What Does The Post-War Future Of The US Dollar Look Like? | Brent Johnson

Summary

• Dollar Dominance: Brent Johnson argues de-dollarization fears are overstated, with new dollar swap lines reinforcing global USD demand and financial leverage.
• US-China Rivalry: Iran and Venezuela moves are framed as strategic energy leverage against China ahead of negotiations, emphasizing a multi-year great power competition.
• Energy Security: Gulf disruptions, potential OPEC fracture (UAE exit), and chokepoint risk support a bullish stance on oil and natural gas, with regional price divergences likely.
• Food Inflation: Expect supply shocks later this year from planting shortfalls and fertilizer constraints, pressuring emerging markets and raising social unrest risks.
• Nuclear Energy: Anticipates accelerated global nuclear buildouts and broader push for domestic energy independence, drawing substantial capital to the power sector.
• Portfolio Positioning: Favors blue-chip US equities, gold, real estate, and short-term fixed income; currently adding exposure to food and energy plays tied to forecasted supply shocks.
• Policy and Plumbing: Potential Russia-SWIFT thaw and UAE swap line highlight pragmatic realignments; stablecoins seen as a powerful USD distribution rail over the coming years.
• No Specific Tickers: No individual stocks were pitched; focus centered on macro themes and sectors such as energy, fertilizers, and utilities.

Transcript

All right, and we should be live here. Welcome to Thoughtful Money. I'm Thoughtful Money founder and your host, Adam Teagert. Welcome you here for a special discussion, a special live stream discussion with the godfather of the dollar milkshake theory himself, Mr. Brent Johnson. Brent, how you doing? >> I'm good, thanks. How are you? >> I'm well, thanks, Brent. Um, look, thanks so much for doing this. I know you've been traveling. Um, appreciate you uh on your first day back being willing to do this. Um, but Bren, I've had a lot of uh folks asking you for you your presence on the channel recently and um I think a really big debate that's going on right now that you're the perfect guy to to tap on it is um all right so you know America has gone to war with Iran. Um there is a certainly a a large group that says um this is an unnecessary war. Um, America is um being a bully and at the same time injuring the rest of the world by sending oil prices skyrocketing and limiting lots of other key resources that come through the Gulf, you know, helium which is important for semiconductors, fertilizers, etc. Um, and so there's this sense of of America creating a lot of unnecessary issues and they're saying, "Look, this is going to come back and really bite America big time." Um, you know, trust in America's down. Um, folks are going to, uh, you know, start trying to find other partners to trade with. And in particular, that comes down to the dollar. Man, if you were thinking about ddollarizing or were dollizing before, this is just going to add fuel to that fire. Right now, there's another school of thought that says, look, America is is doing what no other country in the world had had the courage to do, but it needs to be done. making the world a safer place, preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Um, America has just, you know, is fighting um the most one-sided war in modern history and demonstrating the prowess of its military might. And not only is America being a force for good here, but it's showing itself the strong single superpower. And man, um, I want to be on that guy's team, right? Um and uh there's a lot of things going on which we'll get into but but you know new swap lines and things like that. Uh things that people like yourself I believe are saying hey if the world needed dollars before this conflict it's going to need to be even more. So these are two very conflicting points of view. Brent love to get your thought on where you think the truth lies. Is it more to one side than the other or is it somewhere in the middle? And right as I asked that question, Brent, you froze. Um, folks, Brent warned me that, um, he might be having some connectivity issues here. Uh, so I will tap dance for a minute or two. Hopefully that's all it takes for Brent to get back connected here. Um uh real quick for those that are following uh the the latest news on the war, at least as I found out this morning, um [clears throat] it is that the uh regime is remaining super defiant. Not a huge surprise. Um President Trump on the other hand uh seems to be willing to ratchet things up here. Um he has basically said, "Look, blockade's going to continue until we get the concessions we need. And in fact, we're probably going to add some military um some resumption of military uh actions on top of that. uh and and I think the US's standpoint is maybe that that combination of both keeping an economic uh strangle hold on the economy by keeping the Gulf closed um and continuing to take out, you know, whatever key assets remain in the the Iranian um infrastructure will be enough to get the um Iranians to to come and make the concessions that America wants. Is that going to happen? Folks, who knows? We're following all this in real time. Um, obviously the oil market has not been too thrilled about this. The price of oil has continued to go up here. Um, but we will see what comes from here. Um, as Brent will hopefully explain in greater detail than myself here, um, one of the kind of newer developments around this has been the number of c countries that have come to the US uh, to request these swap lines. um which it's been funny because I've heard some people say um hey these swamp lines are um uh agents of ddollarization which to be honest folks I'm not entirely sure how that argument goes. Um now what Brent I think will say is hey these things aren't gifts they're loans and when they need to be um repaid that creates additional demand for dollars in the market. So um you know this latest uh development of of uh countries requesting swap lines certainly seems to be a near-term um validation that the world indeed um is still just as uh uh oh my goodness uh still just as dependent on the dollar as it was before and and maybe even more so going forward. Um all right folks so we're dealing with Murphy's law in in real time. Um, Brent is just telling me that his whole internet has locked up. So, um, I'm just gonna ask him if he can, uh, join via his phone. Um, and if that doesn't work, folks, we might have to reschedule this, but in the interim here, um, this is a live stream, so if you are watching, um, you are more than welcome to, uh, ask me some questions here, uh, and I will do my best to answer them in real time. Um, I will tap dance for a few more minutes and if Brent tells me he just can't get back in, um, then we'll have to reschedule this and my apologies for that. Um, let's see here. Uh, very quickly, in case you didn't watch it, um, some other gerine news to this discussion that I'll ask Brent about is, uh, Federal Reserve, uh, obviously is going through a big changing of the guard right now. Uh, yesterday we had Jerome Pal's last, uh, conference at the Federal Reserve. Um, and Brent's going to try to get in by his phone, by the way, folks. Um uh we had uh Jerome Pal's last uh rodeo, we'll say, at the Federal Reserve, even though he's going to stick around as a um uh as a member of the FOMC for an undetermined amount of time, but basically says until the um the investigation into uh the Fed's um financing for its renovation, which uh you know had gotten in him in some hot water. uh until that's fully resolved, um he just wants to leave basically, I think, you know, saying, "Hey, I did everything to be as transparent as possible." But anyways, we're going to have a new sheriff in town. We're going to have Kevin Worsh. Um Kevin Worsh is rumored to be more hawkish and rumored to probably be um much more rules-based than the PAL Fed was. And the difference between a rules-based Fed and what the PEL PA pal Fed is and this is really coming from Axel Merk who I interviewed yesterday um is that uh you know a rules-based Fed basically provides transparency to the world in advance and it says okay these are the conditions under which we're going to take actions like these are the conditions we want to see to raise rates these are the conditions we want to see to lower rates and then it's basically not going to communicate all the time the way that that the past current Feds have. Kevin Worsh has been very critical that the Fed's um Fed has been sort of overcommunicating and unnecessarily communicating. Um and number of Fed experts that I interview kind of agree with that. They think it's actually not only not necessary but not helpful to markets. Um and what that does is it kind of lets the market have a strong sense of where things are going to go without trying to guide the market every day. Now, the past feds have been much more discretionary, like, hey, we're going to act when conditions demand that we take action, and that can just be a lot more arbitrary. Um, a worse a worse fed should hopefully not be like that. All right, Brent, we see you've joined us here. We don't I saw your picture briefly. Um, I don't see your picture now. Can you hear me? >> I can. Give me one second. >> Okay. Um All right. Well, folks, uh, >> sorry about that, guys. >> That's all right. folks, I think, are thrilled to see you because I was I was doing my best tap dancing here and I I tap danced over into what was going on with the Fed, which hopefully we can talk about uh before the end of this conversation. But anyways, glad to see you back. You did warn me that this could happen. So, that was a risk I took. >> I It's not on Brent, it's on me. Um All right, Brent. So, I I think we lost you literally right as I asked my question. Did you hear both sides of my argument there? >> I did. And I think you set it up very well because this is kind of one of the things that's frustrating for me to be honest is because I feel like nobody has any nuance anymore, right? Everybody, it's either something's a total failure or a total success or somebody's a total genius or a total idiot >> and something is absolutely certain to happen or it can't happen at all. And the reality is it's always somewhere in the middle. All right. Um, and I think this is probably the perfect example of that. The reality is that uh and you kind of indicated this at the beginning on a military basis, you know, the US has absolutely dominated Iran. Now, does that mean that the >> Sorry to interrupt, but I mean there are a lot of people who will argue that, but so you know, >> yeah, >> I I agree with you, but not everybody takes that as a given. >> Yeah, but you know, I let's take the military uh you know, component as an example. Uh the United States has absolutely dominated Iran. Now, I know there's going to be people say, "How can you say that they've hit our bases, you know, some planes fall and, you know, they had to move the the carrier from, you know, 500 miles away to 1500 miles away and all these different and yes, that is true. But the reality is is that nobody of any substance goes into a fight without expectation of getting hit. Mike Tyson, who's probably the greatest knockout artist in boxing history, got hit all the time. Mhm. >> But there's a difference between getting hit and getting knocked out. Um, and you know, but that that's just one example that I would use. But going back to what comes next or how how do how do countries around the world react? I'm sure there are no doubt many conversations being had saying, "Wow, we we really need to figure out a secondary source of energy or a secondary source of funding or a secondary source of uh strategic alliance." Of of course that's happening. But the other thing I'd say is that that has always happened. Um that has been the case for 20 years, 30 years, 40 years. And this is also why despite all the constant talk of ddollarization, nobody has ever actually done it fully. Right? And it's why Russia, who has even done it somewhat successfully, whenever they have meetings and whenever they have summits, always requests to come back into the dollar system. It's why Putin said, "We didn't lo we didn't leave the dollar. The dollar left us." And so I think there's a difference between what the desired outcome is and what the reality of the outcome is. And I don't see a whole lot changing other than the United States now fully embracing the bully mode as opposed to what you know the people that said well they were always the bully in disguise. And this goes perfectly in line with Trump's America first agenda. The America first agenda is a wholesale change on how the United States relates and deals with the rest of the world, >> right? And power, right? >> And projects power. You know, ever since World War II, there was a thing called the rules-based order. And that wasn't just a colloial term. It was an actual thing. It was an it was a way of dealing with the rest of the world. And it was done on a greater good basis. And that led to many benefits but it also led to many problems. Um most significantly um you know US budget deficits and US manufacturing exodus uh to Asia. >> They are now attempting to change that and as a result they can no longer use the same strategy that they always have and that is a much much different way of dealing with the rest of the world than has historically been. And as a result, a lot of hard truths are getting exposed. Now, some of those truths apply to the US and some of those truths apply to the rest of the world. Uh, but you've heard me say this many, many times is, you know, you'll learn more about what's going to happen in the next 10 years by watching Game of Thrones than going to two years of business school. Um, and and and done both. I'll agree with you. >> Yeah. And and I jokingly say that, but I'm actually serious, right? Um, and so I think that's kind of where we're at. Um, I don't think a whole lot has changed, although the rhetoric has certainly dialed up and I I I certainly don't expect the US to, you know, become a shrinking violent on the glo global stage and uh, you know, look to, you know, seek inner peace in the northern hemisphere. >> Okay. >> In the Western Hemisphere. So, so ju just on that point, um, so to the folks that are saying, uh, and I literally hear this daily, um, the US has proven itself to be a paper tiger, um, you know, it's losing this war, which we can debate or whatnot, but, you know, they're basically saying the US's prospects coming out of this war are going to be greatly diminished because it's proven itself both military and effectual because the regime is still around. um and it has alienated the rest of the world. Um you would it sounds like you would say I totally disagree with that you in in terms of the the prospects and the dominance of of America going forward. >> Yeah, I would wholesale disagree with that. Now it doesn't mean it doesn't mean that it's going to be easy for the US and that that's why I want to get back to this nuance, right? It doesn't mean the United States can just do whatever it wants. Uh but it does mean that I mean think about it this way in in the last 12 to 18 months the United States has uh flown a mission over Iran and dropped bombs unopposed. Um they bailed out or however you want to turn it bought out Argentina. Um they kidnapped Maduro in his sleep and brought him back to the US. They forced the European um countries who were in NATO to increase their military budgets. Um they convinced Kier Starmer, who's the head of the UK, to reverse course on his um stance with regard to the Chos Islands and Diego Garcia. And now they've launched another, you know, war, for lack of a better way of saying it, in Iran. And nobody's done anything about it. They've talked a lot, but what have they actually done to stop them? Not much, right? They've now there's a difference between stopping and opposing. Yeah, they're opposing them, but they haven't been able to stop them. Um, and the US is still in the Middle East. They haven't left. Now, will Could could it turn out that they leave? Yeah, it could turn out, but as of now, it just hasn't happened. And so, I I I just struggle um I struggle to to to understand the the people who say the US is a paper tiger. it can't uh influence events on the global stage any longer. And tick tock, tick- tock. It's only a matter of uh you know time now before the dollar falls as well. >> Okay. And I just want to note for folks too um Brent sees himself, Brent, correct me if I'm wrong here as a chronicler of what's going on. You're not a cheerleader necessarily of what go what's going on. So, in other words, your dollar milkshake theory, I've heard you say many, many times, look, I've got lots of concerns about the dollar long term, and I don't necessarily love this, but I'm just telling you what I think is most likely to happen, right? So, you're you're you're like, you know, the whatever the Marv Albert or whatever, just just calling the shots on the game as you see it happening. You're not necessarily rooting for one team over another. So, here you're you're talking about America's um you know, potential continued dominance on the world stage. You're not necessarily saying, "Hey, I'm cheering for exactly the way America's conducting this." You're just saying, "This is what the biggest guy >> in the Game of Thrones town is doing right now." >> And and that's what you really have to do as an analyst, right? Uh you have to kind of take your personal feelings out of it. Now, I'll say I do think that there is, you know, a huge power competition going on right now and I would much prefer that the United States win that power competition as as opposed to lose it. but it doesn't necessarily agree with everything or and how they go about it. Um, but again, it's not my job to stand up here and moralize about, you know, the actions of a politician or a country or a company. My job is to analyze the situation as it is and figure out what happens, why it's happening, and what's going to come next. >> Yeah. And I think I could be wrong here so correct me but I mean I think what one of the things that has happened is is the US has been a little bit of a sleeping giant over the past couple of decades as we've gone towards globalization and there has been um you know an accepted mindset that we've all become accustomed to that you know the world working together is is the best way forward and um let's bring down walls between countries and you know all that type of stuff. And now that countries, but but now America in particular are saying, "Yeah, you know what? That really wasn't working in our best long-term interests and we're going to take care of our people first." Now, um there's kind of a sense of shock and betrayal of like, whoa, wait a minute. You know, that it's not supposed to be that way, right? But as as our good friend Michael Every, you know, has long been predicting, he's like, "Look, but that's the way it's always worked in this kind of global we're all in this together era of globalization that we grew up in as Gen X." Um, that's been the historical aberration. And Michael had been predicting for a long time that that was going to end. And it it seems to be being proven right now in real time. So, you know, in in a lot of ways, um, people kind of, correct me if you if you disagree, but people sort of have this imperfect understanding of what international relations are supposed to be because they grew up in this kind of weird period that that was an anomaly. And now that things are reverting back to normal, they're having to realize the playbook that they grew up with is just not working. And you know to succeed in the new world you're going to have to adopt kind of the old playbook. Is that is that more or less correct? >> No I yeah I think it's absolutely right. You know I think the the recency bias it's hard to think about a hundred years of time being a recency bias but if you look throughout the arc of history and I'm talking going back not just hundreds of years but thousands of years the last hundred years is the aberration. This is the exception. And as a result, people who have grown up in this environment, been very successful in this environment, perhaps had a good understanding of why things were playing out the way they were in this environment, I think are going to struggle if they don't start to realize that that it was the aberration and not the norm. And I think the arc of history or the pendulum of history, however you want to define that, is now swinging back the other direction. And um like I said, a lot of hard truths are are going to get learned. Um, and this is where I have always, you know, been somewhat, I don't know, controversial is not the right word, but uh, uh, I guess a little different than how I approach things is that, you know, a lot of, especially because whenever we talk about the dollar, it always devolves into the conversation of fiat currency and how bad it is and if we could just get rid of fiat currency, everything would be fine, all of this kind of stuff. And I'm pretty sympathetic to that that that that point. But the problem with that is that governments are never willingly going to do that. Now, you can give me all the arguments you want of why that would be better, but it doesn't matter until the governments agree, right? And they may be forced at some point to do that. But so far, they haven't been forced to do it. And they've shown no inclination to do that. And by the way, why would they want to do it? um you know when when it effectively puts handcuffs on them. So I just I just think when you understand that money is not just a medium of exchange and it's not just a store of value um but it is also an instrument of power and money and power are kind of in my opinion inextric inextricably linked and you can't really have one without the other. um it's you and and you accept the world as it is, everything starts to get a lot more clear. Now, it doesn't mean you like it. Doesn't mean that you're in favor of it. Doesn't mean it's going to end well. It just means it becomes more clear. >> Okay? And um uh so that that concept of money is a tool of power um or a vehicle of power I think is a it's a very useful part of your framework that I've I've referenced a fair amount since I first heard you present on it. Um I want to combine that framework with um Neil House forth turning framework. >> Um yeah >> so uh you know uh what we have going on right now, I think you would say is sort of a natural um evolution of just power projection, right? You you you have a big country like America that is realizing the course it was charting had had gotten to the point where it was less in its best interest in its national interests um than it had realized and it it's now kind of right sizing things. So that's going on. Neil how would say, hey, that's that's occurring at at the same time as a fourth turning, which is where the previous order that had ruled for the that 80year seculum is now starting to fall apart and get replaced by new things. And I think we're seeing a lot of that real time both internally and externally. Um, so obviously one conclusion from all that is, you know, is us regular people and investors is, hey, just be ready for a lot of change, right? There's going to be a lot of transition going on here and you got to pay attention to make sure you don't get steamrololled by this. Um just yesterday we got a really interesting um sign of what I think you know is is a typical fourth turning sign was um the UAE announcing that it is leaving OPEC. Right. So OPEC has been a huge force, probably the dominant force uh in the oil market pretty much since we started having problems with Iran, you know, back in the in in the early 80s. Um uh how material do you see that decision uh happening and and what do you think that'll do to um if anything to the economics of oil? You know, we've had this petro dollar for a long time now. A lot of people are saying, "Oh, we're starting to lose it." And of course, Iran was saying it wanted to start selling its oil and one or whatever. And people are saying, "Well, look, that's now it's the rise of the petroan versus the petro dollar." Um, what what impact do you think that the potential dissolution of OPEC has? And then, um, do you think the dollar will still be the dominant currency for oil or are things changing there, too? >> So, I think it's a bit of both. Again, it's nuance, but I'll tell you how how I how I look at this is that um first of all, it's it's a very big deal. Um and you know, this goes back to why I have pushed back against this idea that this this war with Iran was not thought out. It was, you know, initiated with the idea was going to be over in a few days. And now the United States is in a big mess. They have no idea how to get out of it. And this is just a disaster. Now, the first thing I would say is this is not something that was just conjured up and decided they were going to just, you know, three days later go to war with Iran. This has unequivocally been thought about, planned about, you know, war gamed out for not just one or two decades, but several decades. It goes all the way back to the 70s. Now, the fact that it's been war gamed out for 50 years and never has happened shows that they know that it's very difficult to do. That's [laughter] why, you know, if if if this was going to be easy, this would have been done 30 or 40 years ago, >> right? It's high poker. >> It's high stakes poker. You you don't do it until either you have to do it or you have the cards to do it, right? And I think the the calculus was made that it was both a timing issue and a possibility issue. A set of circumstances presented themselves that that that made the timing and the opportunity uh come together. And you have the fact that you just have a guy sitting at the table who doesn't really give a what anybody else thinks and he's willing to make the bet, right? And so I I think that that is why it is happening. But it also goes back to um this bigger power competition. In my opinion, it's all and it goes back to the game of thrones. Um you know, the United States has sat on the iron throne for 50, 60, 70, 80 years, however you want to define that. Uh but there are different, you know, families who are starting to get a little restless, don't really like the way things are going, and they wouldn't mind sitting on the throne themselves or at least having their own throne that isn't beholden um to the iron throne. And um the main two are obviously the United States and China. And so Iran is really all about China. Now is there does there some secondary effects that would benefit the United States by solving the Iran situation? Absolutely. But it's a bigger the the bigger issue is China and taking the Venezuela uh oil off the board is a big move. Now whether the United States ever ends up developing that oil, using that oil, selling that oil, or whether it just sits there is kind of irrelevant. The point is is that China is not going to have it, right? And that's why they did that before they did Iran. But then, you know, but it was a big source of energy for China. And then Iran is a big source of energy for China. And so if the United States can take that oil off the board, for lack of a better way of saying it, that helps the United States in this big power competition with China. And then, you know, it's not a it's it's not a coincidence that, you know, this swap line deal with the UAE comes up now as well. Now there it's funny because some people were saying when Iran started bombing neighboring neighboring countries that was going to upset the Gulf states and those Gulf states were now going to stop doing business with the United States and they were going to more closely align with either Russia or China or go their own way because >> the deal where the United States was going to protect them has been broken and they're very upset. Well, I'm sure there's some truth to that, right? Again, that's not a totally illogical thing to say, but it's a totally illogical thing to mean that that automatically 100% is going to happen. And I think what we've since seen since then is, you know, you've seen Saudi Arabia come out and say, don't stop. You know, this is the chance we need to solve this Iran situation. You've seen the UAE sign a swapline deal with the United States. Um, they're not signing the swapline deal for the United States just for the hell of it, right? >> [laughter] >> it. First of all, they're doing it because their their their oil exports have been uh curtailed as a result of what's going on. They need dollar funding because it's still a dollar world, but then they want to be more closely aligned with the United States when this is all over rather than less aligned with the United States when this is all over. So, um so far, and again, this is still open to to what happens. I'm not saying that this is a done deal and it's guaranteed, but so far I don't think it has gone dramatically different than the United States thought it would. Now, I'm sure it's gone worse than they hoped it would. Of course, they would have loved to go in and have this be a three-day affair, but no serious person thought that they'd be able to quote unquote take over Iran in three days. And the second part of that is I don't think they want to take over Iran. I don't think they want to put boots on the ground and rule from there. But I feel like there's a certain contingent of both the I call them self-loathing Americans and then you know the the the the dollar haters and the the US imperial um haters that unless Trump literally moves to Tyrron and moves into um you know Kain's former residence they will view it as as a loss. Um, and I I I I just think that it's just it's just much different than that. Um, and and I think the consequences won't really be fully known for several years. >> Yeah, I think that's true. And that's true of any grand excursion like this. Let me ask you this, Brent. Um, and I'm kind of thinking out loud here. Uh, so I've heard a lot of other people say similar to what you're saying, which is the grand game here really is between the US and China. Um, and it's not it's not that Iran is a sideshow. It's that Iran is a puzzle piece in the US's grand strategy to China. And people are um well, let me put it this way. A lot of debate as to whether uh Trump now saying, "Look, we're just going to continue this blockade for as long as it takes." Um, some people are looking at that as, well, okay, that's just proving that this is turning into a quagmire and Trump really doesn't have a strategy here. I'm wondering if if you know if if that wasn't the intent all along to be going into the face-to-face discussion between Trump and she uh this coming month where you know China obviously has had some leverage over the US with things like rare earths and some other key uh commodities. Trump now show shows up on the table basically saying, "Okay, well look, now I'm in con control of both Venezuela's energy and I am basically the guy determining what oil, if any, can get through the Persian Gulf." That seems to be, you know, there seem to be some pretty serious cards to hold going into that that meeting. Could that have been the plan all along? >> Yeah, absolutely. Um I I I I think that is I think that I think that is very much a part of the plan. And the other part of this that I think it's important to understand is that whenever these conversations start having start happening or we start having these conversations, people think that the United States is either trying to to crush China or that China is going to try to crush the United States and take over the world. Like that that is not the goal of either side. Neither side wants to go to war with the other one. Neither side wants to blow up or crush the other side because that doesn't help anybody, >> right? We want them as a trading partner. We don't want, >> right? We want we want China as a trading partner. China wants the United States as a trading partner. It's just a matter of what are the terms and who has the most leverage when when when agreeing to those terms, right? And so, a big part of it is that China has things that we need. uh we need rare earths, we need pharmaceuticals. And as of right now, China is the main supplier of those things. It's changing slowly, but it's changing. And the flip side is that China needs things from the United States. They need high highly technical chips and they need uh energy, right? And those are two things that we have in in abundance or at least we control or so far are controlling. And so, you know, it's a it's a prisoner swamp. That's what's going on. like each side is, you know, we're we're giving them some of our their prison, they're giving us some of theirs, and you know, behind the scenes, each side is working furiously to become in independent of the other. >> Um um but so, so to your point, um you know, going into those negotiations with China, it helps to have uh countries uh under pressure because when countries are under pressure, um they will tend to agree to things they would not otherwise agree to. Okay. Um I'm going to build on that in just a second, but real quick, you know, lots of debate as to the reasons for this war. Um on one side, it was all about ego, right? This was a this is a vanity war of choice. Um didn't need to happen at all. Uh the administration um has basically said, look, um our red line is Iran can't have nuclear weapons. And the best I've heard from the administration is that Iran after um Fordo um had started really accelerating its ballistic capabilities and the fear was that it was going to become a porcupine that it was going to have so many ballistic defenses that it could then work on enrichment in the background but we wouldn't be able to stop the enrichment because Iran was going to be so heavily armed up. Um, so that was the that was the administration's reason for why we had to act on February 28th. But the real reason, and of course we're not going to know ever if for for a long time, if ever, could have been, look, this was the domino we needed to put in place before that that key meeting with China, right? And it sounds like you you wouldn't be surprised at all if that were the the real reason for the timing of Iran. >> Yeah, I think that's I think that's totally fair. Yeah. >> Okay. And >> if you think if you think about it this way, and again, >> I know there's some people out there saying, "This didn't need to happen." And you know what? You're absolutely right. It did not need to happen. It never needs to happen. None of this stuff needs to happen. Armies don't even need to exist. But they do exist. Right. And you'll say, "Well, countries shouldn't go to war." Well, I agree with you, but for all of recorded history, all going all the way back to Cain and Abel, they do go to war with each other, right? Right. So the idea >> at the end of the day it's all about power as your framework says >> because yeah because at the end of the day it's all about power. So if you think of this is going on as a game of risk. Now you might say we should not be playing a game of risk but you know what the people in charge of the world are playing a game of risk and they're looking at the board and at the end of the day even if they don't want to dominate the whole world the board they want to make sure their part of the board is completely protected and they want to make sure the other side doesn't gain enough ground that makes their side of the board less secure. Right? And so when you think about it from that perspective, it just got to that point on the board where a move needed to be made. And what I mean by that is I have been very vocal that I think a lot of the ddollarization and deamericanization and etc etc you know uh efforts to to get out from underneath the the thumb of the American bully have not been nearly as successful as many other people think they are. But that doesn't mean the attempts have not been there. And it doesn't mean there hasn't been some success. And it doesn't mean that there hasn't been some certain things put in place that could eventually allow them to kind of leave the dollar system or leave American hedge money. And so when you think about all the efforts that China and Russia have made and you can consider that they are the two dominant players on the global island, you know, Eurasia, >> Iran is an extremely important part of that. So you've got two nuclear powers, Russia and China. Um, and Russia has a lot of energy, but China doesn't have a lot of energy. But if they could then you know align with Iran to have this triumvirate that they and they are then they're dominating the global island that makes it much tougher for the United States to keep its position in the world, right? And so if you're playing this game and you see this is what's happening at some point, especially if you wait long enough to where Iran does get a nuclear bomb, it makes it more difficult than ever and it makes that triumirate stronger than ever. So if you're playing this game and you see that happening, at some point you have to make the decision, do we let them do this or do we strike first to keep it from happening? And in my opinion, that's what's happened here. The United States has struck first to keep it from happening, >> which I think with through that lens, it it certainly makes a lot of sense. You know, again, Brent and I are doing our best to read the tea leaves out there. We don't purport to know everything, but there is a logic behind what you just said there. Um, so let's see where to go with this. Um, because I got a ton of questions here. Um c >> can I make a point really quick before I forget? >> Please. Yes, please. >> Um because because because we touched on this um because I know there's some people out there saying >> well UAE signing this um you know swap line agreement. It's not actually the big strategic when you think it is Brent because all they're doing is actually keeping the UAE from selling Treasury bonds. Well, you know what? There is some truth to that. I'm not going to deny that part of the reason that the United States supplies swap lines to other countries is to keep them from selling US dollar assets because the US over not only over the last 10 years but over the last several decades has sucked up capital from all over the world. And US assets is where most of the world puts the money that they have set aside for their piggy bank, right? And so what happens when you get in trouble? You break open your piggy bank and you start using some of those. So, but so I'm not going to deny that that's part of it. But but the point is is when swap lines are initiated, it makes that country who is taking those swap lines more beholden than ever to the US dollar system. >> Right. >> Right. So it's not it I I I struggle to see how this is a loss. Now perhaps it's not a checkmate against the other side, but the idea that it's a loss is ridiculous. And then the other side of it and this is my frustration when you know with certain different people who who present the opposite side of mine is when China was setting up swap lines around the world over the last couple years. It was hailed as see this is China. They're taking over what used to be America's domain. They're they're setting up relations with the rest of the world. Nobody wants to do business with the United States anymore. They're moving towards the yuan. it's hailed as a strategic victory, but then when the United States does it, it's some, you know, >> detrimental >> and it's just there's just no there's no consistency there and it's just a it's it's just completely biased analysis. >> Okay. Um I again I think that makes a lot of sense. Um all right, I got a lot of questions. I'm going to kind of just hit you in rapid fire um on them. So first off, just back to China for a second as as the grand game. Now, this is this is it's different countries. It's Game of Thrones is a number of families. It's not just two. Um, but the Chinese House, we'll say, is the biggest contender to to the US right now. And, um, I mean, Trump's been pretty vocal about this. I don't think I'm I'm revealing anything that's people don't already know necessarily, but coming in to his second term had talked a lot about how, you know, he felt that the US had let China basically get too much power in too many areas that the US was relying on and it needed to his job was to try to fix a lot of that as fast as possible. as we talked about a year ago, the the speed of of kind of liberation day, you know, with the big poster with all the tariffs all at once. Um, my hypothesis to that, which I think you validated, was, you know, people were saying like, well, why is Trump going like crazy with after everybody all at the same time? Why doesn't he take his time and strike friendlier deals? And my suspicion had been it's because it was the fastest way that he felt he could get everybody to get onto Team America uh trade-wise. Um or at least more on Team America than they had been before. And it was sort of like if you feel like you got the best hand at the poker table, >> you know, put your demand everybody call everybody and say, "Look, if you can beat me, great. But if you can't, you know, I'm taking the pot." And so it was a it was a power play to say, "Hey, look, we've got to restructure our trade and you're going to have to make concessions that are going to, you know, put some pressure on China." And then in addition to that economic move, now he's doing an energy move, right? So that as he sits down with Xi, he's got a lot of bargaining power, which is, hey, look, I've I've put a lot of economic pressure on you. I'm putting a lot of um energy pressure on you. to your point, I'm not here to bankrupt China, but we need to we need to make the big decisions now that, you know, I think are are right sizing this relationship. You're nodding here, but do you see that similarly? >> Yeah, I think I I think that's exactly right. And again, I I I get a kick out of I I'm gonna give everybody a piece of life-changing advice right now. And that is you don't have to let Donald Trump hijack your emotions every minute of every day. Right. And but that's what he has done. He has figured out a way to hijack everybody's emotions, which then gets them off balance. And now say, "Oh, he doesn't have me off balance." Well, yeah, he does. when you tweet about him 18 times a day and how he's this horrible person, you're you're off balance, >> right? And I think I think I mean some of that's his nature, but I think that is very intentional. I think that from following his career and reading his books and stuff like >> he likes that he wants you to be emotionally >> agitated. He he he man he doesn't mind chaos, but he knows other people do do mind chaos. So, if he can keep it in a constant state of chaos, and listen, this doesn't make Trump some super genius. It doesn't mean that he doesn't make mistakes. I'm not saying that he's infallible and he's this fantastic leader. I'm just saying if you can step just step back and see what he's doing, it it's pretty obvious what he's doing. And it has it it has worked for him, right? You don't have to again, you don't have to like it and it hasn't worked perfectly for him, but it has worked for him. And I think that's that that's a big part of and uh he would not be able to do this if he was, [cough] you know, the president of Colombia or the president of Egypt or or somewhere else. But the reason that he can kind of quote unquote get away with it is because of the United States position in the world. >> And for better or worse, the the the game is already rigged to favor the United States. It was set up that way. Yeah. >> Uh you know decades ago >> and not and then when you combine that with the fact that the United States both geographically, demographically um from a financial standpoint, from a natural resource standpoint, the United States just has so many advantages that many other countries don't have. You don't have to play things perfectly to quote unquote get away with it and still survive, right? And so, you know, Trump is able to to to come from a a place of strength wi-i which helps him. >> All right. And and I there's a bigger point I want to make, but just real quick, just like a PSA that I want to offer because I'm like you, Brent, where it's impart it's impossible to talk about these issues, which I feel like we have to because they impact the economy. Like people tell me, "Stay in your lane, bro. Don't talk about what's going on in the war or politics." But I'm like, but I can't ignore these things because the the effects they have on on what is my lane. Um, but the PSA is just look, and I'm not making um folks, this is not a proTrump comment. It's not even an anti-Trump comment. Um, it is that um in a perfect world, we want our leaders to have the most unblenmished moral character, right? And we want them to be the the paragonss of virtue and whatnot. Um, but really at the end of the day, what you want from a leader is whatever results you desire for your country. You want a guy who gets the job that you want done done. And, um, I feel there's a lot of axle wrapping that's going on, not just around Trump, uh, but with with people all over the political spectrum where we get so focused on the character part, we lose sight of whether this person is actually an agent for what we care about or not. And I would highly recommend that people focus a lot more on the latter than the former. Um, all right. PSA aside, um, there is a thesis out there, which I'm sort of increasingly open to, which is that the real grand game here is not the playby-plays that we're watching right now, like what's going on with Iran, per se, and it is basically US, China, and maybe a bit of Russia. and um you know all all of everything that's going on the trade deals, Venezuela, Iran, you know, all the other dominoes that are in place, threats over Greenland, stuff like that, right? It's so that when she and Trump sit down, it's basically the great powers sort of agreeing how to divvy up the world. And you you can make an argument that that the back channel discussions are basically all right Taiwan sorry China we know you eventually want Taiwan and you want security and stability in your sphere um South China Sea that type of stuff we're eventually going to let you have it you know give us a couple years to to get whatever techn you chip technology stuff that we're dependent on in Taiwan reshorted here to America and once we get that up and If you want to do some sort of bear hug with Taiwan, we're not necessarily going to get in the way as long as it happens in some some form that that we can stomach. [snorts] At the same time, you're going to pretty much let us have 2.0. You're going to get, you know, out of any influence you might have in South America. We're going to protect us all by the Golden Dome. We're going to have some other key, you know, installations around the world, but you're going to kind of let us have this half of the world. and Russia, if you, you know, play nice and whatever, yeah, we'll we'll help you negotiate a settlement where you get to keep as much as Ukraine as you've taken right now. And that there's kind of this grand agreement that's getting struck in the background where the countries, the great countries are really getting what they want to set themselves up for the next 50 years. Thoughts on that? >> I think that's possible. Um, I I think uh it gets down to a level of probability, right? I think that is something that everybody could quote unquote live with, you know, or to finding a way because that's ultimately what they want. Everybody wants to come out. Nobody wants to go to war. Nobody wants to, you know, have this World War II where everybody loses. Um, and so kind of striking some kind of grand compromise, I think, is probably on the table. Um I but again it gets back to what the probability of that actually happening is right and I think I think it's fairly low. Um but it's not impossible. Um and even I even even if that is what is being negotiated I think that is something that plays out over not just a few months or years but probably a few decades. In other words, I don't think that I don't think they, you know, they have this meeting, they go home, and everybody says, "This is what we have decided." You know, I I think that's pretty unlikely. >> Yeah. And I and I I would guess, and again, I'm not a geopolitical expert, that much of that game, >> that grand bargain, whatever struck, the execution is all in the background over many years. It it's never a plan that is publicly revealed that, you know, three great powers have have decided X. But there will there, you know, it does explain how there may be some real huge surprises in there where you think, okay, these mortal enemies all of a sudden just agreed to something that took us all by surprise. And so we got a potential example of that is the news that came out earlier this week and I thought of you the second I heard of it, Brent, was where it sounds like we may be opening the door for Russia to return to the Swift system. >> Yeah. And I I I think that that's a perfect example and it kind of goes back to what I was saying at the very very beginning. Why is that even a topic? Why would Russia even if the US said, "Hey, you can come back to the Swiss system." Why would Russia do it if they so much want to get out from underneath the dollar system and it is a ne negative for them? Why would they even want that? Right? And so I I think that just shows that countries do want access to Swift. They do want to trade with each other. They do want to be part of the global order, right? Or the global economy. And getting sanctioned or getting cut off from dollars is just not a good way to do that. It doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's just not preferable because it's not as efficient. It's not as easy and it stifles growth. And but but yeah, I think that's a very good example of how and I ultimately that would be nice, right? It would be nice if if we could get back to some semblance of of normaly, right? Again, I think it's I think the bar is pretty high to get back to normaly, but you know, to your point, if I'm sure some bigger grand compromise is at least sort of being touched on when we have the when they have these conversations behind the scenes. >> Yeah. And I think that shocked a lot of people like whoa wait a minute you know that a you know evil [clears throat] they're our evil enemy. Um but also hey those those are the guys leading the bricks initiative to create a competing you know payment platform to to to Swift. >> Um and so you know it might be a lot more complicated or or you know than than just good and bad as as you've been saying. It's it's much more nuanced and you're going to see times where these these these big adversaries partner and times where they don't. But, you know, so the the BRICS acronym stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China. Um, we'll see what's going to happen with China, but we know there's a lot of bargaining that's about to take place. Russia, we just talked about that kind of threw a curveball to a lot of folks that were super pro brick. Um, and in Brazil, um, they're they have elections this fall and, uh, last time I checked, and it could be wrong, but last time I checked, or could have changed, but the, um, the contender, um, looked like they were leading in the polls, and we'll see. But if the contender were to win, I believe that I can't remember the name, but the contender, I think, is is more >> West Bard is more West friendly than than the current guy. Um, and and I guess where I'm going with this is, you know, all of a sudden bricks could turn into icks. And honestly, I'm not even sure and India is not really like a mortal enemy of the US. I mean, it's a great again. I I I I've said this a million times and I'm going to keep saying the the bricks is is is it's not that the countries are not powerful. Of course, they're powerful. Of course, they're important. But Donald Trump has done more to change the world in the last 18 months than the bricks have done in 18 years. And it's not even close. Um, yeah. I mean, the Bricks is basically they get together a couple times a year. They have a big party. They make a bunch of announcements. They put out a press release that literally says the same thing year after year after year. They just move the sentences around a little bit. Um, but you know, you've talked about Russia potentially coming back to the Swift system. Modi said this week he's in not in favor of the bricks trading in local currencies rather than the dollar. You know, it's just it there's nothing that anybody can point me to that has led to a material change that has been put in place by the bricks. Yes, they've made a lot of headlines. Yes, they've built a bunch of programs that are functionally operative, but the volume that goes through them is completely dimminimous. Nothing has been completely impacted as a result of the bricks. Now, have Russia and China become closer? Sure, of course they have. But but but the bricks as a whole has not made a material impact on the world. >> Okay. And Brent, just so you know, sort of looking at the live chat here, you're getting a lot of prompts from people here um who I think have been following you. [laughter] Well, I think they've been following you for enough years to say, "Hey, you know, a lot of what Brenda has been saying has been proving out um against the people who for years, you know, have been saying America's sunsetting, dollars dying, nobody wants it anymore, you know, that type of stuff." Um, all right. Uh, so we're we're coming up near near the end of our time, Brent. Um, I do want to get a couple questions in though still and if we can since this is a channel about wealth building and you are a capital manager. Um, let me just ask you, you know, I I I know the four asset classes that you favor, right? And if I've got them right, it's it's blue chip US equities, it's gold, real estate, and gosh, I'm trying to remember the fourth. What's the fourth? >> Short-term fixed short-term fixed income. Okay. So, short-term fixed income largely, I'm guessing, US treasuries um but also, you know, probably big blue chip uh company, short-term debt. [snorts] Um has anything and what's happened transpired so far this year influenced your investing in any way? >> Yeah, it actually has. Um uh >> stable coins, we haven't talked about [clears throat] that, but yeah. Yeah. Well, st yeah st listen st stable >> we don't have time to get into this all today. I think I've said this with you before but I have come to the conclusion that stable coins are going to be as transformative to the global economy as when the United States left the gold gold standard. I think there is an absolutely huge um um project or implementation that's going to take place in the years ahead. >> Yeah. That will [clears throat] make the world even more dependent on dollars than it is today. That's right. >> Yeah. And folks, just to let you know, just real quick, Brent, for folks, if you want to understand why, >> go watch the past two public um interviews I've done with Brent on stable coins, and you'll get a really deep dive into why Brent thinks that way. >> Yeah. And the more the more timely I think change and it's not really a change but we've been add we've been adding positions here is we I think as a result of the straight of four moves being closed or for the most part being closed there's even a debate of whether it's actually closed or not but listen you know for the most part it's closed um even if it fully reopens tomorrow and goes back 100% to normal tomorrow I think the fact that there was a six week period where a lot of stuff didn't flow and The timing of that flow is going to have huge consequences since six to nine months from now and primarily in the potentially in the food and energy space. And what I mean and I and and mainly as it relates to Europe and Asia, maybe not China so much, but but especially developed or developing and emerging markets and some of the periphery economies in Europe. I think we're probably going to have uh a supply shock on food. We won't know until the harvest start to come in in the fall, but I think there's a very strong possibility we get a food shock um where food prices go higher um as a result. >> In your thesis, it's because they're not getting sufficient fertilizer now for the the future harvest. >> They didn't not everything got planted and that that did get planted didn't get the the sufficient fertilizers. And you know, you don't just put a fertilizer on at the beginning too. you could fertilize throughout the throughout the the life cycle of the plant. And um you know, like I said, even if it goes back to normal right now, I think there's going to be an impact later this year. That then has knock-on effects because um well, also when you start to get into the winter and things start to get colder, then natural gas prices can start to go higher. And the reason I think this is important is I think we have this uh you know for my entire career there's this thing that I called the law of one price where commodities around the world for the most part traded pretty similar to each other regardless of whether you're in North America, Africa or Asia or wherever you work. [clears throat] >> But I think that that is that I think those days are over. I think you're going to see different prices for the same asset in different parts of the world. >> So we'll kind of have like rent and WTI but in different uh different commodities. >> That's right. That's right. I think natural gas is already an example. Oil is already an example. You saw it happen with both silver and gold. I think you're going to see it potentially with food prices. And as food prices start to rise, that puts extra pressure on um developing and emerging markets because it's priced in dollars. Um as their currencies, you know, it costs more even more in their local currencies to buy these things. And then if the prices rise, it makes it even more. And then those countries have to those countries governments have to print money in order to be able to buy those needed inputs which causes their currency to fall even more. And then that causes social strife. And and the best example I can give is if you go back I can't even remember I think it was 2014 2015 time period when we had the um uh they call it the Arab Spring across the Middle East and North Africa. >> Um social unrest throughout that whole region. Well, that was triggered by high energy and high food prices, >> right? >> When people are hungry and scared and cold, they go out in the streets and they protest against their local government, right? >> I think we could easily see that um later this year. So, we have a I think the fourth quarter of this year could be particularly interesting because we have a whole confluence of things. We have I think this potential social unrest. We have potentially higher food prices. We have potentially higher uh natural gas prices. We have elections in Brazil. We have elections in the United States. Um, and again, a lot of the problems I think as a result of Iran are not showing up now, but will be showing up, you know, nine months, six months, nine months, a year from now. >> Okay. Um, and just to go back to forth turning wise, um, you know, when when you have elections during a time like that in your country, you're very much in a throw the bums out voting mood, right? Whoever's in charge isn't taking good care of me, I'll try somebody else. Right? So, we should expect to see a lot of political change across the world, too. >> Very possibly. >> So, presumably, you are making investments in your fund in food and energy in advance of of what you expect. Okay. Let me ask you a question about energy. Um, >> so I've said two things and I'm curious if you are are like-minded. one is that um whatever the percentage of of global oil and gas that was came out of the Gulf prior to this conflict, I'm sticking my neck out and saying that percentage is going to be lower on a permanent basis once things reopen where you know the world economy is reflexive. We're already seeing it right now. Players all over the place are changing their production. you know, net exporter countries outside the Gulf are increasing their production to meet demand. People are buying from other parties now. And I think when the Gulf reopens, people are going to say, "Wow, you know what? We really underpriced the risk there. I'm still going to buy from there, but I'm not going to buy as much. I'm going to source more from other places just to diversify my my geopolitical risk." A do you agree with that? >> Yeah. Yes, I do. >> Okay. And then >> I think that was part I think that was part of the calc I think that was part of the calculus of going in there to begin with. Sure. I mean, for America, yeah. Hey, they're going to buy more from us. You know, the war will pay for itself, maybe. Right. Right. >> Um, and I think it it very well could just looking at both the cost of the war that's been reported so far and the increase in in energy exports that we're seeing right now, especially at these higher prices. Um, second question on this is, um, it's it's a it's an additional wakeup call for something that everybody already knew, right, which is, you know what, and being as energy resilient, as energy independent as we can be, that's just super valuable, right? And and nobody has learned that as much as probably Europe over the [laughter] or is learning right now, both from from uh what's happening in the Iran war, but in the years before with all the issues with Russian gas and stuff like that. So, um I see this as really turbocharging the world's energy to nuclearize. Um, and you know, again, who knows exactly how much that's going to contribute to world energy output on what timeline, but I I just see and not not just nuclear, but renewables and things like that as well. Um, and also domestic exploration of of whatever you have in your own country, they probably see a a relaxation of regulations. Um, but I I think you will see company countries really sprint to try to become less dependent on anybody else for their energy. And of course, not every country is going to be able to become energy independent anytime fast. But I think the nuclear sector is probably going to see a surplus of capital willing to fund it because people are just saying, "Look, if we could get to a point where we just don't need a lot of this stuff and we can have our our own nuclear fleet that meets our domestic needs and it's uh carbon-f free and blah blah blah blah blah." Um, to me that just seems like a really obvious outcome of this. Do you agree or think differently? >> Yeah. I know I I I think that's right and I think that's why on a global basis you know for 40 50 60 years we've been globalizing the world has been becoming more close been cooperation we went to one supply chain I think that is pendulum of history swinging the other way I think we're going we're becoming more decentralized on a global basis I think we will become more centralized within each region or within each country >> um but but energy independence is a big part of this and you know national security and not just for the United States, national security for every country I I think is going to increase in importance and and in some ways it should right you I think the fact that we um you know went to this globalized world where everything was open and you know we we we we didn't take care of our own before taking care of the others. That's what led us to this this this place where it's just no longer tenable. And so going back to somewhat of a balanced the problem is is it'll swing too far that way too, right? And then you know whether that takes 10 20 30 50 years I I don't know but um you know moving back in that direction I think is a good thing but my my guess is that it will probably overorrect to that to that direction as well. >> Okay. All right. Well, we're a little bit over the hour here. Um maybe we're at the hour if you count my minutes of tap dancing there. Folks, thanks so much for sticking with us through all this. Um, a lot of questions I still didn't get to, but I feel like we covered the real meat of what I hope to get with you here today. Um, last question for you before we wrap it up. Um, I like to ask you this question every time and your question your answer hasn't changed, but I if it ever changes, that's going to be a real material indicator for me. [laughter] >> I think I [clears throat] know what you're gonna ask. >> Yeah. If you were if you were seated at the risk board and uh got to pick a country to start the game with, um, which country would you pick? Well, I'm gonna go with the United States. I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna give a little bit of an add-on here. Um because I think it's and I want people to really think about this, especially Americans. >> Um it's okay to think that your leaders are not the wisest in the world. I think that's probably a pretty healthy place to start. And it's a it's okay to acknowledge all the problems that have happened and all the mistakes we've made. I think that's healthy as well. But do you really want to bet against America? I mean, if you really do you want the other side to win? Now, I'm not saying that you should be making your investments on what you want, but I'm just saying, are you really willing to bet against the truck drivers, the railroad workers, the people who go to the power plants, the people who start their tech companies in a garage based on nothing other than some idea and a dream? Do you really want to bet against the country that is surrounded by oceans on three sides and has more energy resources than the rest of the world? I mean, is that really what you think's going to happen? Both or do do you want it to happen? Because I feel like we've gotten to a place in this fourth turning where people actually want it to happen. >> And it's it's it's pretty frustrating. And I'm not saying you need to be blindly patriotic, you know, and I' I've been accused of being, you know, Captain America and jingoistic and all these things. And I I I reject those things. uh not because uh um you know I'm not uh you know proud to be an American but um but I just think that people are too quick to to discount the the the the possibilities and discount the possibility of success. I know there's a ton of ways that things can go wrong, but there is some ways that things can go right as well. >> And I think it's important to remember that. >> I think those are wise words. And for everybody watching, I think what Brent says, you know, applies to your own country. And and at the end of the day, even if you don't love what the captain, the current captain is doing with your ship, you're still in the ship, right? I mean, you don't want that ship to sink. [laughter] You want that ship to sail well on the seas. And so, you know, question we should be asking ourselves is is uh, you know, what can I contribute to the success of of this ship estate, even if I don't necessarily love the captain? And part of your role might be electing the next captain who you think will do a better job. But, you know, be invested. Don't don't don't root against your ship sinking >> or root for your ship sinking. >> Right. >> All right. So, Brent, for folks that would like to follow you and your work, where should they go? >> The best place to go is research.santiago.com. Um, you can find >> No, sorry. I had I had uh was going to surprise you. I had uh created this. Uh, now you made me had to change it. So, let's let's let's make sure I got it here. >> Um, >> sorry. >> No, no, no worries. Okay, so this >> There you go. Research. That's right. Research.santiago capitalap.com. Um, I'm pretty active on Twitter. You can go to Santiago AU fund. We also do a weekly show on YouTube called Milkshakes, Markets, and Madness. You can find us there. And, you know, check back in. I'm I'm pretty uh regular on Adam's channel, so you know, go to Thoughtful Money and either look up past interviews or wait for future ones. >> All right. Um well, you're a good man for mentioning that. Um and Brent, I highly encourage everybody who isn't already following you to follow you through those channels. Um and uh Brent, I'm absolutely sure we're going to have you back on soon. The reality is is I'm going to get hit with a whole bunch of requests tomorrow to have you back on like [laughter] next week. So, just know that I actually do hold off even though I ask you a lot. I I do try to exercise restraint so that I'm not abusing your willingness to come on this channel. Um, real real quick folks, if you want to get some help, uh, well, look, if if you are uh an accredit investor, so to to participate in your actual fund, um, Brent, yeah, what what what do what requirements do people need to meet? Yeah. So most of my business is man managing separately managed accounts for high netw worth individuals and families. But we do also have a fund uh which is focused on both tail risk and national defense. And so that's only available um to accredited investors. But if anybody's accredited investors and is interested in hearing more about what we're doing with that private fund um they can send me an email. It's brent santiago.com. >> Okay. Fantastic. Uh, and if you're not an accredit investor, um, or you want to talk about, uh, some other things as well, um, in addition, well, if you can't talk to Brent, um, feel free to talk to one of Thoughtful Money's financial advisors. These are the firms you see with me on the channel every week at thoughtfulmoney.com. We like to try to offer solutions for everybody, Brent. Um, all right, my friend. This has been wonderful. Folks, please join me in thanking Brent by hitting the like button if you haven't already and clicking on the subscribe button as well as that little bell icon right next to it. If you're still here on the live chat, too, please let know uh please let Brent know how much you've enjoyed him here. Um in the last couple seconds here, Brent, I just want to ask you a personal question, which is >> you take a lot of slings and arrows. Um and I think a lot of it is is misguided in the sense that what people are reacting to is their frustrations about, you know, with their beliefs. Um and you're the guy who's just telling them what's going on. And a lot of times what going what's going on doesn't mesh with their belief and so they lash out at you at you even though you're not making a personal case about it. You're just saying look folks this is what I is going on. This is what I think is going to happen next. And you have done that for as long as I've known you which has been quite a while right now. Um h how do you keep from putting your head in the oven or losing your faith in humanity? [laughter] Oh, you know, sometimes it's, you know, I I have pretty thick skin. Um, and I'll say part of it, and this is part of why I do it, is I had three moments in my life where I got the really, really hard, tough love speech, and it was hard when I heard it, but it was the right thing. So, to a certain extent, I try to give the tough love speech to those who uh I think are are on the wrong path. Um, the other part of it is that I learned a long time ago, you got to laugh at yourself and you got to laugh at the absurdity of the world because this job can be pretty stressful. So, you got to figure out a way to to laugh both at yourself and and and at others. And so, I try to keep a I try to keep a pretty light spirit with all of it. Um, but it's challenging sometimes. >> All right. Well, let me just thank you for the many who follow you and your work um for hanging in there through it all. And I'm curious if that epiphany of just holding holding to everything lightly, did that come to you while walking the Camino? >> That was part of it. That was part of it. >> All right. Um well, thanks so much, Brent. Everybody else, thanks so much for everything you're you're saying here about him as well. But um really appreciate you doing this, Brent. And yes, I'm sure we'll have you back on again soon. >> All right. Thanks, guys. >> All right. And everybody else, thanks so much for watching.