. With that answer, I have no idea. It could go either way, but that's fine. The reason I ask is because I doubt very much that the stuff you're coming up with is the content that a lay person would be able to put together. I don't have a background in finance. We try our best to do pretty good research here and we've been somewhat successful, I would say. But when I look at some of the stuff you do, I have to say I'm impressed. Specifically, videos you've done

recently about the pension, you've done a lot about housing. And also there's some good content in there about would you rather live in a Vancouver condo or an Irish castle? Those are good questions, important questions for millennials, among other questions that millennials are probably asking. What do you think the big issues facing Canadian millennials are these days? Well, obviously housing is a big one. And I thought that that was a problem for a really long time as our sort of feedback loop of housing and debt that we've been getting into. You know, at first, it was just a matter of, it's going to get harder for people to buy a house. And then as I watched it go on, I thought

this could actually pretty much take all the juice out of the economy once interest rates go up. And I think that's what we've been seeing now, is, you know, we, we pretty much maxed out our household debt ratio. It was at something like 180% average household debt to disposable income. And we hit that pretty much during the end of the Harper years. And then it's been flatlining since then. And that's not because of improved government management of any sort. It's just that, you know that we didn't have any more capacity to take on more debt.

And now we're finally seeing the big hangover from that, which was that there was some variety of factors that led to economic shocks and it required an increase in interest rates. And we were already at rock bottom during these other crises happening so we didn't really have more room to cut. And so when we went back up, it's extremely painful for a lot of households. Do you think that the housing market is going to reflate in the coming years? I'm asking

you this for two reasons. One, because obviously the interest rates are coming down, which in theory should put some juice back under the housing market, especially in the major metropolitan areas. I'm thinking about Toronto, Vancouver, and there's others too that I don't have to mention. But the second reason I'm asking that is because when I think about the way that the government handles, quote unquote, housing affordability. One of the things we've noted on this show, and this is not a problem, you know, specific to Canada, nor actually is it a problem specific to housing. The government is addicted to debt. They create it, they give it out, and they make it available with almost no consequence

and no thought of what might happen. I mean, five years is a pipe dream. They don't even think about what's going to happen 20 or 30 years from now when all this stuff comes home to roost. Do you, do you, do you see things the same way? Do you think that there's a chance that we're in just a lull here before things go parabolic yet again, or do I have that wrong? That's not what I think is going to happen. And that's something that I've been seeing from the real estate industry is when rates were peaking, everyone was saying, oh, it's at the first rate cut,

home prices are gonna skyrocket. And now we're what, like nine rate cuts deep and they're still falling, right? So my expectation even when this was happening was not that home prices are going to crash because I think there's a very, very strong psychological element to the housing market in Canada, particularly when it comes to people's primary residences.

They're very, very strongly averse to thinking that they have lost money in real estate. Right. So people are not going to sell at a loss. And I've seen that both in data and anecdotally in conversations with individuals. Right. People are very, very averse to realizing a capital loss on real estate. But also, most people don't really have a good understanding of real dollars and inflation adjusted values. So my expectation basically was that when this happened, people were going to hang on as long as they could. People were probably not going to get foreclosed on right there. They'll maintain the house at the expense of everything else in their life. But I figured prices would start trading sideways while the real value was

eroded by inflation. And that's what we've been seeing. And that's what we've seen in previous crashes as well, right? Like in the 1990s, early 2000s, Toronto condo driven crash, it took us something like, I don't know, nine years to hit the bottom in terms of real values in housing. And we've already, you know, people are asking like, when is housing going to crash? But we've already lost more real value on the average home price in Canada than we did in the 90s crash, but over a much shorter time period. And I'm expecting that it'll probably continue to decline a bit, even as nominal prices kind of stagnate or even go up

slightly. But I don't think that there's really, there's not gas in the tank for prices to go higher unless the government starts pumping a huge amount of liquidity into the system. Because right now, if you're looking at the existing five year mortgage rate on outstanding debt versus what's being offered for new debt, there's still a spread there. New debt is still more expensive than debt that people have locked in. And eventually that's going to roll over. Eventually those two lines will cross and that's when we'll have a better idea of where prices are going to land. Do you think in the major metropolitan areas that there's a chance that immigration upends

that thesis? I am asking specifically, on the comedic side, Quebec today, I don't know if you saw this, now recognizing Thropel's as financial entities. So mom and her two boyfriends can all apply for a mortgage together. That's pretty funny. But on the not so funny side, we are still seeing in my area and other areas around Canada, a number of new Canadians coming and pooling their resources to try and get homes. That's their prerogative to do that.

But I wonder if you think that that could change the framing that you just put forward there about, is there gas in the tank for prices to go up? I don't know if it's up another 100% over a decade, but up, you know, compared to what we've seen over the last two years, maybe. It depends. We are in a weird spot right now where there's a lot of inventory built up

on the new build side that is not moving because we have kind of, you know, a cost of delivery crisis where the market price for a home right now is less than what it costs to actually build one. So there's an issue there. So that may put downward pressure on home starts and things. Now, if the government starts pouring a bunch of money and a bunch of tax incentives into new construction, then we'll see more supply building up. But we kind of are going to see a lot of these impacts playing out in the resale market, like what you're talking about

with people pooling resources. But if we sort out the cost of delivery problem and we get back to not even a surge in home building but regular home building, there is, as I say in my videos, a monetary side to supply and demand as well. The money has to come from somewhere. And I think over the past 15 years, it's come from falling interest rates, which result in people being able to borrow more money and a variety of other government programs where they're trying to tackle housing affordability by giving people more money, not realizing that the price of housing

is very much tied to how much people can borrow. So unless we see a big change in monetary supply, I don't think we're going to see another big run in housing prices for a while. It's probably healthy if they keep trading sideways for a while. And regarding immigration, they have cut the PR targets. They've made a lot of very consequential changes to the immigration system over the past year or so. Like student visa caps,

if Ontario does something about curriculum leasing, I think that'll have a big impact as well. And like to me, the biggest thing is that they've removed the 50 points to the CRS score for having a job that came with an LMIA. Explain that to people. People who watch this channel know what LMIAs are,

but I have not talked about the change in the point system related to LMIAs on this channel before. Yeah, so as you know, the LMIA is a labor market impact assessment. You need it to get a visa for the temporary foreign worker program. And because these are supposed to be associated with labor shortages, right, these positions are supposed to be created to fill a labor shortage where they can't hire a Canadian,

whether or not that's actually legitimate. It also came along with a bonus to your CRS score, which is basically the point system for prioritizing immigration. And so over the past several years, as this, you know, LMIA TFW program visa became almost like a, like it's coveted the world over. That's what it is. Immigration consulting industry that has sprung up around creating these kinds of positions. I could get deep into details on that, but it's a different discussion.

But yeah, so it used to come with these 50 extra points to your immigration score, and they just removed that, which makes complete sense. I think they should just put a moratorium on that program almost entirely because unemployment has risen enough that I think presumptively there's no need for low wage TFWs in the non-agricultural sector basically. But yeah, now that you don't get those extra points on your immigration score, what the immigration consultants are selling kind of has no value. And so over this past quarter, it's the first time in several years that we've seen a net outflow of non-permanent residents.

Now, some of that may be uptake into PR programs. Some of it I think is flowing to asylum claimants as well. Yes sir, yep. But the program is no longer rapidly expanding. It is in fact contracting. And as they've cut back on PR targets as well, we probably will see a net outflow of people out of the country. Yeah, as the economic conditions worsen for those newcomers, I think that's, you know,

along with all the things you mentioned, the incentives are going to be clear and the direction is going to be clear too. We had Ben Rabidou on, you may know him about a year ago and he started talking about this. I told him I thought he was wrong, but he ended up being right. I ended up being right about asylum claims taking some of that traffic, but he ended up being right about net outflows, which I was surprised about, but also pleasantly surprised. I think that's important. I'm curious what your thoughts on the housing market when it comes to boomer retirement. Boomer is a term that gets thrown around in a derogatory way a lot. I'm guilty of it.

I don't know if you are. You don't look like the kind of guy who throws derogatory terms around to the elderly, but I can be that way from time to time, unfortunately. After the election we just had a couple of nights ago, seeing the voter split between the younger demographics and everyone over 55, and, you know, there's a sort of certainty from people our age that until, until boomers die out, some of the

policies that have really negatively impacted people born in the 80s and early 90s are just not going to go away. It's too active a voting block, too large a voting block, and too wealthy a voting block for some of those things to change. So I'm curious, when you say that we need to return to standard levels of home building, for example, around the country, or we have to have housing not gain value for some time, or gain value that's not adequate against inflation, what considerations have you given to the effect that this would have on boomers, both financially and in terms of their political leanings?

Have you given that any thought? I'm sure you have. I'm curious what you think about it. Somebody is going to have to feel the pain, and I think younger people have been dealing with it for a long time. I think there is a... You asked at the beginning of the video or the interview what I thought was the main issue facing millennials.

I mentioned housing, but beyond that, the core issue in my mind is basically increasing wealth inequality and increasing financialization. I think this sort of what I think of it as is boomer retirement planning is one aspect of that, right? It is part of a broader multi-decade transfer of wealth between segments of society, essentially, you know, the generation previous to them, they would, they didn't see this rapid, rapid, rapid home price inflation, right? So when they were thinking about retirement, they're like, okay, I'm going to build up some savings. I'm going to perhaps have a pension and I will have my paid off home that I live in and that will be my place to live. But my expenses will come from savings, pension,

et cetera. And then I think the boomer generation, as they saw this rapid, rapid appreciation in home equity, they thought, well, okay, I don't need to save as much for retirement or perhaps for a lot of people, they couldn't save for retirement, but they had all this home equity. And so their thought was, okay, I'll access this home equity in retirement. And I think a lot of people thought they were going to sell and downsize and use the price difference to fund their retirement. And then what we found in the last few years is that as the price of everything rose so much and, you know, different levels of government and different levels of private industry, but primarily government tried to take a bigger slice

of home sales through, you know, land transfer taxes, development charges, whatever flipping taxes here in Ontario, out in the beach as well. Yeah. So I think what people were finding is that if they were to sell their single detached home and downsize into something like a town home or a condo, once you finish all the fees associated with buying and selling a home and moving, you actually didn't come out that far ahead. You kind of just traded down properties and don't end up with that much money

in your pocket afterwards. So people are finding, because this was when people thought prices were gonna crash was when all the boomers rushed to sell, but they're not selling. Instead, they're finding other ways to access their home equity,

whether that's through HELOC, a home equity line of credit, or one of the largest, or not largest, but fastest growing forms of debt in the country is reverse mortgages, right? And so what that will eventually do is, you know, eventually the estates are going to have to dispose of these homes when people pass on, but there's also going to be a lot of debt attached to the home. So rather than that property and that wealth being transferred to their kids, it will be transferred to the next generation, but it's primarily going to be transferred to the creditors and not the beneficiaries of the estate.

This is an interesting conundrum that the boomers have. They're in this position where they've been living, high on the hog is maybe too strong a term. These people are good Canadians. They did what they were incentivized to do, I should note. I've said that many times on this show, that for all the things that I disagree with the boomers about, specifically their election priorities, as we've all seen in these charts, completely insane,

detached from reality, deranged,anged demented pick your word but they've done what they were incentivized to do on the real estate side and on the retirement saving side investing side they're living a little high on the hog for my taste am I you know upset that people in the same job that I have now who who had it 20 or 30 years earlier, are mortgage free by 45, going to Costa Rica twice a year, and enjoying driving a Beamer in the summer and a Jeep in the winter. I don't know, but there's something to that,

that's that situation that rubs us the wrong way, us as a millennials. And now they're stuck in this situation, as you mentioned, where they're finding that the cost of living has sort of crept up on them. And it's hard to ignore in real terms what your house is actually worth when you go to sell and so you decide not to sell, it leads to supply constraints in the market market obviously and that's kind of a good jumping off point to my next question. The government of the day, the liberals just won the other night, has promised a significant increase in home building as you mentioned as we kind of touched on earlier. I don't think it's a reasonable goal.

Obviously, yeah, you're laughing. It's actually completely unreasonable. It's never been done, I don't think. But that's neither here nor there for the moment. The idea that the government is going to build homes is scary to me. And I want to get your take on this, but I can tell you why it's scary to me. When I hear the government claiming they're going to build homes, what I hear and what I think we need are two very different things. What we need to solve problems like increased family

formation, increasing birth rates, greater sense of community, people putting roots down in areas and building communities and whatnot, becoming part of a tax base long term, a predictable part of a tax base, that's important stuff for communities. What they need is a house with a backyard and some grass. When I hear the government talk about building housing, what I think is that they're viewing housing

as like a shelter unit. It's a place, you know, I'll use some acute language here that I use on the program. Housing is not a place for you to finish your job delivering Uber Eats, jerk off, watch Netflix and go to bed. That's not an actual home. That's a shelter unit that I think the government is thinking about when they're talking about these homes. I'm

curious, obviously I know your take on the volume of the building they're planning on doing, but what about the quality? Have you have you thought about this and does the does increased housing in that regard really drive down prices? Or does it have the inverse effect that single-family dwellings, detached single-family dwellings in communities all over Canada actually rip in price because not only are they not for sale, but they're not being built anymore. Where do you come down on that? Yeah. Well, this goes back to something that I like to say from time to time in my videos is that I don't think we have one problem with housing that has one solution. I think we have like 30

problems with housing and we need 30 solutions. Building that has one solution. I think we have like 30 problems with housing and we need 30 solutions. Building more is one of them. And I actually do think that building more purpose-built rental housing is an important solution. When I was younger, that's where I lived most of the time, was large, sturdy, concrete apartment buildings that have been built in the 70 70s, you know,

and then we kind of stopped building those. And that was a time when housing was affordable, and part of that was because we offered tax incentives when vacancy rates got too low, the government started offering tax incentives to build purpose-built rental housing in those sort of like dense but more affordable forms, right? And I do think that forms the foundation of a healthy housing market is for people to have some place that they can rent at an affordable rate. Because that allows people to build equity through one form or another. You might not be doing it through your rent, but if you have something that doesn't consume a gigantic portion of your income, you can save money. And you can invest that in one way or

another, you can save it up for a down payment. And then you could potentially eventually buy the type of home that you're talking about to build a family in. The problem with getting more of that built is, like I said, we've got a cost of delivery issue right now, where we have like super, super high land values, which I think arose from speculation. But we also have governments, you know, municipal, provincial, federal, all taking a slice of home building. And there's also, you know, pre-construction assignment flipping speculators in there getting a cut. Like all of these problems, right? There's a lot of people with their hands in the pot and it was working out fine when interest rates were dropping and home prices were rising rapidly because homeowners saw their property value going up and thought they had gotten a good deal because now they're making all this money based on a small initial down payment,

but you still had to pay all those fees, right? If somebody is getting a cut, somebody had to pay it. And ultimately it is you as the end user who is paying that. And so we need to pull out some of these unproductive entities that are all taking a slice of home building and get it closer to where whether it's rental or a build to sell housing, it should mainly be the builder and the end user capturing the value of that transaction and not all of these other people.

Where should they build this housing? Should they build it in cities where the demand is obviously high if you look at density or the home value growth over the last five years? Or should they use purpose-built rentals or purpose-built housing to incentivize people to spread out to areas that are, I don't know, in the orbit of a Toronto or a Hamilton or a Vancouver, or should they go even further and say, you have to move to Saskatchewan? I remember Saskatchewan for a long time

was giving significant tax incentives to university graduates who wanted to move there and stay for five years after they graduated. It didn't work, I don't think, at the level they wanted it to, but we've seen obviously a significant rise in density in these major metropolitan areas. Where should they be building the housing? Should they be building it there to

meet demand there or incentivizing people to move to other locales? I'm kind of a let's build everywhere person, but it does make sense to focus the highest density stuff in urban centers where there's the most demand and along transit corridors where people can move around the easiest because you don't want to just generate a bunch of traffic and gridlock in the city. So I think, you know, transit oriented development makes sense. I think hand in hand with that comes with putting more money

into public transit just to get people to move around cities easier. Because, you know, I've been to places where they have good public housing and good transit, just to get people to move around cities easier. Cause you know, I've been to places where they have good public housing and good transit and it's like a shockingly different experience than we have in Canada. Like, I don't know if you've been to like Tokyo or Hong Kong or something, but taking the subway there, it's like night and day difference from Canada. Um, and you know, if you go to, for example, like you'll see a lot of places in Hong Kong where they just stamped out like five of the same apartment building right in the same

like property block. And obviously that's like, you know, it's the densest city in the world, so they can do better there. But it's not like this housing is super luxurious. But to your point about people making something a home, I think that has a lot to do with the people and how they choose to live there and what they do with their space. Because for example, in Hong Kong, it's often used for elderly residents who

might be on a very fixed income. But they would be in that affordable living space for many years. And if they can afford their home and they can afford, you know, some amenities to decorate with and to make the space their own, then it does become a home and it creates a community around it. But obviously there's a big difference in green space between Canada and Hong Kong. I'm not going to say it's the same, but it is a pretty cool place. Do you think that the people... What are the arguments against these purpose-built rentals? Because I've had on a number of proponents of stuff like UBI, PBRs, not the beer, but

like the purpose-built rentals, of course. I've entertained a lot of arguments for them, but to be honest with you, I don't know many of the arguments against. And in my head, I'm like most people picturing the Soviet era, just monolithic, thousand floor, repeating texture like an N64 game, apartment building. What is the argument against these things? There's clearly some good reasons why we should look at building these. Why should we not? Well, a lot of people, I think, are to some extent still stuck in the mindset of, we have enough or a surplus of housing where they're like, oh, well, this is going to be low quality housing.

And I don't want to see our housing supply kind of downgrade to that. Because in their mind, we have a lot of, they're still thinking about the 2000s, the 2010s, where it's not like there was a shortage. But I mean, if you've been to any city in Canada in the past five years, there's 10 cities all over the place. So we got to think about what the current status quo is and what we can change to. Now beyond that, there is also a very, very strong cultural thing in Canada where people think that owning is always better than renting. And so they see any attempt to build more rental stock and more affordable rental stock as kind of driving towards the, you'll loan nothing

and be happy. Love it. You're speaking our language, man. Are you sure you're not a Bitcoiner? Because this is exactly the kind of stuff I hear all the time. Yeah. Well, I like to talk to everybody to get different perspectives on it, right? Whether or not I agree with it.

So people, I think, have this idea in their heads that if you are driving towards more rental stock, which I think is what the government should be involved in if they're going to build any housing directly or have public housing, it's probably better to have it as rental housing for people to live in for a while and then eventually move out of, right? Because I think that's any kind of government assistance program where you're providing some service or whatever. I think housing is a any kind of government assistance program where you're providing some service or whatever. I think housing is a good service to provide. I would kind of rather see that

than just sending checks to people. I'd rather have like, okay, this is like a core need for society and so we can have some of it that is subsidized as a service from the public, right? But ultimately the goal of any of those programs should be to get people off of those programs, give them a stable basis of a place to live and work so that they can work their way up and out of it

to improve their life. So I also don't think, like I talked to people on the other end of the spectrum who say that public housing should be so nice that rich people wish they could live there. I'm like, no, I don't agree with that. It would be nice if we had all the resources in the world to do that. But what I think public housing should be primarily is inexpensive and repeatable and sturdy.

Right? Because if we're going to build a large building, I think it should become an asset that we can use for the next 50, 70 years. I think that's spot on. I want to applaud you for your comment there on stable housing and the importance of stable housing as a stepping stone. I'll tell you a brief story. People who listen to this show know that I'm on the board of directors for an addiction services, men's addiction services house here in Hamilton Wayside House. I've been on that board for about 11 or 12 years. And we have an incredibly high success rate in terms of getting guys from the bottom of their barrel, their bottle, their syringe, all the way back

to contributing members of the community. And the thing that sets our program apart, Mr. Moron, is that when we send guys out of the quote unquote inpatient portion of the program, we don't send them right back to job fairs and you know subsidized apartments, we send them to something that Wayside calls supportive housing. And supportive housing is them as someone who just got out of the program living with people who are in different stages further down the program line

than they are in terms of their down the program line than they are in terms of their recovery and reintegration. I hate that term reintegration, but it fits here. And the success that we have is due to those guys finding that stable footing with people who have also found stable footing. They're learning from the mistakes of the people who came before them, even though they're still successful. And it's been an incredible thing.

So I do think people might be surprised to hear me say this because I'm often pretty harsh when it comes to the own nothing and be happy. But there is a place for stable rentals for people who treat them as temporary stepping stones, somewhere to get on your feet, get back on your feet, and the incentives exist to leave at some point. I think that's pretty important.

One of your favorite videos, one of my favorite videos of yours is your marathon CPPIB video. We've talked about CPPIB on this show a lot. I don't know how exposed you are to Bitcoin Twitter. Look at that. That's a great cat. I have a cat here too. Love a good cat. We've talked about pensions a lot on this show, and it's a popular refrain in the Bitcoin space that your pension is not safe. It's not going to be there for you, whether it's a zero or just not going to be there for you in the terms that you think it's going to be there for you in at the end of the line.

And I don't know exactly where I come down on this, but maybe we should start with just a broad 30,000 foot view of the CPP. Is this thing going to be there for you and I? You and I are both in our thirties, I would guess. I'm 38. I don't know how old you are, but you know, is this thing going to be there for me when I turn 65? And what does there for me look like in your view? Yeah. So one of the things that I actually kind of changed my opinion on in researching this video, you know, primarily it was about the active management strategy and whether or not I think we're getting good value for that. Didn't change my opinion on that. But

in researching the history and the planning of CPP, I do now feel a lot more confident that it will actually be around when I retire. Now, it's not going to be a huge amount of money. It'll be probably less than what I would have if I had retained that money for myself to invest. But I do think having everybody in society have to pay into it and have a certain amount come out is probably a good thing because otherwise there's going to be a lot of people who either will not or cannot save that money. And so they would end up needing more assistance later on anyway, because we don't really have the wherewithal as a society to watch people starve to death in the

streets en masse, right? So I do think it's very important in that sense. And I do think that it will be there in terms of what they say our benefits getting paid will be, which is something like 25% of your pensionable earnings, which is not a lot of money. That'll work out to be the equivalent today of whatever is like $16,000 a year. There's the additional CPP now that's

going to top it up a bit more. And the thing that makes going to top it up a bit more. And the thing that makes me confident that it will still be there is that we have extremely conservative actuarial assumptions, which means like, you know, we look 75 years out to spot problems in advance. You know, it's like that 75 years is not a guarantee, but it's a way to see if we have a problem coming down the line. And it's a pretty conservative assumption in terms of what kinds of returns we're going to see. So it's very likely that it will be there as promised. Now the flip side of that is like the consequence of that is that we pay relatively high premiums

to get a relatively low benefit at the other end, right? Because this defined benefit program. And if you die at a young age, you don't get return of capital on that, right? It's kind of like a social program in a sense, right? People don't like to call it a tax, but you have to pay into it. You do get more out if you pay more in, but it depends on your individual lifespan as well. So there is a sort of redistributive aspect of it. Do you... Let's talk about how it's...

I think it's pegged to inflation at some level. It is, yeah. So I want to talk a bit about that. One of the things we talked about on the program an awful lot is the difference between the actual inflation rate and the inflation rate that gets fed to us by central banks around the world. Now, that sounds a little tinfoil hat, but let me explain. When I look at things like Cheerios and fruit snacks, and I compare them to the inflation rate that's posted, I see that there's at the very least a pretty tight correlation between the increase in price and the inflation rate that gets posted by central banks.

I don't mind that. My problem is that in retirement, if I want to not spend my golden years eating Cheerios and fruit snacks, and I'd rather have a steak or cheese or whatever else, the inflation rate is actually significantly higher. It seems like for things I want, and there's a tendency I think in the in the financial sector to call these things luxury goods. I'm not sure that meat is a luxury good, although there's probably certain factions that want to make it that way. I'll leave that for another time. What should people expect when it comes to that inflation peg? Do you have a view on posted inflation versus sort of IRL inflation,

the inflation that many people experience eating things that are not boxed and bagged and shipped over here or, you know, microwaved and these types of things. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Yeah, I mean, if you really wanted to get a good picture of it, you would eat almost your kind of personal inflation rate based on what you yourself consume, right?

Because what we see is this big aggregated number that kind of takes into account what's the whole national consumption of whatever, right? Whereas I think what a lot of people are getting frustrated with with the cost of living is that there's certain things that people in kind of the lower and middle income brackets need like of the lower and middle income brackets need like shelter and food. I need food to live, sleeping indoors is nice. And those have been inflating faster than the aggregated CPI. So in that sense, it's like, yeah, CPP is pegged to inflation. It's pegged to overall inflation. But also I would say, you know, CPP is not meant to form the basis of your retirement anyway.

It's kind of like, here's to make sure you don't die and the rest is up to you. So if you want to have a stake in retirement, if you want to go on vacations, you got to plan for that yourself. And I don't mind that in terms of the government pension plan. I think, yeah, it's a backstop, right? It's not the whole system. You kind of have to build your own retirement for yourself or get a job that has some kind of pension program if that still exists. But you know. Is there any thought given to the value of the Canadian dollar against a non-productive Canadian economy in terms of like goods and services? Food is a great example.

You mentioned that, you know, in the whole staying alive silo, you do need to eat, you know, at dollar CAD 72 or whatever it's at 70 cents, it's not that big a deal. But if we continue to go down this path of what I will call natural resource mismanagement, being fraught about certain environmental causes and things of this nature, it will affect the Canadian dollar. And you're the expert, I have not looked into this but I have it in my list of questions here. I thought maybe you would know we could talk about it. Is there thought given to the value of the Canadian dollar experiencing a significant decline against the USD or against other

currencies around the world that affect the purchasing power of goods coming from out of country? That's for average people, that's for, you know, Canadian denominated companies or CAD denominated equities, I of country. That's for average people. That's for Canadian denominated companies or CAD denominated equities, I should say. It's all over the place. The effects would be wide ranging. Is there anything in there about that? I mean, I'm sure people have given thought to it

in terms of the government. It seems to be like if they thought about it, they've kind of put it aside and said, let's worry about that later. For me, I think something that should be considered very, very important is de-globalizing the food system, making it more kind of like decentralized, more diversified, and more within each country.

I think in a lot of ways, in a lot of systems with the global economy, we have built up systems that are marginally more efficient and much more fragile. That's a great way to put it. Yeah, there's lots of insane examples of things like, you know, you hear about pigs being raised in one country and then shipped to a different country to be slaughtered and processed and then shipped back to be sold in the country of origin shipped to a different country to be slaughtered and processed and then shipped back to be sold in the country of origin, which is like, you know, that's a very egregious example.

But for many, many years now, like a couple of decades probably, I have been concerned about things like monocropping and clone seed and having these key companies like Monsanto that produce all of the seed that we use to grow everything. Because not only does that expose you to economic risks of maybe this company experiences something that makes it go under

and then we have a big supply shock, but there's also like biological factors. If you have something that affects all these clone strains and it affects something that's like a key crop like wheat or rice, that's also a big problem. We saw things like flour and bread prices go way up in Canada because of the war in Ukraine because Ukraine produces a lot of grain. We produce a lot of grain. Every country that likes bread should be producing a substantial amount

of grain. And so I think, you know, part of what I've been trying to do in my own life is to wean myself off of these super globalized supply chains and, you know, get to know farmers better and things like that and buy my food as locally as I can. And I think that actually in the past few years, you know, I was paying a premium for it for a long time, but it's been paying off now because I have all these connections, right? And I found that the prices are now really comparable to the grocery stores because the grocery stores have these complex supply chains. And when that starts getting expensive, that cost gets multiplied through the system. Whereas if I'm buying

something from a rancher who's like 50 kilometers away or less, there's a lot less things that can change in that supply chain. So I'm not only getting a much, much better quality product, but I'm getting at what is now pretty much the same price. Does that count as an elbows up purchase or no? Do you have any comments on that? Does Mark view that as elbows up if you buy from a rancher instead of from Loblaws? I'm not sure. I mean, I guess it's supporting Canadian business, right?

I have to say, well, look at this cat appearance again. I have to say that you are hitting a lot of Bitcoin or notes. The decentralized food thing is incredible. We talk about that a lot on this show. There's a fella, Ryan, God, I can't remember his last name, runs a small media company and also sells meat and other stuff through regenerative farming. He calls his company the Regenisance. And you know, that's a big thing in Bitcoin. And I think a lot of people view this the same way you do in my neck of the woods, that not only do I kind of want to starve out big corporations that I think might be giving me a bit of grief in terms of how quote unquote difficult things are and getting me a little

bit in the pocketbook on the way. But I also want to support local people and see more of that in my community. Community building is so important and it's good to hear that you're also a fan of that. I told you we'd go between 45 and 60 minutes. We're at 46 minutes now and we haven't talked about Bitcoin. And so... Yeah. Well, we can keep going. I like I have nothing scheduled after this. I just I want to talk about Bitcoin for a bit. So I want to get this. I want to get this get this going here. I got people in my chat who are asking me if I should if they should max out their HELOC

for Bitcoin. When should they get serious about it? Where do you come down? I know sort of you know, you mentioned that you heard about Bitcoin in 2010 before the show like many of us, regrets abound, but there's also reasons why you wouldn't get into Bitcoin. Those reasons, I think, are valid for a lot of people. Where do you come down on Bitcoin as an investment vehicle?

Put aside for a second whether or not it's fulfilled its mission as peer-to-peer decentralized cash. Put aside for a second whether it's fulfilled its mission as an asset that can defund governments and stop wars as an investment vehicle, given its past performance, given its maybe lack of legal cloud at this point, legislative cloudiness, where do you come down on it? What do you think? Well, see, I don't think you can put aside those things.

Okay, tell me then. I'm ready. I'm very much like a traditional value investor. I think the value of an investment is whatever you can produce out of it in an actual real world productive way. And everything else is a speculation, which I don't consider investing. People do consider it speculative investing. That's like not my thing. I think it's like not great to get involved in that sort of thing. Now obviously tons of people have made tons of money in crypto. And when I first saw it, I thought, you know, I read the white paper on Bitcoin back in

like 2010, 2011, whatever, and I was like, this is an interesting idea. You've got the ability to send a verified transaction between two parties without the use of a trusted third intermediary. And you've got, everything is distributed in terms of the verification system. So no one person can control it.

And it had a very good, unique idea on how to do this, which is called blockchain. And it had what turned out to be kind of a crummy implementation called proof of work. No, no. We've kind of been solving it. Well, that's it for tonight, everyone. Take care. See you next time. No, no. I mean, there's been, you's been different currencies that have come out after that have kind of addressed that problem, right? Like Ethereum is proof of stake, right? Yeah.

Yeah. And so, I think that's a good way to do it because then you're not concentrating everything in what are now big companies that own all of this production equipment to basically verify transactions. And as I was watching it develop, I saw things like, uh, you know, every time there was a difficulty doubling event, kind of the price would double as well, and I was like, okay, so the value of this currency is sort of pegged to what it costs to validate the transactions and that would, that would kind of be okay if people were using it as a currency. And that would kind of be okay if people were using it as a currency. But I think what we're seeing is ultimately what people are doing with cryptocurrency is primarily trading it against fiat currencies,

which kind of defeats the purpose of cryptocurrency existing because they're using it to make money. They're not using it as money. And that would be the intrinsic value of cryptocurrency to me is this alternate verifiable payment system. So to me, it would gain value when people start actually using it as a currency. Now, it's not as though fiat currencies don't have the same problem. The daily volume of the Forex market

is something like $7.5 trillion. And the average daily spend of the Forex market is something like $7.5 trillion. And the average daily spend of a person in the world is around, it's a little over $200. There's like 8 plus billion people in the world. That's a couple billion dollars a day, or a couple trillion dollars a day. And so that's like a 4 to 1 ratio of people using regular currency as trading

versus using it to purchase goods and services. What do you think that ratio is for crypto? I'm sure it's much higher. Yeah. Is it a hundred to one? Is it a thousand to one? I don't even know. It's got to be high.

There's, there's days where there's, you know, people post about the ratio being completely insane. And to be honest with you, I'll push back on the proof of work, proof of stake thing, proof of proof of work works because it removes sort of the incentive to just hoard. In Ethereum, the more you hoard, the more you get and blah, blah, blah. There's tail emissions and stuff. It doesn't work with a fixed cap. But I do agree with you that the corporatization of Bitcoin mining has been a problem. I have a little home miner here and I know a lot of people listening to the show have

one that has our branding on it. We had a company build them and we sold them a few months back. The corporatization of mining is a big problem and it's a problem for two reasons. One because as fiduciaries, they have to keep mining even if the government starts telling them how to do so. And two, because the government now is cozying up to this, I expect that to happen inside of the next two or three years. Maybe not here, but in the United States.

Now I want to ask you, in terms of the currency thing, you're familiar with CBDC as I take it, a guy like you cannot not know what a CBDC is, right? So one of my big concerns and one of the reasons I continue to be a Bitcoiner is that I think in some not too distant future scenario, there is a world where there is basically this panopticon of transactional value being exchanged between people or between us and banks, between, you know, whatever. and this other more private, I almost want to say more free secondary economy where Bitcoin does become a popular means of exchange. And I don't know if that's going to be the case, but I'm unwilling to risk not having any of that

second currency for that second economy as I see the clamps coming down all over the place. Do you have an opinion on the CBDC outputs from the ECB in the last little while? I mean, Lagarde saying not too long ago that she's hoping to roll one out by the end of this year in Europe. So I don't think it's that far away. Do you have any thoughts on that? Do you care? Like, I don't know, maybe I'm just wearing a tinfoil hat. I mean, I don't care so much about the transition from like just regular fiat currency to a CBTC, right? It's how much actual, like how, how much of an element of control does that actually change, right?

Cause you already have like all the money I have is a number on a screen in a bank. The cashless thing doesn't scare you. Not especially. Cause like the thing is like, you know, cash and fiat currency, in a sense, is like this thing that we all agree in our heads has value. And you could say the same thing about cryptocurrency. And this has happened before with local currencies, right? I think a medium of exchange is whatever people agree on exchanging. This happened in Ireland quite a long time with the bankers strike.

A bunch of bankers went on strike and they said, oh, what are you going to do without us? Then people just made their own currency and traded it. Then they came back with their tail between their legs and said, fine. with their tail between their legs and said, fine. So to me, is crypto, is having crypto in advance a necessary part of that strategy or is it just having actual connections with actual people who can provide actual productive services with each other? I think you don't, or I don't want to get too bogged down in the financial aspect of it because to me I see also in crypto like a lot of the same kind of financialization and capture,

like you said, corporatization of mining, the capture of all these services like exchanges and things like that. I don't think it's inherently less vulnerable to government control than anything else, right? Like we run it on the internet. A lot of internet infrastructure is nationalized. Like all blockchain things are kind of visible to everyone. So it's still trackable. So to me, the thing that you would do to protect against government control

and like a CBDC is to build a more robust community like that can provide things of value to each other. I think that's not a bad answer. People in the chat are giving you shit about your proof of work, proof of stake take. I knew that was going to happen. Okay, okay. Like proof of stake is just an example, right? There's also like I've heard proof of stake is just an example, right? There's also like, I've heard proof of storage.

I, you know, the problem with proof of work to me is that it's extremely resource intensive and, um, like we're now seeing, well, I don't know, I've seen news stories. I don't know if these are true or not, but recently they're, again, we're getting into a, a cost of delivery crisis with mining where it costs more to mine one Bitcoin than that is worth on the market. And that's like almost an existential risk, right?

Is that who's going to want to keep mining if they're losing money on it? The zealous shareholders of these companies, I think is the answer. But yeah, I do agree with that. No, listen, I agree. I think that there's a problem Corporate mining is a nightmare because they because they also become don't forget we've talked about this before you may know the mechanics of this But I'll share them anyway the the idea that miners You know hold Bitcoin on their treasury or in their treasury and then become forced sellers during the times you're describing

Driving the price down further and accelerating the problem they're already having. It's almost unbelievably stupid, but they get applauded by the Twitter heads every time they make an announcement about adding Bitcoin to their treasury. It's mind numbing to me that this is the case. I want to ask you one question before we go. It's not a Bitcoin question, but it's something that's been on my mind. And I think we saw it during the election campaign as well. It's important to maybe touch on capital controls in Canada. Now what do I mean by that?

What I mean is that there will be incentives, that's a gentle word for probably what will come but incentives for people to use their tax efficient accounts to keep money in Canadian equities that are underperforming American equities, both because of currency weakness and because of overall productivity talent, you know, the things that companies value and things that shareholders in the street value as well. If you told me five years ago this would happen and that the first salvos would come, you know, from our finance minister talking about making a certain

percentage of the TFSA or RSP only tax-free if it's invested in Canadian equities. A leading candidate up until basically a few weeks before the election suggesting that the TFSA total be raised to 12,000 and nearly half of that must be dedicated to Canadian equities that are chosen by the sitting government as opposed to chosen by investors. This concerns me. I think about things like the exit tax already placed on Canadians and there's just more and more and more signs, there are more and more and more signs that this is coming down the pipe in one way or another. Do you think this is a rational fear? One. And if you do, what does the average Canadian investor do about this? The other thing I'll mention,

this is an anecdote, but maybe I don't know if you have kids or not, but you know, my daughter, a lot of my family members want to give me RESP money. And I keep telling them that I'm not convinced that in 18 years, I'm going to be able to use that RESP money in a way that's fair for her and overrides the opportunity cost of having put that money somewhere else, because it's, you know, forced into an institution that may no longer be relevant to prop up, you know, a Canadian post-secondary education sector. That's a lot of talking for me, but, you know but I'd be curious to hear your overall thoughts on that thesis. Yeah, that's a big question. I think after this, I'm going to defend myself on proof of work a little bit. I talked to the plain bagel about this on my channel with the extra TFSA room. I think it's a little misguided in terms of, or not necessarily misguided,

but like inconsequential in a lot of ways, because it's a fairly small fraction of retail investors who are already maxing out their TFSA. It's like 50% of people who are eligible for a TFSA have one, and then about 9% of those people max it out. That's it, really? Yeah. So it's a pretty small proportion. Now, if you were to add $5,000 per person per year, that does add up to something like $7.5 billion a year. But I, as somebody who just does globally

diversified index investing, I have something like $40,000 or $50,000 worth of Canadian assets, and I'm not even a high net worth individual. I could spend 10 years or so, depending on how much that stuff grows in the interim, just transferring my Canadian assets into this extra room and then using the other room for whatever I want. I don't know if it'll actually increase investment in Canada. And in that sense, since it's only applying to like retail investors pretty much,

like big companies and big investment firms are not working out of the TFSA, I don't think it really affects capital mobility that much. Now, interestingly, there's a whole other discussion to be had about when capital was not so globally mobile, that's when wealth inequality was much lower and the middle class was doing a lot better. Because it was harder for people to just say like,

oh, I'm gonna transfer all of my wealth out of this jurisdiction and have it basically shop around for the lowest tax rate I can get. Whereas, you know, people who are like you or I who are just working guys who live in a country, we don't really have the option to do that and shift our money around in tax havens. So, you know, I think there was like some merit to the idea. I actually think I think there was some merit to the idea. I actually think the capital gains deferral that they were talking about for reinvesting into Canadian assets. If you had a recreational property or a second property that you disposed of and then you reinvest that into Canadian companies, that might've had an actual effect. And it might've provided some assistance in keeping

real estate assets within a family. Yeah. Because when you transfer a property to your kids, there's still a deep disposition. So if it's not your primary residence, you're still going to need to pay capital gains on that. Now, if you could offset that by say like transfer to your kids at some nominal price that's like equal to the capital gain. Or a corporation structure or something. There's ways to yeah. Yeah, whatever. Some way to like reinvest that money into a

retirement portfolio as you hand that property off to your kids without having to pay a whole bunch of capital gains tax. That might be of benefit in terms of a deferral. I mean, like eventually the bill comes due, but it would help to keep things like real assets within a family. I'm still worried about the capital flight thing. Not because I think, like you mentioned, like I'm not going to be hopping on a private jet or something and handing a guy $100,000 in a Louis Vuitton bag. Thanks for getting me out of the country. But it worries me a bit that I see directionally the powers that be seem to be interested in making sure that my money stays in Canada

and Canadian equities to this point have underperformed. And to your other point about the disposition of a secondary property, I agree. It'd be nice to be able to do something with that money because ultimately investing it in a Canadian company is better than giving the money to the government. But yeah, it's like, you know, it's a bit of

a flywheel, right? Canadian equities start outperforming their past performance. That's a mouthful. They start outperforming their expectations, let's say, because people are forced to put money in and as they're continued to force to put money, to be forced to money and they continue to outperform blah, blah, blah. You know the story. So, you know, I don't know, I don't know where that's going to wind up, but I found it interesting that this is something that's sort of proposed by the mainstream at this point. Do you want to defend your proof of work take here? I mean, go ahead. Yeah. So I would think that probably what's going on with a lot of the people in your chat is that they're comparing the options that are currently on the table and saying like, oh, these other ones

have problems too. What I'm saying is that proof of work has problems, right? That are significant, like the immense resource cost, the centralization of mining. We talked a bit before the show about, you know, all the problems with like ASIC manufacturers and how they're like capturing a lot of the value while trying to provide a product to people who are ultimately not getting that much value out of it by the time it arrives in their hands. So to me, I view like proof of work as, hey, it was an idea on how we could implement this good idea, which is cryptocurrency and a decentralized system, but it's got a lot of problems with it. So we can work on incremental improvements over time. But to me, the thing of Bitcoin,

which was the first cryptocurrency now, still being the kind of standard, the gold standard for cryptocurrencies, is kind of like if we were using the Wright brothers plane design as the gold standard of aviation, right? We have made planes much more complex with much better designs and we've solved a lot of these problems and we've gotten much better performance out of it. And I think we can do the same thing with cryptocurrencies.

It's just we need to drive towards one that actually solves a lot of these problems and can be upgraded and then actually start using it as a currency for me to be confident in it having any value at all. I can hear the keyboards clacking right now. Yeah, I'm sure they're breaking them in half. Oh my God, just wait till my Monday show and people are back here again. I can't believe you let them get away with that. Listen, I've said this many times.

The point of this program is not to argue with the guests. It is to let the guests speak in a long-form format about the things they think, about the topics we discuss, offer their expertise, offer their opinion. And if you don't like it, you know, scream into your pillow. I don't care. Make a voodoo doll of this fella. He's, you know, average guy. It's not that hard. You go buy a voodoo doll and, you know, do your thing. But yeah. And let me say, I am not an expert in this field. I'm shooting my mouth off on what I think about it. I am talking about the philosophy of cryptocurrency here as I see it as somebody who doesn't use it. Right? So take that for what it's worth. Yeah. Don't, don't, don't, don't throw any tomatoes here. Okay.

Dr. Professor Moran, great first appearance. We'll have you back sometime in the future. Tell people, I think a lot of people know who you are, but I found over the years that people I think are household names in the non-Bitcoin space are actually not household names in the Bitcoin space. So tell them where they can find out about you, your channel. You can talk about rentals if you like. People on my channel are very interested in housing

and things like that because it's an important topic for people our age. So go ahead, the floor is all yours. Yeah, so the best place to find me is on YouTube at Millennial Moron. You'll find me on the same name on Instagram and on TikTok. If you want to know what I'm thinking on more of a day-to-day basis, you can find me on Twitter at mill underscore moron, I believe it is. And yeah, my channel is mainly about housing, but it's also about economics. A little more politics lately, although I

dislike getting too into the nitty gritty of politics, because I think a lot of the parties are not really providing any solutions. So I don't like to pick any favorites. But yeah, that's where you can find me if you want to see more of this. I'm sure if you're one of the viewers of this channel, you don't want to see any more of me after this.

But if you want to hear me talk about the CPP for an hour and a half, that's a great one for, I think, your audience. They'll like that. I did watch that video. I thought it was very good. Okay. That's it, everyone. Thanks for coming.

Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time. See you. Great.