So you know who's in charge for the next four years. So all these guys are accommodating that new reality. And what that means for the social media platforms is that they have to basically adopt something close to X's moderation policies, which is to say not a whole lot of moderation at all. They have to do that because anything else opens them up to lawsuits that the courts won't be on their side. You're listening to Carrie Lutz's Financial Survival Network, where you get valuable information you just can't find anywhere else. To thrive in today's trying times, you need the Financial Survival Network, now more than ever. Go to financialsurvivalnetwork.com and get your free newsletter and gift. Financial Survival Network, now more than ever. And welcome. You are listening to and watching the Financial Survival Network. I'm Carrie Lutz. John Ribino is with us after more than one month hiatus. And I feel like John, we kind of like missed a month. Probably the most consequential month in so many different ways than since we started talking back in 2011. I mean, Trump is re-elected. I knew that was going to happen. But all the other things that are going on, the stock market is still booming. Lots and lots of things going on here, John. Welcome back. Hey, Carrie. Good to be back. Yeah, we do have a few things to talk about today, don't we? But I got to say, this is the first election I've ever stressed over because in the past, it's always seemed like, yeah, you know, you get a different flavor of basically the same thing. The deep state is in charge regardless. This time, that was the stake. You know, if we, if we went four more years with the policies of the last four years, we're over as a country, you know, the borders were going to stay open and all the swing states because of that would vote one way. It would be a one-party state. And we'd have broad-based censorship. We'd probably blunder into World War III. You know, it was a terrifying prospect. And I was hoping for just a, you know, a squeaker for Trump and then civil unrest for a couple of months. That seemed like the best to hope for. But this, you know, a landslide, basically, you know, it settles the issue of who won, which was a really big deal because we were, you know, we were bordering on a civil war. There were nobody trusts elections in the US. Whoever loses assumes they've had it stolen from them and is right there ready to take to the streets. So we avoided all that, which is just in its own right is a huge thing no matter what else happens. But now we at least have a chance of reversing some of these policies. And it's, you know, it's a good start so far without the transition having even happened yet. There are policy changes happening that are pointing in the right direction, you know, there's peace plans being floated in Ukraine and negotiations over closing the borders both north and south, right? And, you know, that's a very big deal. So I'm short-term optimistic about our political system. In other words, we're going to survive intact. We'll still take some luck, but we're heading in that direction, which is, I got to say, that's nice. It's been a while since since there was any reason for optimism about the US system. Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more. And don't forget those, the Department of Government efficiency, you know, that it comes into fact. And the idea of like, because nobody has talked about this, Trump didn't talk about it his first term, you know, no president who's Reagan has talked about the government talked too damn much. It's inefficient. It's just a corporate welfare, John. We're spending like half a trillion to a trillion a year to get rid of the corporate welfare and then, you know, rationalize these programs because these programs all sorted. You know, we didn't have much of a government until FDR that weren't for all these, the the welfare state emerged and then LBJ and then, you know, the rest of them. All of a sudden, we're talking about turning back their hands on the clock. And it seems like support for this in wide spread. Now, we'll see how long it left because one man wasted government spending is another man's entitlement. But at least we're having the conversation and we're having the conversation about endless wars. We're having the conversation about government overreach, about department, that their only purpose is make their life miserable, like a lot of free letter agencies about closing the FBI headquarters, all of these things. Now, you know, they're going to fight them. But, well, look at it, John, look at everything Trump had to do to get here. All right, a lot to put aside all your preconditions, all your thought, negative thoughts about them, whatever they might be. He's had law fair, multiple lawsuits, criminal indictment, everything else. It attempted to attempted assassination. FBI, sting, and covers, honey pots, well, he had everything against him imaginable. Every single force aligned. Now, when you want to believe in a higher power or God or whatever, something spared him from when he was shot there in Pennsylvania. And here he is now, he won. So I feel like he's pretty much unstoppable at this point, both by the Democrats and by the members of the zone party who are worse than the opposing party here. John, like, there's nothing worse than like a, you know, brutal, ticking the knife in your rib, you're between your rib, or Mitch McConnell saying, hi, I'm here from the US Senate and I'm here to help, right? Like the Chamber of Commerce, all of these forces, the deep state aligned against you, me, and the rest of us, he'd taken them on any prevails on it. I don't, I can't think of any story like this in our lifetimes. Yeah, this is the most dramatic couple of years of our lifetimes, for sure, a lot of stuff that was really improbable actually ended up happening. So I think I have four thoughts on what you just said. So let me just fact, I remember him. First, Trump's first term wasn't even a real term, because he didn't expect to get elected. He thought he, you know, he'd lose by a fair bit, but he'd be much more famous. He'd go back to TV and stuff like that and make even more money. And that's, that was his play back then. But then he gets elected. He doesn't have any kind of a transition team set up or anything. And so he ended up, it was like, wow, I'm president now, I guess I need like a cabinet and stuff like that. So he went to the swamp creatures and ask them who he should name to all these different positions in his, in his government. And so he ended up with business as usual. He just, he got the people who he ran against. And they just stonewalled him, plus the law fair and everything. So nothing happened in his first four years, which other things being equal is actually a pretty good outcome, because if the government does nothing, then it causes very little harm, right? But still, we're seeing his actual first term unfold right now. You know, you look at the people he's nominating, they're all bomb throwers from outside the mainstream. And they have the, the deep state petrified right now. By the way, Kerry, this is a little aside. I still have my other thoughts on this, but you're, I think the only guy I know, who knows both Trump and RFK Jr. So that gives you a pretty interesting perspective on some of what's happening right now. But, okay, let's see. Now, is it possible to cut back on government spending? You know, he's, he's got people in charge not like, you know, Elon Musk and the Vikramaswami are phenomenally good at organizing. And they're, they're ideas of just closing down the education department, moving big chunks of the law enforcement agencies to, to satellite offices in other states. So they don't become, you know, acclimated to Washington as their home base. And that's all great. And there, there are, so there are things that can be cut, but that doesn't save us. No matter what they do, it does not save us from the gigantic financial crisis that's coming because we already borrowed too much money. You know, you can't fix debt at government debt at 120% of GDP and total debt at 350% of GDP, unfixable. You know, there's nothing you can do about that, except have the crisis that leads to the currency reset. So all of that is still to happen. And that's how they handle that inevitability is going to be what defines, or one of the things that defines Trump's four years here, because it'll probably hit before he's out. And, you know, it's going to be a very big financial crisis. They're going to have to deal with it. And it's not clear that they're prepared for anything like that. They don't talk about it or anything. But it's also possible that they do the currency reset pretty well, because they've got gold bugs, you know, this Judy Shelton lady. And they've got other people who might be open to the idea of going back to a gold standard. So that is by far the least painful way to have that currency reset. And it could be that Trump is actually positioned to do that correctly, you know, that would be, that would be amazing, if true. But if it happens that way. But, you know, as far as, you know, like what RFK Jr is talking about doing in healthcare, phenomenally good, because we have gotten nothing for our wealth. We're in some ways, the richest country in the world, or at least we have been in the past. But we're the least healthy, big, rich country, we're the least happy. We have, you know, our average lifespan of the US is much less than that of Italy. So we've basically been captured by these big interests. You know, big food sells us poison, which causes chronic illness. And so we go to big pharma and they give us drugs, incredibly expensive drugs, to manage the symptoms of the poisoning from big food. And it just goes on like that in a circle. And RFK Jr gets that. So he could come in and just clean this stuff up. You know, these conflicts of interest aren't even hidden or anything. They're just right out there in the open, but it became so normalized that they're like an aristocracy, where yeah, yeah, we have special rights. The laws don't apply to us. But so what it's always been that way. So, you know, he could clean that part of the system up. And if he does, that would be amazing because, you know, we're poisoning our children to put it monthly. Like the whole thing of the the unhealthiest country in the world, the highest obesity rate, and all of this is biohacking, the primitive biohacking. It's just like you hold out some sugar when Johnny is two months old. Oh, I like that. And he gets a dopamine hit. And then you get hooked on this. And all of our food, if you look at all the processed food, it got, you know, we have more ways of saying sugar in the English language than we do. I'm going to go, you know what yourself, right? There are more ways that they sugar, some like 240 ways that they show. And see, the amazing thing is that sugar isn't even the worst process sweetener that is in our food, high fructose corn syrup is much worse. And we've got all these other things with names. Like you said, that we don't even necessarily recognize as some kind of a fake sweetener that causes obesity and causes autism on guessing about the autism something causes autism. We will find out what it is if we actually test for it. And childhood, what's the thing when your old allergies, you know, allergies used to be very rare. And now they're super common and our food, plus all the industrial chemicals that are in other products that we use and sleep with and drive around, you know, all of that stuff is causing these things. And we could go science-based in our, you know, in the FDA and the NIH and actually find these things. And that might be the part of this whole thing that I'm most, well, second most excited about stopping these wars is the existential thing immediately. You know, we've got to stop blundering into World War 3. And to the extent that we shut down the whole thing in Ukraine and dial back the thing in the Middle East and make some kind of an agreement with China. So we're not one mistake by a fighter pilot in the South China Sea away from World War 3 over there. That gives us the breathing room in which to fix these other things. So, you know, here's hoping it's, it's finally possible to have some optimism about some of this stuff, which is hugely refreshing after the past four years. And I think that the polarization we've encountered, or whoever calls it, you know, and, you know, everybody's responsible because you don't listen, you don't speak. I think that polarization now, we have a shot at it anyway, is fading away. But going back to the food supply, which to me is elemental. When I heard R.F.K. Jr. speaking, and he was talking about feed oil, like they invented vegetable oil and short vegetable shortening. Originally, it was invented for lubrication for machinery before they had petroleum-based lubricant. And somebody thought, hey, this can work for the machines, it can really work for our food. It wasn't any evil intent at the time it was ignorant. But feed oil, pie, and fatty omega-6s, which are inflammatory by nature, and causes all sorts of bad things, along with all the chemicals, like R.F.K. Jr. was talking about fruit juice. Now, to me, fruit juice, breakfast cereals are poison. You should never give your kids, you should never eat one unless you're going to eat field-cut to those veals. But the fruit loop in the United States has 18 ingredients. And the one in Canada had 18 ingredients, except that all of the flavorings and all of the coloring in the Canadian cereal was natural. And all of the ingredients in the American fruits were chemical. Let me interject, because the New York Times fact-checked Kennedy on this. You saw that, right? And they came back and said, no, Kennedy's wrong, there's the same number of ingredients in each of these cereals. And the only difference is, and then they listed the industrial chemicals that are in the US version. And that was their fact-check that, oh, yeah, it's the same cereal except for these three different petrochemicals that caused 25 different diseases. Yeah, yeah. Oh, man, you can't make this shit up, John. No, no. [inaudible] On the show that I've started, but you really can't make it up. You know that there is no deep state, right, John? There's no deep state, you just imagine. Well, and who killed the Kennedy? Who killed Martin Luther King, Jr.? Hey, we might be finding that out. Yeah, right. I'd like to know, but even without knowing, you know that there's a deep state at the live in the well. And, oh, elections never get stolen, John, right? But 1960, something happened kind of funny there. The dead came out in record numbers in Chicago and elected Kennedy, right? So, great. Yeah. Read any biography of LBJ. And you see what they used to do or what they still do in different forms. But back then, you know, he basically ran Texas. So he would figure out how many votes each precinct needed to manufacture for him. And he would let them know. And that's how they won their elections, you know? And it's the same thing now except it's a little more sophisticated, but there's probably aren't the phone records. But yeah, you know, there's still theft going on out there. Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, let's say, you know, we don't want to get kicked off here and refer to a to be labeled as the election deniers that are digital overlords would like to. But, but with much in there at act, formerly known as Twitter, it really made such a huge difference. And the study now is it's easily divided ideologically between left and right. Virtually identical numbers before that, the left out numbers before he took it over, the left out number, the right 61 to like 39 or 68 to 32, something like that. Now, it reflects the country as a whole. And look at all these people who believe in freedom and Trump the fashion, we're coming out saying that the social media platforms especially Twitter need to be regulated, right? Well, and a lot of them are a lot of those people who used to be on Twitter are going to I think it's blue sky. I think that's the name of the Twitter competitor that is censored, you know, that's that's moderated to the point where mainstream people are comfortable. And there was just a story about that platform that came out lately that said they are swamped with censorship requests from their users. So those people show up and they immediately start demanding that anybody who disagrees with them be shut down immediately. So hopefully, the big ones Google and Facebook now. Mark Zuckerberg tripped out the Marilaga, which is the huddle with Trump. What do you think that was about? Well, you know that that is one of the benefits of having a landslide victory because there's no ambiguity now. So you know who's in charge for the next four years. So all these guys are accommodating that new reality. And what that means for the social media platforms is that they they have to basically adopt something close to ex's moderation policies, which is to say not a whole lot of moderation at all. You know, they're they have to do that because anything else opens them up to lawsuits that the courts won't be on their side. And you know, so they know they have to accommodate. And then same thing with the leaders of the countries on our borders. Trump hasn't has a conversation with the president of Mexico. And she seems to agree to close down the border on her side, you know, and just stop the millions of people from coming over. And then Trudeau from Canada comes down to Marilaga and talks to Trump and then and agrees to kind of the same thing. He's going to tighten his border policies. So that's the kind of thing a landslide victory gets you because you're you're not a fluke anymore. You are the new reality. And that's that's what Trump's dealing with. He must be loving it because, you know, as a deal maker, he probably doesn't find it that easy to make deals all the time because, you know, deals are with somebody who has bargaining power. And in this case, he has all the bargaining power, you know, so he just gets to dictate terms in a lot of cases. So he must be loving this. I hope it doesn't make him lazy because he's going to have some hard negotiation to do out there around the world. And, you know, it's going to be much harder than it is with Mexico and Canada. Sure. Well, you know, like I say, he seems to be at this very point unstoppable. And I think those get the people in his cabinet he wants. And one thing going back, I will give you the perspective of a recovering attorney who studied the impoundment power act where Congress, I think it was in right around Nixon, 71, prior to that, if the president didn't like the allocation of what Congress did to a program, he could just choose not to spend it. That was called impoundment. And Congress passed the impoundment authority act, which says that he has to impound it. And then both houses of Congress have to agree, which, of course, they never will, because they spent the money in the first place. This case went to the Supreme Court during Watergate, the Congress won. But my sources tell me, and I was talking to somebody who's handling some of the transition, for Trump is they're going to resurrect the impoundment power, and they're going to take it to the Supreme Court. So if he doesn't like what they spend money on, like building new mansions for following the executive management, and just rock it, gonna choose not to spend the money, and then say to Congress, well, stop me. And I don't think it'll lead to a constitutional crisis, but I'm telling you this is in the game plan. He wanted to do it last time, but he didn't have an attorney general who wasn't trying to stick a shit between his ribs, so he couldn't do it. Well, this Supreme Court has at least three people who would go along with that in heartbeat. I mean, they overturned Roe versus Wade. I don't think impoundment is going to be a high hurdle for them. So yeah, that could absolutely happen. And then what the president has is the equivalent of a line item veto, where he can go through the budget bills line by line and decide whether he wants to spend that money or not. That's a revolution. Although, Harry, we got to remember that 75% of federal spending is, I don't want to say untouchable, but very hard to touch because the military budget is hard to cut. No, and then Social Security and Medicare are baby boomer priorities. You know, our generation is just not is not going to take, you know, a 30% cut in our Social Security checks or anything like that. So the efficiency thing has to happen in how these these programs are administered, not how much they send us, you know, how much they pay us. And that really limits how much the government with a line item veto can actually cut out of spending. But there will be a lot, you know, even even with Social Security being untouchable. A lot of stuff can be cut out of the budget. And it'll be hilarious to watch it because the, you know, the screaming when when the NGOs out there, like all these non governmental organizations, they'd get federal subsidies end up being cut off like national public public radio. And what's the TV version of that? I forget. But anyhow, those things are going to be defunded in a heartbeat, I would think, you know, and the the the gnashing of teeth and the tears will be hilarious to watch. Oh, yeah. And there's plenty of ways. Even though you can't really cut Social Security per se, Social Security is way more than it started out with the disability survivors and all that. And it'll have to be reformed. But for Medicare, if people just stop eating this garbage and ate whole food, healthy food, 80% of that Medicare bill would disappear, because all of your age related older, you know, diseases, type two diabetes, heart disease, all of it is 80% of it anyway, is directly caused by what you eat. By the way, food supply. So that that's how you run a national health care system, because there's no way to run it in today's world without going bankrupt. And that's not that just the US, it's every country out there is going bankrupt because of national health care. But if you run it with the main priority of being creating the most healthy population imaginable, then yeah, then it's then it's way cheaper. And exercise, so the fourth killer of good health, not that we're in a health wellness show here, but number one is diet. So you're eating whole food and you're eating things that are not injurious to your health, like sugar and high protein, fructose corn syrup and 85 other forms of sugar and preservative and chemical. And then exercise, right? Something that most people don't do anymore. And then you have sleep and stress management. So those are the four pillars of good health and exercise, stress management, time to go together. And it's really a simple matter, like I don't know how long I'm going to live, but I feel like right now at this particular moment, I'm probably in better health than 80% of the people my advanced age were pretty close in age here. And that doesn't mean I'm not going to drop that tomorrow, but it improves my chances of surviving. And so if we had a national campaign, just remember, John, when you and I grew up, more than half of people smoked cigarettes, right? And now less than, I think it's around 10%, 13 was the last, but that number keeps going down, less than 10%. That wasn't from laws. You have factors where increased on nicotine products. It was education drilling into your head that smoking is hazardous for your health. Smoking will cause cancer, right? Perfect example, food education, nutrition education, and yield the thing kind of results only faster. We're smarter now. We have more access to the good information and the ability to get built around the band as well. Yeah, it is totally possible to go from being the sickest country in the world to one of the healthiest with just a few tweaks. Like you said, it doesn't, it doesn't have to be this incredibly complicated thing with huge amounts of science jargon. You get rid of the 50 worst food additives, and then you insist that health insurance focus on prevention. And because how many times have you been to the doctor where they said, you know, we're going to test your microbiome to see if it's optimal? Never. Nobody's ever mentioned that to me either. You know, and they say, well, your blood pressure is this. We can give you these statin drugs for it. You know, your cholesterol will give you these other drugs for it. That's modern medicine right now. And it's, you know, it's basically a business scam run by public health. And you know, you change that and you change everything. You know, so true. You know, the old joke, take two and call me in the morning. That's what our medical system has become of health pressures and big pharma who paid for all these guys to get educated to get their, right? And then, you know, now we have this health care crisis. It is a crisis and nobody has addressed it as a crisis. God, that's the key, right? Yeah. Well, it's not a crisis if you're making billions of dollars from it. It's a finely tuned market. And that's how that's how big pharma and big food view the current health system. They think it's working great. And so, you know, you need a bomb thrower to go into the system and just blow it up. And there's an outside chance that that happens in the next couple of years. And that's that's almost too good to be true, you know, that I totally given up on the idea that the country was ever going to be a healthy country, you know, you know, certain people who are in good shape and everything. And you know what you should do for yourself, but can't tell anybody else that stuff. So, you know, don't don't eat processed carbohydrates. You know, if you say that to 90% of Americans, they just look at you blankly, because first of all, they don't know what the term is, you know, carbohydrates and processed. And second of all, that's 80% of their diet. So, you know, if you take away their Mountain Dew and their cookies and stuff like that, they wouldn't have any idea how to function in the world. So, yeah, having that come from on high, you know, have that be government policy. And then all of a sudden, people start paying attention to it. So a lot of your health issues can be addressed up like that. Like, I started doing two and three days fast, trying to do one every month, but sometimes it's a little harder than others. And, you know, blood sugar goes down, everything gets better, lose weight, and apophagy, that's where your body starts digesting all the unhealthy proteins themselves that have accumulated, advanced by aging, all these things, anti-dimension. That's another thing to mention now is often referred to, John, as type 3 dieting, which means that blood sugar that take the brain deteriorate and the nerve cells die. So all these things, well, we could go on and on about this, but just give me your left, one line summary of what this election meant. Oh, well, it meant a lot of entertainment for libertarians in the next few years, because this is going to be hilarious to watch. I mean, it's already hilarious, but it's going to get even funnier when they instead of just talking about stuff, they actually start doing stuff. And I can't wait for the video of people walking out of the FBI headquarters carrying a box with all the stuff they had in their offices. And oh, I'm going to Montana now, you know, it's just going to be too good to be true. And you know, RFK Jr is claiming that he's going to fire the top 400 scientists at the the FDA. If that happens, again, let's let's see those guys carry in their their effects out in a box, you know, to go get a real job in the world where they actually have to produce something of value. So it's going to be fun. At the same time, there's going to be at least two assassinations in the next couple of years. And that's unavoidable, just because the deep state won't go without a fight. So they're going to fight back with serious weaponry, legal and kinetic, you know, and so so it's not going to be all fun and games. It's going to be terrifying at different times. And that's the nature of a revolution. So so be it. I think the guys who are making it happen understand that. And they know what they're getting into. And they voluntarily entered into it so very well. And I love the taste of liberal peers in the morning. Okay, one other, well, there's a bunch more to say about the election. But one other thing that is a result of that is the BRICS movement. And Trump is saying, yeah, you know, if you if you try to start a new currency, we'll slap you with 100% tariff. And I'm not sure that that's the right way to approach it. Because if you if you try to force people to use your currency, it's not going to make them want to use it even less, you know, it seems like if Trump came out and said, well, look, we've weaponized the dollar. I'm very sorry about that. It was a huge mistake. From now on, the dollar is going to be a neutral reserve asset. We will not kick people out of the Swiss system anymore. We will not levy sanctions on people. That's not the role of the manager of the world's reserve currency. I think that would short circuit the BRICS movement. But saying you have to use our currency or we will attack you is not I don't think that's a good policy. So we'll see. But it seems like a mistake. Let's look at what it could be threatened. Mexico and Canada, 25% tariff to get them field of borders. And they're already doing it, where they will do it in an elite. Let's just say that what he really wants to do, whether it's gold, make the dollar in the United States fundamentally found, bring back found money. And the only way to do that is to get those people the BRICS, to make a treaty with them, because the BRICS on their own are going to break up, because you have India, China, and Russia. And they have divergent interests, especially China. So that BRICS thing is not going to work anyway, but the dollar will get replaced. But if you can get them to say, all right, we will agree in a treaty not to weaponize the dollar ever again. We will cut down the deficit to no more than like 5% of GDP, right? And you undertake a whole bunch of things, because treaties are the law of the land. They're up there with statutes, right? So he does a treaty with these countries, and then shuts it down Congress and throat, and then Congress is forced to come spending, because there's a treaty that they have to, right? They tried to do this with the international small arms treaty by banning small arms. The US never signed on to it. And it seems to have never gotten into effect. It's exactly the same thing, I think. Got to look at it strategically, because Trump doesn't do something. He's got a goal in mind when he did it. And probably the goal is to not weaponize the dollar again, and to normalize Russia again, to bring them back into the poll, because that will be part of the deal that happens when, assuming he can settle the Ukraine war, all of the sanctions against Russia, a pledge to never, and an international treaty never weaponize the currency again. That I think is again goal. Well, yeah, okay. But that's what I'm saying is that he could go straight there without picking this particular fight, because by threatening these tariffs, he's just doing what the government of the US has been doing for the last several decades that led to the creation of the BRICS. So yeah, if he just did all the stuff you just said, that would be a better way of going about it, just saying, just saying, look, we're going to be neutral again. The dollar is something you can all hold as a reserve asset, and we won't cheat, and we won't abuse you. So I don't think he has to go through the whole start making a threat to begin with, and then negotiating backwards from that. That's all I'm saying is that that'll be counterproductive. Yeah, let's just bring this back to an end. Even Martin Armstrong, I was at his conference, he was optimistic, but he thinks in 26 to 28, it's going to be major problems in the world. He doesn't know what, whether it's the dollar or, you know, he doesn't know what the cause is. He can only, he can only say what the system is telling him. And by the way, John, I'm almost done with my book with Martin Armstrong. It's entitled The World According to Martin Armstrong, my decade-long conversation with the master forecaster, going through every single interview I ever did with Martin, summarizing them, and basically getting a foreword from Martin on the book, and it'll be available hopefully in the next couple of weeks. Gary, I can't wait to see that. Let me have a copy when it's available, and I'll post an excerpt on sub-stack. Yeah. You'll be able to get it in, obviously, I'm not doing an audio book, because it came from the audio, but you'll be able to get it for the Kindle and paperback, and hopefully wherever a fine book used to be sold, including Edward and Martin Noble. All right. Good. Well, Martin Armstrong is one of those unique guys who's been outrageous and right for a really long time. You were talking about how he, back when the Dow was at 10,000, he was talking about quadrupling and quintupling from there. And back in those days, I was looking for stuff to short. So we know who was a better forecaster out of the two of us, yeah. Amazing. And I went through a list of his predictions. Crash of '87, he predicted to be gay. The Crash of the Rule in 1998, the Crash of the Pound. So many of these events, the guy has been spot on, but I don't know how he does it, whether he's using astrology or because Socrates, his computer system, however he's doing it, he's got an enviable record that the few out there have been matched. So make sure you go over to john_substack@bino.substack.com and link it in the show notes for this interview. We'll just have to go over to financialtivivalnetwork.com. We'll do the show notes. And while you're there, sign up for your newsletter. We are up to $50,000 subscribers now, John. And we're shooting for $100, hopefully, by mid 2025. All right. Well, great talking to you, Kerry. Let's do it again soon. Thanks for listening to Kerry Lutz's Financial Survival Network, your solution to today's trying times. For the latest, go to financialsurvivalnetwork.com. Financial survival network, now more than ever.
