Andrew Brill is joined by Chris Casey, Founder of WindRock Wealth, to discuss the 2024 U.S. presidential election’s impact on markets and the economy—from cryptocurrency and cannabis regulation to real estate investing strategies and Federal Reserve policy. Learn Chris’s valuable insights on how Trump and Harris could shape the economy, influencing spending, taxes, tariffs, and thus, your investments!
Investment Concerns? Get a free portfolio review with Wealthion’s endorsed financial advisors at https://www.wealthion.com
Chris Casey 0:00 I personally think that Trump will win, but I do think you're going to see a very beneficial regulatory framework come out, which could, which could increase the value of cryptocurrencies across the board. I don't think we're going to get any kind of fiscal responsibility with either candidate once they become president. Andrew Brill 0:15 Here Welcome to wealthion. I'm your host, Andrew brill, this week, we get a bunch of economic data, which should give us a clue as to where the economy is headed. We also have a presidential election coming up this fall, and we'll see how that could affect the economy coming up right now. I'd like to welcome back. Chris Casey, to wealthion. Chris is the founder and managing director of our partner, Ria Winrock. If you're looking for help with your financial situation, reach out to us. It's likely Chris, that's going to get back to you and reach out. Chris, welcome back to wealthion. Chris Casey 0:56 Yeah, thanks for having me on again. Andrew Brill 0:58 So we have some interesting discussion coming up. Chris and I know we have an interesting election coming up, so we'll we'll talk about that in a moment. I want to get your take on the CPI data that just came out, if you don't mind. Chris Casey 1:12 yeah, well, the CPI this morning came out 2.9% slightly below expectations of 3.0 I mean, in a lot of ways you can interpret that is just kind of noise, right? It's such a statistical small amount. We're not really focused on month to month necessarily changes in the CPI, but I do think this does give the Fed leeway to go ahead and cut rates. And I've been saying all year that I would expect that they would not be, or at least would not be to the extent that the market expected, and that's proven true, right? They're expecting around eight rate cuts at the beginning of the year. Maybe we're down to one, maybe in September, I think is probably likely, but we'll see what happens. Andrew Brill 1:52 So we have a presidential election coming up, and I you know, it's it often is said that the, you know, the economy isn't affected by the president or their policies, but we know that investing can be certainly affected by certain policies. So we'll, we'll go through each candidate, and if you don't mind, and we'll talk about, you know, what we can expect on either side of the election. But before we get going, do you have an inkling? And I know that. You know, after the Republic, before Biden dropped out, former President Trump had a very, very large lead. Then Biden dropped out, Harris has become the nominee. The Democratic National Convention has not happened yet, so that bounce has even happened, but some of the polls has Harris in the lead. Do you have an inkling on who you think might win? Chris Casey 2:46 I do, and you're correct. The polls do show Harris with, I'd say, a slight lead, or maybe it's neck and neck. I don't know how much credence we should give to the polls anymore. It's not like 1980 where you could call a household and find out exactly how that household will vote. It's a little bit different. Now. I think it's better to look at the money markets, look at the betting markets, and right now, they do have Harris winning. Trump is an underdog, not necessarily that by vast margin, but he is an underdog. I personally think that Trump will win. There's a lot of time left. Both of these candidates have a knack for, let's say, putting their mouth in their foot, or their foot in their mouth. And I I wouldn't be surprised if Harris is more prone to some gaffes or missteps between now and the election, which could sway the election in Trump's way. And I think it's already started. I mean, I think the VP choice that she made with walls is, by any measure, probably the worst possible choice she could have done. It's really solidifies or gives the ability of the Republicans to really paint her as a radical by appointing this gentleman. Andrew Brill 3:54 think that goes on both sides. It seems like it was a competition of who could pick the worst vice president, vice presidential nominee. But they both, they both are up there on that line. But let's, let's get into, you know, if we'll start with natural resources, oil and gas and things like that. From either perspective, what are we looking at in terms of, let's say, a Trump victory, we know that they're into drilling. They're into, you know, that sort of stuff. Where are we on those topics, Chris Casey 4:31 yeah. And before I even comment on maybe any specific investment theme or policy, I should note that for Trump, it's kind of easy to figure out where he stands, right like you know exactly, not only because he's been President, but he's very clear, like you go to his website, there's maybe 20 different bullet points with policy goals and in large measure, describing the actions that would be taken to achieve those goals. Now the actions are really what's key. So for. Says, If I ran for President, I could come out and say, I'm pro environment, and by that, I would mean I would aggressively expand and protect property rights, which I think are the best way to protect and have a clean environment. A liberal Democrat would come out and have maybe the same goal, but the measures would be the destruction or or infringement upon those property rights and the extension of government control. So the the actions of measures are key, as opposed to the goals. And if you go to the Harris website, you won't find, not only will you not find any measures, you won't find any goals, right? There's nothing on there. Literally, it's just click here to donate and click here for the schedule. There's no policy measure, so we have to kind of glean what she believes in based on a the last four years. Because presumably, everything Biden did, she would agree with, right? She loves Joe. She's on record saying that numerous times. And then we also, I think, would look to her like minded, philosophically like minded individuals in California, what's going on in the state, and also look at it Congress, I think those are the best ways to determine both or her particular policy actions she would undertake as it relates to natural resources. It's a bit of a paradox, right? Because under Biden, and I think we saw this, certain things did well, even though the policies are not so called in favor of them. So for instance, oil, the price oil did very well. Pipelines which are reliant upon the price of oil have done extraordinarily, extraordinarily well over the last four years. Right? It's because of this, this war, what I would call war on natural resource exploration in the name of climate change, that has really bolstered the earnings of the major producers. Now, who it hurts is the consumers. It hurts the new entrants, et cetera. But just solely based on energy policy. I mean, Trump said, drill, baby drilling his acceptance speech, right? He clearly wants to make America an energy superpower, I would suspect that is the exact opposite, and the continuation of Biden's policies. What we'll see with a Harris presidency. Andrew Brill 7:12 What we see if former President Trump takes power again and gas prices may come down, that might be better for the actual consumer, but oil prices will also invariably come down, so you may want to sell your oil stocks. If nominee Harris, Vice President Harris, takes the presidency, then oil prices might rise, although we thought that they might rise more than they have at this point in time with the geopolitical problems that we're having and everything else, but that hasn't really happened. But I do know that oil reserves are lower than they had been because they've been trying to keep the price of oil low. Chris Casey 7:54 Yeah, the strategic oil reserve, if you look at a graph of its total capacity, not capacity, but, but, but total Holdings is vastly diminished, and they've been unable to replenish it by any means. I don't know if I would exactly phrase the Trump policies and its impact on oil companies the same way. Yes, I think all things being equal, the price of oil does come down. That's not necessarily bad for an oil company, right? Because now they can expand where they couldn't do offshore. You know that maybe they're integrated with gas, and they can do fracking to the extent they wanted to, so they can't deploy and they have the capital expenditures they want to really grow the company. So even though the price may be down, it's not necessarily bad for oil producers. Andrew Brill 8:41 So let's get into, you know, overseas and other markets that it's obvious that President Trump has come out and said, Look, we need to control China. We need to institute more tariffs on China. And look, but the Biden administration increased some tariffs on China as well, but they're talking 60% whereas, you know when it when he first implemented those, China went and looked for other avenues to to export their goods. And that may happen again. But conversely, any exports to China, and that's going to hurt companies like Nvidia, like apple that do a bunch of business in China. Their China is going to turn around and increase their tariffs. So it's, it's a unless we can figure out a way to to how, I say, make the dance a little smoother. It looks like tariffs on China and those type countries are going to go up. Chris Casey 9:43 I can see that under both administrations. I think that's that's something that we would see, and tariffs obviously benefit a very specific entities or class to the detriment of all others. I mean, I'm against any kind of tariff, right? Because I would favor. Right, just as I wouldn't want a tariff between Illinois and Wisconsin, right? For the same reason I don't want one between Illinois and China, right? Doesn't make doesn't make any sense my mind. And frankly, the tariff taxes, if you look at overall revenues, are only around $80 billion which is about double, let's say, the estate tax, and it's a small amount compared to overall government revenues, which I think were around four and a half trillion in fiscal year 2023 so yes, I do think they're going to rise. It's a little bit harder to play tariffs, because it could be company specific versus even industry specific. And if you look at right now which industries are the most the highest tariffs in United States? It tends to be clothing fabrics, you know, hand goods, like handbags, that kind of thing, which would argue, if they rate, if they increase, it could be bad for retailers. I think is the best way to look at it. Andrew Brill 10:57 what industries domestically could actually benefit from these type of things, these, these tariffs that we place on like imported goods. Are there industries here at home that would benefit, because they'd be able to sell more of their, their, you know, their American goods, so to speak. Chris Casey 11:18 Clearly, yes, that's absolutely true. Well, you can look at just which industries have historically been protected from foreign competition, and you see that, for instance, with sugar, right? Sugars, there's no reason United States is producing sugar. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever you can you would look at maybe semiconductors could be benefited, anything that's been on short, anything that's considered critical, especially with geopolitical concerns, with any kind of war, I think is the best way to look at it. Andrew Brill 11:49 So let's get into real estate a little bit. And obviously interest rates play a little bit of a role in in real estate. And everybody's saying we're talking about mortgage rates under which president, President Elect, if you will. Would real estate be a bigger factor? Obviously, real estate prices are high right now. Real estate mortgage rates are coming down, but they're still at a higher rate. Which, which under which President, would real estate do better? Chris Casey 12:24 Well, I think there's no question it would be under Trump. Now, real estate has always been probably the best, most tax efficient investment class out there. It's always been that way, right? It's a great place to make some money. Now, after Trump came first came to office, and we had his initial tax cut, which established opportunity zones, which allowed you to defer capital gains from numerous sources, which allowed you to increase the bases of those investments, which allowed you to effectively have untaxed capital gains on real estate or businesses in opportunity zones that was highly beneficial to real estate. The other factor I think people should consider is that, I would argue, under a Harris presidency, I think we will continue to see this rotation of businesses and employers from so called blue states to red states. I think the inner cities and offices would continue to be negatively impacted, as they have over the last several years. So I think all I think it's a clear winner in real estate, Trump is the better candidate. And it's, it's no surprise. That's where he made his money, right? So that's where he's helping out. Andrew Brill 13:40 the deficit, Chris, we obviously both of these candidates are going to spend money. And, you know, I remember, I think it was back to President Clinton when the the actual deficit came down. And right now we're in a bad way. And, you know, bonds are in a a precarious position, position. You know, treasury bills have to be sold to cover the debt. How do we a where does that go under each candidate, and how do we get this under control? Chris Casey 14:22 Yeah, it's a bit of a I know it's commonly decided that Clinton had so called surplus, budget surplus back during his tenure, but it's actually incorrect. It's really an accounting gimmick, because the debt, as long as the debt increases, by definition, you have a deficit. So we really haven't had a budget surplus since Andrew Jackson, right? That's a long sprint. We've come close. We've had some pretty good fiscal responsibility under certain presidencies. I don't think we're gonna get any kind of fiscal responsibility with either candidate once they become president here, and that's not necessarily their fault. I mean, it is in large measure, but I think it's good. Be very difficult, politically impossible, for them to really address the deficit, which requires a massive reduction in spending. And frankly, it shouldn't be that difficult, right? If you go back to spending levels of 2019 right, that's that's not long ago at all, right? You're pretty close to having not only a balanced budget, but a surplus, where you can start paying down debt. Under Trump, I think it's more likely, maybe certain debt is restructured. I'm little shocked he didn't do it the first time. I'm not sure why the United States doesn't offer a 50 year bond or 100 year bond. If Argentina can get away with it, there's no reason the United States of America cannot get away with it. But again, with either candidate, I think spending will be out of control, and there's very little they can do about it. I think that will continue. Andrew Brill 15:51 Is there going to be a solvency issue? Obviously, we can just print more money, but then inflation is going to go crazy. Under which president do you think inflation would be under control a little bit better? Chris Casey 16:06 That's hard to say. I think it's the exact same situation, given the budget, the fiscal situation. I don't think it really matters in that regard. Let's put some numbers to it. There's almost 35 trillion in US debt, right? And they took in fiscal year 2023 one point, I'm sorry, 4.5 trillion in revenue. And for fiscal year 2024 which ends the end of next month, you're looking at having maybe, let's call it 1.4 trillion in interest expense alone. So just put some I mean, imagine if your take home pay was $45,000 a year, right? And you're spending $13,000 on credit card debt. You're never paying that off. There's no chance that's ever going to happen. So in that sense, you know, it's impossible, really, to address the fiscal situation. Andrew Brill 16:57 that's tough. It's tough sledding that you're telling us about there. So what are we avoiding with let's say Trump wins the presidency. Are there sectors? Are there industries? Are there certain stocks that we need to avoid because they're just they're going to struggle under that presidency. Chris Casey 17:20 I think there's probably two areas, one I don't feel strongly about, but the one that I do is that anything that's benefit benefited from the so called green agenda, right? So whether it's solar companies, what have you, anything directly tied to government subsidies, government incentives, probably electrical vehicles in general as well would fall under that category. Those will probably be hurt, because consumers will not be required to buy their products. They will there will be a level playing field with other alternative sources of energy or modes of transportation, and we'll let the consumers decide. So that could be a negative. Another negative that you frequently see cited, which I don't really buy into would be that there would be some kind of war on big tech, that Trump would be upset with big tech because of what he perceives as a tax on him, what he perceives as manipulation of the elections, what have you. I don't think that's likely for two reasons. One is that that's not necessarily true of big tech now, right now that X has been purchased by Elon Musk, we don't have that right. There's not blatant government censorship and coercion going on. There's no chilling effect going on, no longer with as far as we know, with x. And on top of that, JD Vance is obviously very tied into a lot of tech billionaires, and I think he has their ear, and I think he has Trump's here, and Vivek is the same way, by vague, still consults with Trump, I believe. And he's very pro technology, obviously. So I don't think we're going to get any kind of war on big tech. Andrew Brill 18:54 So actually, we could see, maybe it'll increase. Who knows, but cryptocurrency, and I know here on wealthion, we talk about cryptocurrency a bunch, and I know that that's it's something that's in the crosshairs, and something the Democrats have said, you know, this is not a good idea, but something the Republicans say that this is a good idea. Maybe the Democrats are softening a little bit, but cryptocurrency seems, with a Trump win to be something that could be, could be, you know, something that's increased even more than it has, or, you know, the price has gone up a lot more, and people it'll become more mainstream perhaps. Chris Casey 19:39 I would agree with that. I think we'll have a friendly regulatory framework for crypto currencies that will be enacted. That's a big turnaround for Trump, right? I think it was as recently as 2019 he was on record as saying, like, bitcoins a scam or something to that effect. Really, I think he was just kind of, would you frequently hear from people that just don't understand it, right? They're just not informed. Well, I heard Vivek give an interview, and he talked to Trump quite a bit about cryptocurrencies in general. And then last month, Trump was at Bitcoin, I believe is in Tennessee conference, and he said he wants America to be he frequently does this with different interest groups. But America would be a, you know, superpowers relates to mining, we would be the place to go for cryptocurrencies. So I do think you're going to see a very beneficial regulatory framework come out which could, which could increase the value of cryptocurrencies across the board. Andrew Brill 20:33 I know that we really haven't gotten a look into vice president Harris's tax plan or economic plan. She hasn't really put that forward. I understand it's supposed to be coming out soon. And I would assume, by the you know, the convention, something will come out, but we'd have at this point, we'd have to go on the last four years. Tax wise, where do you think the country would stand under either candidate? Chris Casey 21:04 Well, with Trump, I do think we would get some more tax cuts right. I think we could look for a reenactment of his initial tax legislation, which created opportunity zones, etc. I think, you know, we'll revisit and making some of the tax cuts permanent. Some are going to expire, I believe in 2026 now for Harris, as I said, I think you have to look to what her like minded individuals in Congress, as well as California, have done and have proposed to do. And it's, it's a little bit scary, right? So, for instance, we had, I believe right now, California has an exit tax based on your wealth. It's, I can't believe it, it's obviously unconstitutional, but they have that enacted right so, and that leads us to think that there could be taxes on unrealized capital gains. We saw some members of Congress actually fight with Pelosi. I'm sure it's in her interest to have no tax on unrealized capital gains, because her husband appears to be very good stock trader, but they clearly wanted a tax on unrealized capital gains. The tax code actually already has, I believe in it some taxes on unrealized gains, you'll see that I believe in commodity futures. So it's not a stretch to think that that would happen. Now, what are the repercussions? The repercussions would be that investments which are solely reliant upon appreciation, and they have large appreciation, will be hurt the most. So, for instance, venture capital, right the highly risk, risky investment class, therefore you have outsized gains as compensation for that, that's going to have a chilling effect on venture capital, raises if we look at unrealized capital gains. So I think that is one thing that we would definitely see proposed. And look to the Biden administration, right? He came out and was looking at doubling the capital gains rate. He wanted capital gains tax at almost 40% he was proposing that's that's crazy. So I think we could look to see similar measures and policies under our president Harris. Andrew Brill 23:05 Does the EV industry under vice president Harris, does Elon Musk get richer? Is, I guess, is what I ask. Because it seems that, you know, electric vehicles would be tainted in a way if, if President Trump took off, took the office back, but under Harris, obviously, with green initiatives, as we talked about earlier, electric vehicle sales would would increase because they would probably give incentives, as would solar power and stuff like that. Chris Casey 23:40 Yeah, I would say electric everything. And I think let's look to California as is kind of the model, which I think we would expect under President Harris. California is banning internal combustion engines for cars by 2035 right? They are doing the same for lawn mowers, doing the same for chainsaws, which is completely crazy, right? Like, you can't have a efficient chainsaw with a with a battery out in the middle of the woods. I think we would see more of that. And so I do think both electric vehicle companies and it may not just be Tesla, right? There's plenty of foreigners, or even the major auto producers, if they have EVs, that really catch on, and probably more importantly, it's the commodities that go into them. So it's well known that an electric vehicle requires far more of certain commodities based on batteries, etc, than a typical car. So for instance, lithium, copper. You know, their copper needs are through the roof. If we see that obviously demand for those commodities goes up at the same time under a Harris presidency, I think we could expect a continued in the name of the environment, a continued war on reducing mining and so you're basically cutting off supply. In increasing demand. And I do think you could see commodity prices really skyrocket with the so called green initiative under the Harris presidency. Andrew Brill 25:07 Yeah, because things like uranium, which, you know, we're now getting into smaller nuclear powered things where you can actually nuclear power your home, or a small neighborhood that he needs uranium. That would be much better under the Trump administration, because the Harris administration would not want to go mining for that sort of thing, right? Chris Casey 25:31 What is true, although the Greens there has been the last like, I'd say, five years, a real change in the attitude of many so called environmentalists. For instance, one of the founders of Greenpeace is a huge nuclear advocate, because he realizes it's one of the cleanest energy sources out there. And if you're worried about carbon emissions, nuclear power is the way to go. I don't think Harris is there yet. I suspect that the her colleagues in Congress, they they're not in favor of small modular reactors, like you're talking about, or any kind of increase in nuclear output United States. And it's a shame, because, as you mentioned, you can have this. We already have the technology, right? Russia has this. Russia has ships that have nuclear power plants that park outside a port city, and, you know, fuel the entire city of like, cheap electricity. We should have this. And I think under Trump, you will see that continue. I don't know if that really will impact uranium price, because, frankly, uranium price, as far as demand, is far more influenced by the massive building that you're seeing in China and Indians other countries. Andrew Brill 26:36 So again, those those tariffs, that would be, I guess, Institute under either president might might play a role in in how much things cost. You know, cannabis has become, you know, legal in most places now. And it seems that under Harris, this is something that the Republicans are dead set against, it seems, unless they figure out a way to make money with it, then maybe they would be more for it. But a Harris presidency in terms of cannabis, Chris, where are we sitting there? Chris Casey 27:10 Well, It's hard to say again. There's no explicit policy recommendations or goals. I would expect the Democrats maybe a little bit more friendly to cannabis. I'm shocked that Trump didn't do anything, and it's not a matter of whether you're for or against it, because the fact is, it's legal in the vast majority United States, right? That's just a fact, and you'd be recognizing a fact, as opposed to instituting a major policy change. Now, Biden did recently reschedule cannabis, which is helpful, but frankly, it shouldn't be scheduled at all, right? And once it's not scheduled, then you have no impediments. As far as working with banks, then we would expect to see the industry really take off. And I think that probably is a little bit more likely under the Harris administration, Andrew Brill 27:55 we've talked about a bunch of things that will change, real estate firearms, obviously, under a Democratic president, they're going to want to get the guns. Under Republican President, they're going to, you know, guns are okay, although I don't see any reason why somebody should be carrying an AK 47 handgun, okay, uh, hunting rifle, okay. But, you know, assault weapons? Not so, not so sure. But what doesn't change? Chris, when with either president, there's so much there. Look, there's, there's, there's two sides of the aisle, for a reason, but what doesn't change? There's a bunch of things that will change, and a bunch of, I guess, investments in the stock market that would change, but what wouldn't change? Chris Casey 28:44 Yeah, and by the way, I wouldn't necessarily phrase gun policy as a Democrat versus Republican thing, and it obviously is, but I think it should be viewed more so as a constitutional thing versus impediments or unconstitutional measures. I think that's really the way to look at it as it relates to what happens under either administration, which should happen regardless. I think, as we already mentioned, you're going to have deficits out of control, debt out of control, which would lead us to believe that the Fed would continue backstopping the Treasury, which means that they keep printing money, which I think is going to really rear its head with any kind of recession or financial market downturn that stays the same. I think defense stocks, defense industry, aerospace and defense stay the same, and for different reasons. Under Harris, I would presume that we may be, continue to be pretty antagonistic with Russia and China. Therefore you expect maybe a build up of of military expenditures under Trump. You could argue, I would say that it's more likely that peace in Ukraine happens fairly quickly, like he's stated in that case, you would say, oh, maybe military spending will go down. But the reality is, he fancies himself kind of a military advocate. He. E so I don't think it goes down. You actually have a backlog, probably of 10 years worth of replenishment of munitions that these defense companies have to work on. And a lot of defense projects, obviously, doesn't matter who's in office. They have a 10, 20, year type lead time, right? So it doesn't really matter who's in office during that time frame. They're still going to have the the next generation fighter. They're still going to have, you know, working on the next generation of destroyer. What have you Andrew Brill 30:29 we talked a lot about, you know, either candidate, and what to look out for, and what or what, you know, where you can put some money to make some money with either candidate. But in you've been at this a lot longer than I have. Does you know, Trump touted the stock market? Oh, the stock market did so great under me. And then you look at the last four years and you're like, Whoa, the stock market hit new records. Does it really matter who's president for the stock market has traditionally, have you seen, you know, ebbs and flows with a presidential candidate. Chris Casey 31:05 Well, historically, you probably have more so than you have recently, because the change over last, I'd say, 20 years, has been that the stock market seems wholly dependent on support from the Federal Reserve. That's really what's guiding everything. That's why, you know, they'll mention earnings, but the vast amount of headlines are whether or not the Fed is going to cut interest rates. That's all they're focused on, right? It's absurd. And so in the past, maybe one particular presidential candidate was better for a stock market than others because the economy was doing better. That's based on when it's back, when the markets kind of reflected the economy. But the reality is, the markets often don't reflect the economy. Is least historically, obviously, it's perspective indicator. So I think they're, they're so wholly dependent on the Federal Reserve that's really the only thing that matters, to a large extent. Andrew Brill 31:55 is the economy cyclical? Is like, Yes, I know that the Fed raising rates or lowering rates is going to affect inflation. But with either President, do they have that much of a say? Like, is it cyclical? Is it everybody's like, Oh, this one's better for the economy, that one's better than for the economy. Is that actually the case? Chris Casey 32:18 I think that's true, but I don't know if recessions are necessarily the way to look at it, because recessions, I would argue, are primarily, probably almost solely responsible, responsibility of the Federal Reserve, right? There's, there's a reason. There's a cyclicality to it. There's a reason that they all have common phenomena you see in every single recession, right? You have the capital goods industries that are far more hurts, right? You have an you have the monetary supply increased right before a recession. There's there's commonalities that you constantly see throughout history. Really, it is largely dependent more so on central banks than I believe, any given presidency. And you can look back in history United States, right? How many recessions and look at their duration and look at their magnitude. Did we have before 1913 and it's clear that things are far worse subsequent to 1913 than there were before that. So the whole reason for having a central bank, for having a Federal Reserve, has been proven to be false, right? It's far worse than it was back then. Andrew Brill 33:18 So then that begs the question, former President Trump has said he wants a say in the Federal Reserve and interest rates. Do you agree with that? You think? Do you think that that's something that should happen, or is that a checks and balances thing where you know what that should be, a separate thing, just like the three branches of government are separate. Chris Casey 33:42 This is kind of a pet peeve of mine, because I know you're talking about which recently happened, and if you look at a headline, I just saw one this morning, it said something to effect, of Trump wants control of the Federal Reserve. Economists say it's a bad idea, something along those lines, right, right? And here's a pet peeve of mine about journalism. I'm just digress for a minute. But first of all, journalism, everyone says it's biased, and obviously is. I mean, look at like Stephen Colbert, you know, last night, or whenever that happened, people laughing at his comment that CNN was, you know, reported the news that was his own audience. It wasn't like he did a live show in front of a Trump rally that was his own audience laughing at his own statement, right? But the reality is that media has always been biased. If you look back in the 19th century, you could argue is even more so it was more biased. Look back to Horace Greeley. I'm finishing a book right now, a biography on Salman Chase, who was the former chief justice Supreme Court, Secretary of Treasury under Lincoln, Ohio, Governor, etc, spent his whole life in politics, right? And when he was running for office in Ohio. This is not unique to him, but back then we're talking, you know, antebellum times. This is maybe 15 years before Civil War, 1845, it was not uncommon where the candidates, and this is part of their strategy for everybody, would find a failing newspaper or. They would inject it with funds, and they'd insert their own editor, like this was like a just a common practice, and it was just considered okay. So the media has always been biased. That's not really what bothers me. What bothers me is that the media is journalism is so bad nowadays, right? So, for instance, this particular situation, they're talking about Trump. So I just want to know, what did he actually say? It's difficult to even find the exact quote, and you may find one sentence, but I'd prefer to have in a paragraph, right? So there's some context to it. And I believe the quote was something to the extent of he wanted input. He thought he had a different perspective, or better perspective, than maybe some members of the board, Federal Reserve Board. I don't find a problem with that. I mean, we have Nixon on tape in 1972 berating Arthur Miller on nothin on the Federal Reserve Chair on cutting rates for that year going into the election. It's rumored that Nixon actually put, not just rumored, it's pretty well confirmed. Put the Federal Reserve Chairman against a wall right at that time period. So this has been going on, and frankly, I would interpret Trump's comment to mean he's going to talk to the Federal Reserve Chair. He'll talk to Powell like you want him for lunch. And that happens with every president, right? They meet with him on a fairly regular basis. That's not unheard of. And if I could just digress for one more minute. I don't know who is the PR firm for the Federal Reserve, but I need to get in contact with them, because they're fantastic, right? So the Federal Reserve, there's this myth that, you know, they're fighting inflation. Well, the truth, they're the only one that causes inflation. There's the myth that they're, you know, stabilizing the economy. Well, in fact, they're the only ones that really cause really cause recession. There's a myth that they're independent. I do think it's a myth, and it's because they have a dual mandate. It's actually a triple mandate. But that mandate doesn't require them to backstop, you know, every Treasury that's issued if a buyer is not there, right? There's no reason to do that except for political reasons. And so I do think that they've always been political. It's always been the situation there. I mean, Ron Paul said it years ago. It's a pretty unique animal to call it independent when you have everyone appointed by the President, et cetera. So I don't really see a problem with that, that particular quote. In fact, I see nothing wrong with but as far as increased presidential let's call it authority or influence on Federal Reserve, which would take an act of Congress, I don't necessarily see a problem with that either, because then we know exactly who's to blame, right? Then we have culpability. Things go wrong. You can't just right now. They just be like, I don't know what's going on. The Federal Reserve is at fault, right? They didn't, it didn't cut rates. So they did cut rates, what have you. But if we had greater input from the executive branch, we would know that they're the ones responsible. Andrew Brill 37:49 I agree with you about the media. I think that the reporting these days is awful. I think the fact that they report things with non without attributing sources, is ridiculous. And look, when they can't pull the put quotes around something and make it exact, you're absolutely right. So I think that's a point well taken, and I think that's what has led to the whole cancel culture that we went through, is that people, you know, people hide behind, you know, Twitter and stuff like that, where they don't have to actually show their face or use their real name, and people take that as gospel. So I think aside from who will win this presidency, we have a media problem. That's a whole discussion for a different day. But Chris, thanks so much for joining me and going through this with me. And where can we find your research. I know wind rock does a ton of research, and it's great stuff to read, and we talk about it here on wealthion, but if somebody wanted to read it independently, where would we find? Chris Casey 38:51 Yeah, please visit our website. We post every podcast or article we've ever performed on our website under the Research tab, windrockwealth.com you find us on Twitter at Winrock wealth. Those are probably the two best resources to find all of our writings. Andrew Brill 39:08 Awesome. Chris, thanks so much. And we'll keep an eye on it through the Democratic National Convention, and then obviously we'll be watching in November to see where our money sits then. Chris Casey 39:20 Thank you. Andrew Brill 39:21 That's a wrap on another discussion here on wealthion. Thank you for joining us. If you need help being financially resilient, please head over to wealthion.com and sign up for a free, no obligation portfolio review with one of our registered investment advisors, and remember to follow us on social media for the latest news and information to help you invest wisely. And if you could like and subscribe to the channel, we'd greatly appreciate it. Don't forget to hit the notification bell so you can find out when we post new videos to the channel. And if you like this content, please watch this video next. Thanks again for watching and until next time, stay informed. Be empowered and. And may your investments flourish.
