11 Economic Graphs That Explain Why Your Broke | ZFS 80

I pulled 11 graphs together and I want to walk you through every single one of them because I think most people are feeling this economy without being able to see it clearly. These graphs show it clearly.

We start with data centers surpassing office construction in value for the first time in history and why the 200 jobs they promise are mostly custodial and security. We look at the S&P 500 versus job openings and the K shaped gap that began the exact month ChatGPT launched in November 2022. We watch a Harvard economist break down how 92% of Americans agree wealth distribution is unfair and yet nothing changes. We look at a series of graphs showing something dramatically broke in the American economy right around 1971 and then again in the mid 70s covering everything from incarceration rates to income inequality to the price of tomato soup.

From there we go into unemployment. The headline 4.3% number is fake and I am going to explain exactly why. Frankie got fired. He delivers a couple burritos a week. The BLS does not count him as unemployed. Meanwhile 50% of under 30 year olds with a degree are underemployed right now in 2026. The national debt graph looks like a hockey stick sharp enough to stab somebody and it does not even include the last six years.

We close on four housing graphs. Who is actually buying homes in America right now. One out of three homes purchased in 2025 was by an investor. The Blackrock Scooby-Doo buying theory. Why builders are not building. Why sellers are not selling. And why a crash is still not coming despite everything.

You are not lazy, crazy, or dumb. You are just living inside a system that was designed to make you feel that way.

Transcript

SPEAKER_05 0:09

Number 80, the big eight zero. Today we're going through 11 economic graphs to help you understand the economic situation that we are in. We're going to be walking through some AI graphics that I think are rather revealing, some economic inflation graphs that will probably alarm you or anybody you send this to. And then we're going to finish on housing. Got four graphs for you. So 11 in total. We're going to be walking through one by one. And we're going to start with this one from the Kobisi Letter, friend of the show, as Tim Dillon would say, the Kobisi Letter on Twitter. Says the value of U.S. data centers under construction has officially surpassed the value of office buildings under construction for the first time in history. Not as surprising when you've seen the amount of data centers that are being uh planned and built, but a little disheartening to say the least. Let's look at this graph to show for the very first time, starting at zero, making its way all the way to where office construction has been dwindling. The commercial market is struggling a bit, a lot of vacancy. Meanwhile, data centers have officially surpassed. And of course, this is old data. Whenever they're receiving this data, this data coming from zero hedge, it's gonna be a bit late. And this graph was created in March. So this graph was created in March off of September data. I can only imagine how these numbers will continue to probably travel the same directions that they're going. Red spiking up and blue slowly falling down. Let's look at another one.

SPEAKER_03 1:44

Zach, can I ask you something? Please. What do you say to people when they're like, hey, AI is the future? So what if there's a bunch of data centers popping up? It's gonna give people jobs and stuff, and it's just the future, we can't stop it.

SPEAKER_05 1:58

Well, because the jobs are what is headlined as one of the main reasons for why we should push for this. And again, also there's the other big one of hey, China's doing it, and we gotta beat China. But when it comes to just the jobs, we haven't seen any proof of the data centers that are completed, 10 million plus square feet, multiple tens of buildings, and we're talking 200 jobs. 200 jobs working across a 24-hour shift. So we're really talking 80 so positions, most are custodial and security. We're really only talking three or four jobs. A perfect example would be Project Washington here in Delaware, data center for Delaware City, showing 210 jobs, only three positions. So nine total jobs will pay more than 85 grand. So we're not talking about good jobs, we're not even talking about plentiful jobs. Most of the jobs come from the construction at the start of it, which is what they'll also say is like we're creating thousands of construction jobs, but they don't even use locals. They bring in people from Texas and other places that have already been building these data centers because they want people with experience. Uh, that's a good question, though, because that is kind of the main argument.

SPEAKER_03 3:07

Yeah, it's a sentiment I've heard in older generations, uh, especially. So jobs.

SPEAKER_05 3:12

And there is an argument to be had of the inevitability of AI and that we need to increase our power grids as well as our ability to uphold this AI infrastructure. And there is a little bit of argument of other countries trying to do the same and who gets to do it first, but the lack of uh really the lack of guidelines and guardrails around making sure we're doing it safely is I think what most people are concerned over. And then when it comes to data centers themselves, it's about the location. Why are we putting these near residential neighborhoods? Why are we putting these in towns? What why why why aren't we partnering with Canada and throwing them up there? Like what why aren't we why aren't we doing something other than lowering home values, increasing electric costs, sucking water out of our reservoirs?

SPEAKER_03 3:57

Yeah, protecting nature, stuff like that. Dude, we don't protect nature.

SPEAKER_05 4:00

What are we talking about? You a Bambi lover? What are we talking about? Bambi lover? Data centers for days, baby. Tech over grass. Tech over grass.

SPEAKER_03 4:09

Sorry, crypto, bro. My bad.

SPEAKER_05 4:11

It says here at the end of this tweet since November 2022, when Chat GPT was launched, data center construction is up 228%. Which is a fantastic segue into our second of two AI graphs. This originally created by good friend, actual friend of the show, Robert, at Infronomics. Highly suggest if you want a YouTube channel that puts out more content than I do, that is specific to just tracking the numbers in the economy and what's going on. Highly suggest a follow of infranomics over on YouTube. Love that guy. He posted this 10125. So what are we looking at now? Nine months ago? Jeez, time's flying. Of job openings, which is the white line for those watching on video, and red is the S P 500's value. The S P 500, at the point of when this was made, the index was, I think that says 60 through 6240, 6240. It's currently at 7300, so it's gone up even further. And the white again is job openings. For my video watchers, you'll clearly see that there is a large gap that begins in around 2022 between the value of the SP 500 and total jobs available. This isn't what history has shown us, though, because if we look all the way back through and beginning of 2004 and beyond, these numbers have traveled in tandem with one another for the most part. When the SP goes up in value, more jobs are becoming available. When it goes down in value, less jobs available. But ever since November of 2022, we have started to see maybe a correlation, maybe causation. It's up for debate. But no doubt we could see where this purple dash is on November 2022 that the K between the value of the index of the S P 500 versus available jobs has begun to create a K for the first time in history. And that purple dashed line, as we read on our last tweet, is when Chat GPT was officially released to the public. Again, causation versus correlation. Two tabs from now we'll have even more of that conversation. But let's move on to the economy. We're gonna start with a video. If you have not seen this video, it's a fantastic one. Let's go full screen and watch a bit of it.

SPEAKER_00 6:31

There's a chart I saw recently that I can't get out of my head. A Harvard business professor and economist asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth was distributed in the United States. This is what they said they thought it was. Dividing the country into five rough groups of the top, bottom, and middle three 20% groups, they asked people how they thought the wealth in this country was divided. Then he asked them what they thought was the ideal distribution. And 92%, that's at least nine out of ten of them, said it should be more like this. In other words, more equitable than they think it is. Now that's just to tell you. Admittedly, the notion that most Americans know that the system is already skewed unfairly. But what's most interesting to me is the reality compared to our perception. The ideal is as far removed from our perception of reality as the actual distribution is from what we think exists in this country. So ignore the ideal for a moment. Here's what we think it is again, and here is the actual distribution. Shockingly skewed. Not only the one 20% and the next 20%, the bottom 40% of Americans barely have any of the wealth. I mean, it's hard to even see them on the chart, but the top 1% has more of the country's wealth than 9 out of 10 Americans believe the entire top 20% should have. Mind-blowing. But let's look at it another way because I find this chart kind of difficult to wrap my head around. Instead, let's reduce the 311 million Americans to just a representative 100 people. Make it simple. Here they are. Teachers, coaches, firefighters, construction workers, engineers, doctors, lawyers, some investment bankers, a CEO, maybe a celebrity or two. Now let's line them up according to their wealth. Poorest people on the left, wealthiest on the right, just a steady row of folks based on their net worth. We'll color code like we did before based on which 20% quintile they fall into. Now let's reduce the total wealth of the United States, which was roughly $54 trillion in 2009, to this symbolic pile of cash. And let's distribute it among our 100 Americans. Well, here's socialism, all the wealth of the country distributed equally. We all know that won't work. We need to encourage people to work and work hard to achieve that good old American dream and keep our country moving forward. So, here's that ideal we asked everyone about. Something like this curve. This isn't too bad. We've got some incentive, as the wealthiest folks are now about 10 to 20 times better off than the poorest Americans. But hey, even the poor folks aren't actually poor, since the poverty line has stayed almost entirely off the chart. We have a super healthy middle class with a smooth transition into wealth. And yes, Republicans and Democrats alike chose this curve. Nine out of ten people, 92%, said this was a nice ideal distribution of America's wealth. But let's move on. This is what people think America's wealth distribution actually looks like. Not as evidently. And for those listening, it now it looks like uh For me, even this.

SPEAKER_05 10:26

Went from a nice gentle curve to now not quite a hockey stick in terms of where the wealth is allocated. What would you describe like a like a like a quarter pipe? Like a quarter pipe? Yeah, a little quarter pipe. Face of a mountain? Okay. So again, this is what Americans think the distribution of wealth should be.

SPEAKER_02 10:50

Basically, yeah, you gotta talk to him.

SPEAKER_05 10:53

You gotta talk into a mic, brother.

SPEAKER_02 10:57

Another thing to point out is what Americans think the distribution is. The poverty line hits five percent. So unemployment rate's about just over four percent. So Americans think if you don't work, you're in poverty. And if you work, you're not in poverty. That is what this graph also shows.

SPEAKER_05 11:12

Yes. And I got another right punch to throw at you that me and Joe talked about before showing this. So let's let's continue on. Again, currently showing what Americans think the distribution is. Wait until you see what it actually is represented in this graph.

SPEAKER_00 11:24

Looks pretty great. Yes, the poorest 20 to 30 percent are starting to suffer quite a lot compared to the ideal, and the middle class is certainly struggling more than they were, while the rich and wealthy are making roughly a hundred times that of the poorest Americans, and about ten times that of the still healthy middle class. Sadly, this isn't even close to the reality. Here is the actual distribution of wealth in America. The poorest Americans don't even register. They're down to pocket change, and the middle class is barely distinguishable from the poor. In fact, even the rich between the top 10 and 20 percentile are worse off. Only the top 10% are better off. And how much better off? So much better off that the top 2 to 5% are actually off the chart at this scale. And the top 1%? This guy? Well his stack of money stretches 10 times higher than we can show. Here's his stack of cash, restacked all by itself. This is the top 1% we've been hearing so much about. So much green in his pockets that I have to give him a whole new column of his own because he won't fit on my chart. 1% of America has 40% of all the nation's wealth. The bottom 80%, eight out of every 10 people, or 80 out of these 100, only has seven percent between them. And this has only gotten worse in the last 20 to 30 years.

SPEAKER_05 12:57

And to add on top of the fact that it has gotten worse in the last 20 to 30 years, can you back out real quick? Can you just hit X? When was this posted? Thirteen years ago. Thirteen years ago. This was posted in 2013. So are you kidding me? This was prior to the basically the results from the great financial crisis leading to a wealth transfer and the greatest wealth transfer we've ever seen from 2020 to 2026.

SPEAKER_03 13:27

I'm I'm my mind is blown right now. And the poverty line.

SPEAKER_05 13:30

And the poverty line, that's the thing about it, is right here it has it as 15% of people living below the poverty line. I don't know what that number was set at then, probably in that 30 to 40k range, maybe less. But as of right now, the poverty line is many people are portraying it to be. Some say it's closer to 80, if not a hundred thousand dollars plus, to be able to just sustain life. So it's it's a matter of what you define as impoverished. I don't know what the definition of that is. I'm sure it's different for different people, but to be able to get by in America, I mean, I would assume the poverty line, if we were to do this again in 2026, and maybe we should, would be somewhere in or around that 30, maybe even 40% line. Whereas of right now, when this was shot 13 years ago, it showed 15% sitting in that quartile.

SPEAKER_02 14:16

That's what I was gonna say. So 15% are in poverty. We know the unemployment rate's maybe four to five percent back then, which means over one in ten Americans working full time are in poverty. One in ten. Think about your one and a half in ten. Yeah. Yeah. 15%. Well, I'm saying that are working because the unemployment rate was four to five. Oh, true, true. So assuming that 10% is working. Full-time employed Americans are in poverty. Think about your like high senior homeroom class, 30 kids. Three of them work full-time and are in poverty. It's a crazy number to think about. It's only gone up in the past 13 years.

SPEAKER_05 14:53

Exactly. That's the that's the point of it, because I think I can almost wrap my brain around one in 10 people working full-time, still being in poverty, because there are full-time jobs that simply just don't pay well. So, and single or in the expensive area, I I can understand that. Today, that it again, I think we should try to we should reach out to this guy. Like, you want to remake this video together for today? This is the only video he made, by the way. This is like the only video that exists on this channel.

SPEAKER_03 15:21

That dude, the fact I I'm still my mind is blowing that this is 2012 because I'm like, oh, this is edited really good, and like the visualizations are really nice too. And it's like, what 2012?

SPEAKER_05 15:30

Yeah, November. Oh, it wasn't even 2013, it was November 2012.

SPEAKER_03 15:34

That's crazy, man.

SPEAKER_05 15:35

26 million views. Politizane, brother, you gotta come back to the YouTube space. Okay, so let's continue on in this space. Let's go to the next tab. If you're unfamiliar, there's a website called WTF Happened in 1971.com. It is just a bunch of graphs. It is a bunch of graphs. Let's just start scrolling down. Let's just start scrolling down. This is I'm counting this as one graph, by the way, but it is probably over a hundred different graphs. Uh, income gains, income growth.

SPEAKER_03 16:07

Is this because of like regonomics or whatever?

SPEAKER_05 16:09

So there's a couple different things here. So 1971 is often utilized as the base of when things started to shift because of the release from the gold standard in 1971. August 1971, we had the Nixon shock. Uh, but stay on this one real quick. I'd like to also point out there were other things happening in around that time. Uh, 1971 was also when we got the PAL memo, which is when a senior judge basically encouraged corporations to start infiltrating the world of politics and that it was their duty to do so. 1974, we also got the Fair Credit Act that allowed minorities, blacks, Latinos, and women to be able to get a mortgage, to get credit, to not be discriminated against. So there's credit expansion opportunity. And in 1975 was when we allowed women to start freely working in our workforce. So we can see on this graph here where the arrow will point to 1971, I would really say 1975 is where something like this would begin to exacerbate itself, talking about are both spouses working versus our only husbands or only wives working. Uh, probably not 71 that caused that. But as you scroll down through these graphs, you can see from incarcerations to income inequality, uh, to net worth tomato soup uh costs, which are for poor people, according to the CEO of Campbell's. Something dramatically shifted in or around the early to mid-70s. Look, this is a consumer price index. It's pretty dramatic. You could scroll through this and look and analyze all these graphs as much as you like. Some are going to be causation versus correlation. Again, some I think the uh the real issue begins closer to a 1975, or as Sean mentioned, Reaganomics in the 80s. But something clearly happened. And a multitude of things happened, just to be clear. I don't think it was one thing. Uh, but to be fair, anybody who was an adult before the mid-70s had a completely different economy. And to be frank, that economy outside of the savings and loan crisis was pretty daggone stable and working class friendly up until and through the 90s and early 2000s. So the the effects of a lot of what we're seeing in this is hitting full force in 2026. Now, what's hitting, we'll finish off this one. This is our national debt. Now, what's funny about this, what's funny about this graph right here, because it hasn't been updated, this looks like a hockey stick. It points to 1971. Again, a lot happened in the 70s and the 80s really unlocked the opportunity for this to go crazy. And then through the 90s and 2000s, we get more and more war, more expensive wars. Uh, so obviously the debt continues to grow. But if we look at this, this is up to 2020. And if we look at the if we scroll up just ever so slightly, it peaks at 23 trillion in debt. As we know, we're closer to 40 trillion in debt right now. So this isn't even showing the full force of what this hockey stick could look like. It's sharp enough to stab somebody. One reason that a lot of people are feeling a struggle in this economy. Let me shout out my young individuals, college age. Maybe you've graduated, you know someone that's graduated. You may have heard from a friend or yourself having to experience it, the pain of this current job market. We do not have a lot of jobs being created in the tech space. A lot of that to be blamed on AI and automation. Maybe I'm speculating, but that's what I think is a cause. We're seeing uh a really big drop in terms of how many people are actually getting a job out of college. Now, five and a half percent is the unemployment rate for under 30-year-olds with a degree. Simultaneously, 50 plus percent of under 30 year olds right now in 2026 with a degree are underemployed, meaning they're working a job that they are way overqualified for, making way less than what they should. So I want to bring up this graph here on unemployment. Because the unemployment rate, to be frank with you, is fake. The rate that we see is the headline unemployment, which as of right now in May 2026 will say is 4.3%. It is fake. Why do I say it's fake? It's generated off of surveys in majority. It's it's generated off of phone calls for the most part, and those phone calls can be I guess positive if the right questions were asked. But the frank uh the frankness of this is the fact that the questions that they're asking do not pertain to the 2026 economy. Let me explain. So in 2008, if you lost your job or you graduated college and you couldn't find a job, you would more than likely file for unemployment. And your unemployment could cover your rent, your unemployment could cover some food, your unemployment might even cover, you know, your basic utility bills, you're not living anything extravagantly, you're not going on date nights on unemployment, you're not taking vacations on unemployment, right? But you can survive until you find your job. And there's also no real other options in like say a 2008. There is no other way to make money other than at a pretty classic job. Okay? You can't go dancing on TikTok yet to make monetization money at this point. So in 2026, what's different? As we face a very difficult lot of headwinds in the job market. Well, what happens when you can't find a job or you get fired? You more than likely and I'm speculating here, you more than likely aren't gonna file for unemployment immediately. Why? It no longer is covering your necessities. You're maybe getting two grand. Here in Delaware, I think you can get like sixteen hundred bucks. So you're hardly covering rent if you're covering rent. If you're covering rent, you're definitely not covering your utilities, you're definitely not covering your food, and don't even think about eating out. Okay. And that's not what that's for. It's built for survival while you find a new job. But when that other job is non-existent and unemployment isn't covering your necessities, a lot of people are resorting to the gig economy. Uber, DoorDash, Instacart, whatever they can do to make extra cash. And the fact is, most of these people are not making enough money to survive as it is on these gigs because there's a flood of people doing them. There's an oversupply of people doing them. I've heard this from plenty of people that are doing the Uber, that are doing Lyft, that are doing DoorDash or Instacart. There are too many and there's not enough money flowing. So the unemployment rate here does not capture those in the gig economy. Why? Because if they were to call you, the Bureau of Labor of Labor Statistics, and they say, Hey, is Frankie working? He says, No, he got fired six weeks ago. Frankie got fired. He got fired from Wheelie. He got fired from Wheelie the other day. Sean had to let him go. Yo, call back. Sean had to let him go. And so when Sean let him go, he started looking for a new job, couldn't find one. When he couldn't find one for about three, four weeks, he decided to go ahead and start DoorDashing. He delivers a couple burritos a week just to pay little bills while he lives with his mom. Help with the food. When they make that phone call and they say, hey, Frank, we know you worked at Wheelie, now you wheelie don't work there. Uh what are you doing now? And she's gonna be like, well, he he's he's looking for a job, but he's delivering a few burritos. Just a couple. Not a lot of burritos, just a couple burritos.

SPEAKER_04 23:37

And what they're gonna say is, Well, he's not unemployed. He's not unemployed.

SPEAKER_05 23:45

He's not even in the category of non-participating labor force, which is growing to all-time numbers as well. He's not marked as unemployed. So when I look at the U3 unemployment, which again is headline unemployment, we're looking at that graph here. We can pull it up again. This is headline unemployment. It's not counting people in the gig economy. So it's not factoring for the modern day economy, the modern day job market. And this type of graph does not factor in the amount of people that have to work multiple jobs to get by, a full-time and a part-time. It's not factoring in, especially you three people who are part-time that want full-time. That would be the U6 unemployment. But U1 through U6 do not track unemployment claims. So they're not tracking who's quote unquote receiving unemployment claims. They're simply tracking who is not employed and can't get employed. And if they make any dollar as an independent contractor of any sort, they are considered employed. Even if they make $2, they're employed. Does someone who delivers three DoorDashes a week make enough money to make any kind of dent on this market? No. But they're not counted as unemployed. So what I want to bring up to you here on this graph is something extremely interesting to me, though. I don't know the exact reason for it. Is this. Now I want you to look at this graph. Look at it all right in front of you. I want to give you 10 seconds to look at it and notice the trend that's been happening in the past four years that has not happened ever. Go, you got 10 seconds. Do do do do do do do do. Is that enough? Okay. So if we look at this graph, U3 unemployment all the way back to before the 1950s, we'll see these gray lines, vertical gray lines. Those are recessions, by the way. Those are recessions. See the 58, 60s, 70s, late 70s, or mid-70s, I should say, the 80s. Okay, we see the recessions, right? Early 90s, dot-com bubble, 2008. There has never been a time where what's been going on in the last four years has ever happened. Because there's really only two motions to this graph. Either A, unemployment's trending down. You can look at this graph and you can see plenty of spikes up that dwindle down, usually quick at first as we exit the recession, and then tapering on down slowly but surely until we hit another recession, and then zoom, it shoots up. It shoots up. So there's only two motions that I see. Zoomps up and gradual declines down. Zoomps up, gradual declines down. But if we let's click 10 years on this real quick. But if we look at 2023 on through now, we'll see actually the unemployment rate has been gradually trending up very slowly, very, very slowly. Can we go back to Max real quick? I want I want you to see this in comparison to the rest. The best way to look at graphs is oftentimes zooming them back. Look, have you ever seen a time on this graph? If you see one that I don't see, point it out, where unemployment started gradually creeping up, or that it ever went up without a recession then following. I've said before, I'll say it again. I think we're in a recession as we speak. I think we've been in one. 2023, we changed the definition of what a recession even was to avoid having to label that a recession. I think we're in one. And I think this unemployment rate is much higher. I think there's many more people that are struggling to find a job. There are many more people that are having to work multiple jobs, many, many people that are resorting to the gig economy before claiming unemployment or saying on a phone that yes, I'm just doing absolutely nothing right now. I'm just living off unemployment. I think that the numbers are skewed. I think they're skewed pretty heavily. And I think that even U3, U6 is not a proper way of looking at unemployment. What this means for the future, this slow creep, I'm not 100% sure. Does it spike up eventually? Maybe. Do things like the gig economy keep that from ever happening again? Maybe. But it's worth noting and worth keeping in mind. Now, why is this economy feeling so overinflated? Well, two reasons mainly. One, unfettered and undisciplined government spending leading to deficits in our spending. We continue to fund wars, we continue to fund under efforts across the ocean, as well as efforts here domestically that don't seem to actually fix the infrastructure and the problems we have in education, healthcare, shelter. One of the biggest problems, as well, has been money printing. And money printing was uh was I can't even put this. That's Jerome Powell. Don't shout Jerome Powell for the money printing. He was only responsible for one of them. He was only responsible for one of them. And to show that, let's zoom back real quick. We had a whole other episode detailing out this graph. I can't shout out which episode it was. We should probably label the graphics, like what episode it was. Yeah, just put it at the top. I think it was in the 30s. I think it was in the 30s. But I want to zoom in on this graph right over here that shows when money began being printed via this quantitative easing strategy. Now, quantitative easing put very simply, they create new money at the Federal Reserve. They call up banks that work within the infrastructure of the central banking system, and they say, hey, look, we're gonna buy these bonds off of you. Here's cash. We know you need liquidity, so here it is. And then they'll buy and hold these bonds and mortgage-backed securities, which we have up right here, off the market. They do this for a couple of reasons. One, they're creating more liquidity by buying these things off of these banks, these assets. Secondarily, they're also taking supply of bonds and mortgage backed securities off the market. What does that do? Well, when there's less supply, the price can fly. And in this case, with bonds, a lower bond is a better bond. So a lower yield on a bond means the bond's worth more. Because think about it. If you're willing to take a 2% return on investment, does that mean you think it's a really, really good investment, a safe investment, or a risky investment? Usually means safe. You're willing to make less. It's pretty much guaranteed money. But when the 10-year treasury yield is sitting at like 4%, 4.5%, well, that typically signals that you don't believe in the current saves of our economy. You think inflation is coming in the future, you may think there's some risk. And when that happens, what quantitative easing does is we're buying bonds off the market, lowering the supply, and thus increasing the value of the bonds that remain. And that lowers bond yields, and it in turn lowers mortgage rates, car interest rates, credit card interest rates, interest rates on the payments you're making, on the burrito that Frank's delivering to you, because it got fired from Wheelie. That is what bonds do. They affect our financing market. And QE is basically our weapon to try to control it. Here's the problem. We have printed trillions, I believe at one point holding a total of $9 trillion in assets off the market, and that's just the Federal Reserve. That's just the Federal Reserve. Now, this graph is interesting because what we can see here of marked in yellow are the four different QEs. The first one coming after 2008, ending shortly after 2010. Then we start up QE2 very quickly soon after, buying short-term bonds. QE3 starts in 2013, buying up again, once again, long-term bonds. We continue that into 2014. We stabilize, we then start selling off some of the assets until COVID hits, and we had the largest QE session of all time until 2022. We then start selling off those assets, known as quantitative tightening. What I want to do here is I want to bring up a different graph because this one doesn't show it real quick. I want to go ahead and type in on a new tab Federal Reserve Assets chart.

SPEAKER_04 32:03

Yeah. Total assets.

SPEAKER_05 32:08

Perfect. So this shows the total assets. This shows at one point they peaked at 9 trillion, and it also shows through 2026. So can we bring this to just last year? We can see that we have once again started to print money again. Now you may be wondering, Zach, I have not heard an announcement about QE. We started QEing again? Yes, we did. Secretly, covertly, and in a way that we didn't have to label it QE. You can look this up. Look up December Federal Reserve Reserve Management. December Federal Reserve Reserve Management. They announced they were going to begin buying T-bills, very, very short-term bonds. To the tune of $25 billion a month. And they've been doing so since December. They're still doing it right now, even though they said they were going to reassess in March. They never really reassessed. They just kept doing it. Here's the problem. The problem is a 19, or I'm sorry, a 1723 document that was produced by an Irish-French economist named Richard Cantillon. Richard Cantillon created what's known as the Cantian Effect. Also don't know if it's Canteen or Cantillon, so I'm just going to mix it up. Created what's known as the Canton Effect, which stated, anytime we add to the monetary base, anytime we add money to the system, without adding more people or value to said system, then only three people will benefit. Again, that's when we add money to a system, an economy, without adding more people to utilize it, or more value to the system overall. Only three people benefit. The government, banks, and asset holders. Why? Because things inflate. Things inflate in value. And assets, as we know, since 2020, and we can go back to the uh the Canva graphic real quick. If we look at 2020, we remember from 2020 to 2022 the massive inflation that hit housing, they hit cost from health care to child care, stock prices, gold, silver, all these things were moving up in uh value. Crypto assets, assets all across the world were moving up insanely, all while money was being printed to the tune of trillions of dollars and interest rates were extremely low. So if you want to know why this K-shaped economy has afflicted us here in 2026, why it feels so bifurcated, while it feels like the top 10% are thriving and holding up all the consumer spending and all the home purchases and all the investing. Meanwhile, the bottom 90% are struggling between rent and food, money printing and unfettered government spending is the easiest answer I can give you. Period. The biggest problem is we have an undisciplined Federal Reserve independent arm that is buying up assets to the tones of trillions in direct response to the economy wobbling. And ever since they started the first time in 2008, they've never been able to get back down to those levels. Look, end of QE1. We were sitting, can you scroll to the left a little bit? Just at a bill uh trillion, just at one trillion. Now we're at a peak of over seven and peaked at nine trillion. So we're never gonna get back to those numbers. We're never gonna get back to the point where the Federal Reserve doesn't hold a crap ton of assets. And simply put, the reason why, if they were to sell off all their assets, bond rates would explode up. You think six percent mortgage rates are bad. What about nine and ten? What about eleven? That's what could legitimately happen in that type of scenario. So that's why they don't do it. But the counter problem is the fact that it's holding assets off market and it's artificially creating a more advantageous investment in our bonds. We're we're getting high on our own supply by buying our own bonds when others don't want to buy them because our economy is shaky and inflation's in the future. And I frankly think that we're gonna continue to do this reserve management and continue to print more and more and more because there's no way that we can get off that train. There's no real exit ramp to that. Sean, does that make sense? I feel like I'm explaining something it's really complex. So I want to make does that make sense what I'm saying?

SPEAKER_03 36:11

Yeah. You sure? Yeah, that makes sense.

SPEAKER_05 36:14

You sure?

SPEAKER_03 36:15

Thousand percent inflation is inflated by money, lots of money going in. We haven't seen anything different.

SPEAKER_05 36:23

Yeah, we've we've given the banana analogy plenty of times. You got 10 people, 10 bananas. If you if you add banana when there are people eating bananas, you are lowering the value of the banana because now there are more bananas for the people. But in a scenario where there are less bananas, in the scenario where there are more people or the same amount of people, the value goes up. And if the bananas were bonds in this scenario, when we're buying the bonds off of the market, we're creating a market where there's less bananas. So they're raising the value of the bond, thus lowering the yield on the bond, thus lowering interest rates for you and I, creating more credit expansion, more jobs. So it has its purpose, but the secondary effect of it is inflation. And I think that we're going to continue to do this in inflation because of things like Iran, which we're not even covering today. I am dropping it. The last episode was a mini sode on Iran and what's going on right now. So if you're here for Iran, not this episode. Iran has to do with it 100%. But inflation's not going away. Let's go into our next one. One other reason inflation is not going away is not just because the CPI, which is the consumer price index, that's what you and I are paying for our goods, and how much more or less expensive they are. And you may be thinking, Zach, everything is extremely expensive. Please do not tell me that things will continue to get more expensive. But I am here to tell you bad things. They are going to be more expensive, and I can already see it in the numbers. Here's the PPI index, not headline inflation. The PPI index is the producer price index. So this is the cost for the producers creating the products and goods and services that you and I utilize and what they're having to pay. And the question that they're looking at here is are producers paying more or less than they were this time last year? Similar to how the CPI index for consumers is measuring. Hey, look at this banana. Is it more or less expensive than it was last year? What's the percentage? Okay, inflation on bananas. They do that for 30,000 items and boom, headline CPI inflation. PPI similar, but on the commercial side. Six, can we go? Can we go over that real quick? Can we go over that real quick? Let's get to the graph. Right over uh six point, what is it? Six point four? Six point five percent in May of 2026. Is this the highest it's ever been? Nope. Let's actually pull back the tenure real quick. We'll see 6% hasn't been seen since we were coming down out of greedflation in uh 2022, end of 2022, it looks like. Yeah, we were at 6.4 in December of 2022, slowly dropping. But we can see on the other side of this graph that when PPI inflation started to shoot up about halfway through 2020, it didn't stop. And many of us know that CPI, consumer price index, headline inflation, started going up in 2021, 2022, and 2023. CPI is the secondary effect to PPI, oftentimes. Oftentimes. There's nuance to that blanket statement, but oftentimes. So when we see PPI peaking back above 6%, here's what I see: more inflation in the future for you, the consumer, because the business is paying more. They're also paying more for wages because people need money to live. They're also paying more for everything from covering their employees' health care to having to front the bill on all things like bonuses and incentives to make sure people can actually go to work without worrying about their electric bill. There are more costs all across the board for companies, and now the production is gone up in cost. That's a big deal. That's a very big deal. So when it comes down to the current economy, it's inflating. It's inflating and it has been inflating since the 70s without much control. Things have been getting more expensive without much guardrailing in place. And in fact, since 2008 and especially 2020, when QE got into the picture and more and more wars in the 2000s came into the picture. Well, now between government spending and QE, money printing, we're in a place where your dollar is simply worth a lot less. Assets are worth a lot more in terms of their dollar value, but that dollar in and of itself is worth a ton less. And here's what that means: simply is if you had your money in a savings account just sitting $10,000 in 2008, well, if you took that money out today, it's not worth nearly as much because it wasn't inflating with the economy, which is why we were talking about assets being one of the main parties that will benefit asset owners from inflation, from monetary base expansion, because the dollar weakens and asset prices go up. So stocks go up, gold goes up, crypto goes up, housing goes up. And so if you're just holding that money cash, it's lost value. But if that 10,000 was in the S P 500, well, it's probably tripled or quadrupled. That's what I'm talking about when it comes to assets being the key in this K-shaped economy. Now let's move on to housing. We're gonna finish off here with housing because that is essentially the the main line item that I got a front row seat to watch with I got a front row VIP backstage pass to watching the middle class have the American dream ripped out from under them. It's been happening for decades, slowly but surely. But man, when I got into real estate, January of 2017, all the way through 2021, I could get a regular Joe Blow a home. I could find somebody who made 40 grand a year, didn't have a bunch of debt, maybe didn't go to college, normal car, no kids, no wife. I could get them a house for a $950 down payment, a $950 monthly payment, no down payment, 100% financing with the USDA, and I'll work with a lot of veterans, a lot of E3s, E4s, E5s, single or otherwise. I was able to get in the property pretty simply. A little bit here and there with the credit score, save a little for the next couple months, and then you're gonna be good. We'll get you into a house. And a house is more than just an investment. I know a lot of people view it as the commodity it has become American dirt and shelter. Uh, but frankly, shelter is the only asset that that is where you're gonna create memories. It's it's an asset you can live in, you can grow a garden at, you can have your dog, you can raise your kids, you can have family over, you can you can wind down for the evening. Like having a place to be, to make memories, to grow is so important. The sentimental value uh doesn't really uh correlate with things like gold, silver, stocks, crypto as much as it relates to housing and shelter. So as somebody who got to watch literally people that were normally going to qualify simply making 80 grand in 2020, 2018, now watching that same person not even be close to being able to buy a home, at least here in Delaware, which is below the median income line across the nation, like 31st most affordable. It's disheartening. And I watched it happen, and many people now ask me, Zach, when's housing gonna crash? Well, these next four graphs I'm gonna show you are gonna show why I don't think it will. And as a real estate agent, I know what you're thinking, Zach. You're a realtor. Of course, you don't think it's gonna crash. Buy now, buy now, buy now. I don't think that at all. I in fact, live with your family and save money if you can. If you can find a plot of land and go build a clubhouse in a tree and hook up a plumbing system to it, go for it. You want to live in Greece? Go for it. I am not opposed to never owning real estate at all. But I'm also gonna say the stats don't show a crash in the future. Let's start here. Oh, this is total assets. Let's go to housing inventory. So here's housing inventory. This is vacant housing units for sale in the United States. Now I have this graph pulled all the way back from where we can get the data to 2020, and we can see the peak walking into 2008 through 2010. Then slowly the inventory would drop, and then we get into COVID, it would drop very severely. And now we get to 2026. And if you look at the graph, inventory isn't really that high. Now, why does that matter? Because all economics can be funneled down to one simple dynamic: the dynamic between supply and demand. Simplest way we can put it supply and demand. So in housing, what is supply and what is demand? Demand are buyers looking to buy. They're qualified via a mortgage officer, they have cash, they're investors, they can leverage their assets, whatever it is, they're on the market to buy. Okay. Number two, supply is houses available. They could be vacant units, they could be units where people are living in them and they're trying to get their home sold because they want to move or retire or whatever. The supply are the homes ready to sell, whether by a construction company, investor, or a regular everyday family. And the demand are the people looking to buy. Now, in this scenario, if we wanted home prices to crash, let's just look at what happened from 2006 into 2008. What started happening to supply from 2006 upward to 2008? It started rising pretty significantly. Very, very significantly. And the reasons for its rise significantly honestly aren't happening right now. One of the biggest reasons was large unemployment. We had 10% plus as we entered 2009 and 2010. We also had subprime mortgages. A lot of people had mortgages they could not afford and adjustable rates to force them out of it. Okay. And the third is the people that owned the home couldn't afford it because of their own qualifications. They didn't have to register if they had a job. There were some loans that didn't even require a verification of income. It was a credit score and a pulse. So we had a lot of people that couldn't afford. And today the mortgage programs are just a lot more fine-tuned to ensure that doesn't happen. The mortgage products are more fine-tuned so that that does not happen again. Combine that with the fact that we're not seeing a gigantic uptick in supply, as we can see on this graph, um, I just don't see where the inventory could come from that could cause that supply that we need for the price to die. Another thing I want to bring up is this as vacant housing units, meaning no one lives in the home. If we look at the total units as we peaked in 2008, it peaked at about 2.2 million vacant homes for sale. The peak of total homes for sale would be about 4 million, 4.1. So about 4.1 total. Now, what does that tell us? It tells us that more than half are people living in their home looking to sell. More than half. All right. So now let's look at this Reddit graph that's been circulating quite a bit, showing unsold inventory in America and showing that it's on its steepest climb since the 2008 financial crisis. Now, this isn't the first time I've seen somebody show a graph and be like, hey, this looks a lot like another crash. It happens all the time. But the thing about it is we have to look at it with the perspective that we need. So if we look at this graph, it shows unsold housing inventory. What it does not show is that it's not just unsold housing inventory, it's unsold vacant new houses. So new construction. All right. That's a very key point here. And the reason is in 2008, there was 194,000 unsold new construction homes in the peak of 2008. 194,000 completely built, ready to go. They have a door, they have air conditioning, they have windows, they got a floor, bathroom or two, and three to four bedrooms. You got it. It's done. It's got a roof and everything. And they're not selling. We know obviously why that was happening in 2008. And frankly, it's pretty obvious to know why that's happening again in 2026. It's a lot of new construction that is not selling. Now, for perspective on this graph, I found the actual real graph this was based off of. We can go to that real quick. New houses for sale by stage of construction completed. We can see these graphs align exactly. We can see the peak from 2008. We could see that it peak is peaking again, moving through into 2026. But here's the thing. The thing is, in 2008, where we had just under 200,000 homes available for sale, new construction completed and ready to go, there were four million homes on the market. So of the homes that were completed and ready to go and not selling, 200,000. Of the total new construction homes that were either being constructed, ready to be constructed, or completed altogether, it was actually 500,000. So in 2008, there were 500,000 new construction homes ready to go that were not selling and were being constructed and were not already purchased. 500,000 out of 4 million, that is a 12th. A 12th of the inventory that was not moving at that time was new construction. The other 88% were regular everyday people. Regular everyday people, by the way, cause crashes. Because when regular everyday people are selling, they will more dramatically lower their prices quicker because they need the money for some reason now. They need to move, they're getting divorced, somebody has died. Whatever reason they need to sell, they may have a stronger reason to sell. It's not just about profit. And if we look at this graph, we see now 119,000 homes are sitting. Well, the interesting thing about it is at this exact moment, there's about 494,000 new construction units across the nation between ready to go and under construction and planned to go under construction. That's a very similar number to 2008. 2008 we had about 500,000 new construction units in total that were ready to sell. 500,000 then to 500,000 now. The difference between then and now, again, going back to supply because it's the core dynamic of what we're talking about of canned housing crash. A 12th, I'm sorry, an eighth, an eighth. It's 12%. An eighth. An eighth of the homes in 2008 were new construction. 4 million in total, 500,000 were new construction. In 2026, you want to get us what that ratio is? In 2026, though, we are seeing that rise in unsold vacant homes that are new construction. We are seeing that rise. But the issue is of the 500,000 homes that are available in the new construction world, there's only a million total homes on the market. There's only a million. 2008 was 4 million plus. So where an eighth of the market was new construction and companies and businesses just trying to make a profit, struggling a little bit, but they can survive. And 88% were normal everyday people that needed to sell now. We can see why prices dropped so fast. There was chaos. People were losing their job, their IRAs, their retirement accounts were dropping. They needed the money and they needed it now, and they couldn't sell. We had high supply, low demand that caused price pressure downward to where we had 20% plus crashes across the nation. Today, of the million homes on the market, only half of them are normal everyday people. One out of two. One out of two. As opposed to seven out of eight. It's now one out of two. Meaning there are less and less people that are struggling and forcibly selling their home. There are people who can't afford their house anymore because of insurance, taxes, increases, and all things, electric bill, I get it. That's happening, but we're not seeing it happening in mass like we saw before 2008. So to compare these two together, like this Reddit feed did, I just, again, I wouldn't necessarily say uh this is a causation, more so a correlation that if we look into the more nuanced data, we'll find the inventory is simply a different dynamic today than it maybe was in 2008. Another break check, Sean. Is that that checking in, that rocking in? It's a lot of numbers. Yes.

SPEAKER_01 53:28

I feel like you're mad at me when you just say yes.

SPEAKER_03 53:31

No, no. I I'm just um I'm just I'm thinking of random stuff and I get kind of lost sometimes. Not lost in what you're saying, but I just kind of like start thinking about something that I needed to do, and it's just in my brain. I'm trying to focus and I'm fighting myself. So it does, it does make sense though.

SPEAKER_05 53:49

It does make sense. I was not listening to a word you said, but yes, makes sense completely. I don't think that stands well for the people listening to the podcast. I hope not everybody else is drowning out after I'm talking about all these numbers.

SPEAKER_03 54:00

I gotta pee too.

SPEAKER_05 54:01

But it's it's didn't you pee before the pod? I drank a lot of water. It's good. Gallon a day keeps the doctor away. Let's go into another common debate about housing. Investors. Now, if we scroll up to the top of this real quick, we'll come back down to this graph. It says, are institutions to blame for high housing prices? It's a very common question I get. Are BlackRock, Blackstone, and private equity the reason housing's expensive? You've heard this, right? You've heard this plenty of times, right?

SPEAKER_03 54:33

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_05 54:34

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_03 54:35

Absolutely. Blackstone took away jersey mics for me. That's true. RIP jersey mics. I'm gonna sell that's for them.

SPEAKER_04 54:45

Very good.

SPEAKER_05 54:46

So I've done a lot of research into this for years now because it is an extremely common question, and we want to know why home prices are high. I want to preface this discussion with I do believe investors to be a large portion of the problem. In fact, the four million homes that we need on this market to start to balance out our supply and demand could cause some pricing pressure. Well, those five million homes that were purchased by investors in the last just three and a half years would highly benefit our market at this moment, especially because investors typically aren't buying expensive homes. They're buying town homes, they're buying small ranchers, they're buying duplexes, quadplexes, homes that are profitable. They're the affordable homes our market needs, and investors are hoarding them. The problem is, I think oftentimes we blame a different boogeyman that's responsible for 99% of all the other problems for a problem that might be getting caused by somebody else. So are institutions to blame for high housing prices? I'll just blanketly say no, I don't think so. Here's my evidence. Right now, Blackstone owns the most of any private equity firm. They own about 80,000 units. Uh, and that's not even total single family units. Um, I'm sorry, they own 80,000 single family units, 30,000 individual units. So that's apartments, condos, multiplexes, like I mentioned. About 80,000 single-family homes. For perspective, there's about 140 million single-family homes in America. So it's a very, very, very, very, very small percentage. Should they own any? No. They should own zero. Should be zero. Just to be clear on where I think. BlackRock does not own much, if any, individual real estate. And Blackstone does not go and buy homes individually. They buy companies that already have large holdings, like, for example, Tricon Residential, or at the time the Home Partners of America. They buy up institutions that already hold the homes. They're not like beating you out on an offer. But I can tell you who is.

SPEAKER_04 56:42

Let's go down to this graph. Let's keep going. Let's keep going right here. Can we zoom in ever so slightly?

SPEAKER_05 56:51

Okay, beautiful. So this is by John Burns, and it's showing investor home purchases by the size of the investor. Okay. Investor purchases by the size of the investor. It labels it in five different categories. i buyers, tier four, tier three, tier two, and tier one. Tier one are those that own one to nine properties. Tier two, ten to ninety nine. Tier three, a hundred to nine hundred and ninety nine. And tier four is those that own a thousand or more properties. iBuyers, very, very small percentage. These are people selling to Redfin, Open Door, uh, Zillow's iBuyer program. They're like, we'll give you cash right now and we'll list it for you. Small percentage. Now we look at this graph for my video watchers. Just look at this graph for a second. What do you see in large part as the main color across this graph? The color that dominated 2004 through 2008, 9, 10, 11, 12, and still dominates today, but with other colors showing up. It's gray. Okay, it's gray. The majority like gray. And like gray is tier one investors. As of the end of 2024, tier one investors make up 19.6% of all sales in real estate. One out of all five homes that are being purchased in America right now are being purchased by a mom and pop investor that only own one to nine properties. And you might think, Zach, owning eight properties is not mom and pop. I do know plenty of very normal people that own four properties, eight properties, even 12, 20 properties. And they're just normal people you could see a Wawa. They're not companies, they're not banks. It's not even their full-time job. It's normal everyday people. What are you giggling over there over?

SPEAKER_03 58:41

You're saying like normal people, like you see a Wawa. I'm just picturing like a guy with a beer belly. Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 58:49

He might own a couple duplexes.

SPEAKER_03 58:51

He's just like, whatever, I gotta go make sure my tenants are good.

SPEAKER_05 58:54

Exactly. Brother, all the people I know that are managing their tenants sound and talk exactly like you're talking about. I got these 10, I got 27, 101s being a real asshole. It's quite a mess. They're not these suit and tie people that we envision as the villains of corporate capitalism. It can be normal everyday people that did buy an investment property because they saw a video in 2004 about investing in real estate, and they're like, let me go do it.

SPEAKER_03 59:20

Homes are 120k. I can afford it. So hey, I just want to clarify. So it says one to nine properties. This isn't including just like normal home buyers, right? These are specifically investment properties.

SPEAKER_05 59:31

Yes, these are investor home purchases. Okay. Because when we buy property, it has to get filed by the attorney. If essentially it's going to be a primary residence for the person purchasing it.

SPEAKER_03 59:41

Okay, gotcha.

SPEAKER_05 59:42

And so they were able to take the data of all the other people that weren't purchasing as a primary residence.

SPEAKER_03 59:46

And it's so easy to want to blame BlackRock and these big companies for doing for taking away homes from people.

SPEAKER_05 59:53

But it literally is just like Especially when they're the problem everywhere else. Right. Like the problem. I'm going to be clear with this because I bring this stuff up and they're like, you're a BlackRock apologist.

SPEAKER_03 1:00:03

No, absolutely not.

SPEAKER_05 1:00:05

This is one of the first things I got really angry over. That's not the case at all.

SPEAKER_03 1:00:10

It's literally just like the grandpas and grandpa or grandmas that are just like, yeah, I got all this money. I might as well just like buy another house.

SPEAKER_05 1:00:16

Tons of them. Airbnb people. I've I have a couple friends that I'll golf with that have two, three, four Airbnbs down at the beaches.

SPEAKER_06 1:00:23

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:00:23

You know, it's it's unfortunate to think about a world where buying a second or even third home is accessible because right now most people feel buying the first home or even renting a home isn't accessible. But that was the case. That is how the market operated. A normal $40,000 a month individual could buy a home, which meant if you were making $80,000 to $100,000 a year, the conversations I was having with you when buying that home, like I remember them. 2018, they'd be buying their home and they're like, Yeah, we're thinking about an investment property. Would you mind helping us out? That makes me sick. All the time. $80 to $100,000, and you were set up. Especially if, oh my God, dual income, no kids?

SPEAKER_06 1:01:00

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:01:00

You both make $50? You both make $60? Easy.

SPEAKER_03 1:01:03

Easy. It hurts my stomach, man. Easy. I should have bought a house, house when I was in kindergarten. 100%.

SPEAKER_05 1:01:09

What am I doing? Lazy ass first grader over here. So going back into this John Burns graph, we can see, again, about 20%, 19.6 are purchased by people with one to nine properties. Tier two investors making up 2.7% of the share. Tier 3 investors with 100 plus make up 0.7%. And those are the thousand plus properties, which would be those giant banks, firms, companies, and even people.3% of the purchases were by them. Now I I have heard some counter-arguments of Zach. What if BlackRock is Scooby-Doo buying? I actually had someone say that to me. They're like, they're Scooby-Doo buying. Like, what the what's what's that mean? Like, what's that? What are you talking about, brother? It's a terrible Scooby. Uh what if BlackRock is sending in people? They create a brand new LLC or they send in an individual to go in and buy a property that may only have one or two to their name, maybe none to their name. Maybe this is the first one that ever is attached to their social security number of that LLC. And then once they've bought it, then they transfer it to these giant private equity firms and giant banks and corporations. And to be frank with you, I have no evidence to refute that theory. So could, maybe, that's a whole operation that I feel would somebody would have brought up or we would have found out about at some point. Maybe not. But again, I think that the more obvious option for these big companies is they just buy the companies that already own the homes. And to be frank with the new uh institutional investors can't buy properties law, that simply opens up the door for more. Let's just buy the company that already owns the 2,000 homes instead of trying to buy up homes because they're not going to be allowed to, quote unquote. I put this up to put this out there. The normal everyday person on the top side of the K is what's supporting the housing market and these prices. Because 33% of homes in 2025 were purchased by investors. One out of three. That's all homes in America, by the way. If we just subjected the ones that were like at the 75% median value, homes that were 300K and below, I'm sure it's closer to 50% or if not higher. In more affordable areas, I'm sure it is higher. This is all homes. So to say that the market is not being affected by investors, to me, is a, and I'm just gonna be light with this, a very stupid statement. Investors are absolutely causing a lot of the speculation and inflation in housing. And if investors were not present, at least in single family housing, if corporations, if LLCs, if nobody was allowed to buy a single family home for the purpose of renting it out for profit, the market would stabilize. Would it hurt all the boomers and investors with their real estate portfolios? Thousand percent. Do I give a shit? Absolutely not. I think that we could absolutely balance out the market by taking out investors, and it's not just BlackRock and Blackstone in these big banks. And the reason I say this is because a lot of people have said since that bill's been put in place, since that executive order to say, hey, anybody that owns more than I think 350 homes can buy no more. A, there's lots of loopholes, and B, the mom and pops and those that own way less than that are responsible for the majority of the buying anyway. So it's not really solving the problem. And that's yet again another reason why this market is being supported by the demand of the upper side of the K in a low supply market and not creating the dynamics we need for a crash at this exact moment. The other thing, too, about the supply, and we don't even have a graph for this, is builders aren't building. So while people aren't selling because they have really low interest mortgages that they got in 2018, 19, 20, 21, you might be one of them. You have a thousand dollar payment. Why would you sell your home? You have a twelve hundred dollar payment. Why would you sell your home and go get a home for $2,500 a month? Why would you? I have this conversation with people all the time. People that think about selling, they want to access their equity, but why do it? You have that $200K waiting for you, but if you take it out by selling your home and your $1,100 mortgage, and now you're walking into a home that is much more expensive, even if it was the same type of home that you had originally, it's much more expensive, and the rate's much higher. Why would you? Many people are locked into their home, builders aren't building, and investors are waiting to pick up deals. So that's why I think the market is supported. It's low supply, there's low demand, but they're kind of even. If we were to see a giant increase in supply from building or sellers of normal everyday people, yes, we could see price pressure downward, but right now we don't see it. Right now we don't see it. Last point. Around housing. If you think to yourself, Zach, everything's getting more expensive. Okay? I want to present a theory to you. And I'm gonna give you the devil's advocate. I happen to agree with the devil on this one. Zach, healthcare? I can't even afford it for my family. My water bill, my trash bill, my internet bill, my electric bill, God forbid. Every bill is more expensive. My home insurance, my car insurance, more expensive. The car payment, the mortgage payment, putting food in my grocery cart, more expensive. Significantly more expensive. I'm not trying to be dramatic. I do believe the poverty line at this point probably sits in or around $100,000 to $110,000. I really honestly mean that. And some people think it's higher. Some people think it's higher. A number that used to float in the 36 to 40k range, we're now looking at six digits. You may think, Zach, that's crazy. I refer back to Robert at Infronomics, a person who uh, with other like-minded economic macro favoring individuals, content creators, I believe he said it was 141,000. So I'm actually undershooting what people who study this say it is, based off of the necessities of living in America for certain areas. We're talking six digits. If you look at the National Association of Realtors, do you know what the median income required to be able to buy a home is? You know, I'm gonna say it, and you're not gonna believe me. I'm gonna say, what is think about it. What do you think somebody has to make? Not to buy an expensive home. Because that's what boomer grandpa will tell you. Buy a small home. Buy within your means, brother. I lived in a home with with one bedroom and no bathrooms. There were no windows in my house. I didn't even watch TV. I didn't have furniture. We ate the dust that would gather in the spaces that the furniture would be. That's why we didn't put down a carpet. We needed more dust. How else was I supposed to survive? And you want to have an iPhone. You don't understand the struggle. Live below your means, buy a cheap home. They don't exist, grandpa! They're not there. They're not there. They're not there. Because frankly, Grandpa, I think you got a point. In the 70s, 80s, they were building a lot of cardboard boxes that were well built at the least, but they were boxes. Just a few rooms, a kitchen, a couple beds, that's it. That's it. And you could get that home in the 70s for 50 grand, 40 grand, 30 grand. The problem with this is not that young people want more than their income allows for them, which is something that every generation has done to a point all across history. The greater problem is that people can't find something that is within their budget. It's not that they're trying to stretch their budget beyond their means. It's that what they make doesn't meet the minimum requirement to even begin. And that minimum requirement to even begin usually got locked in with a 40-hour day, uh, 40-hour week job. Now 40 hours a day. That's a that's a bit of a grind. Bit of a grind.

SPEAKER_03 1:09:13

I remember my first part-time job.

SPEAKER_05 1:09:15

David Goggins probably talks about working 40 hours every day. I love a little bit of Goggins, but a lot of Goggins is too much. Side note, I have a hard time listening to Goggins now that he physically can't run and he's been divorced. Because I'm like, I don't want that life.

SPEAKER_03 1:09:32

That guy needs to take a break.

SPEAKER_05 1:09:34

Well, now he is, because he can't run. Like, maybe you should have seen a doctor. I don't, I don't know.

SPEAKER_03 1:09:42

Wait, why? This is a rabbit hole. Why can't he run? I haven't.

SPEAKER_05 1:09:45

He wrecked his legs. Oh, just from his legs are general. Wrecked. Yeah. Oh my. If you read some of his books, some of the things he talks about running these hundred-mile marathons and obstacle races and whilst his his foot swollen through swelling through his shoe, and his kneecap is just literally uh it's like a hardened tendon because the the bones had been rubbing up against each other for so long. He's like, I kept going. I ran the next day. I'm like, Mother Effer knows. Take a break. Like, you're not gonna be able to walk when you're 50.

SPEAKER_03 1:10:16

Yeah, Jesus.

SPEAKER_05 1:10:18

But I'm not David Goggins. I don't have a six-pack, so I can't talk. If you want to be David Goggins, go for it. A little bit of Goggins in the diet, I think, is healthy. A lot of it could either way, we're off topic. So the I I completely got off on a tangent there.

SPEAKER_03 1:10:32

That is totally my fault. No, it's okay.

SPEAKER_05 1:10:35

It's okay. I do that a lot. I I said Goggins would work the 40 hours, but a 40-hour uh a week job could get you a home. You got a 620 credit score? Not spending stupid money? Don't have a dumb car, not a lot of debt, I can get you in the home. Can we again? I I don't think you're gonna believe the number. The number for what you need to buy the normal home in America, the median, the median home. Can we pull this up?

SPEAKER_04 1:11:01

Can you look up National Association of Realtors Affordability Report? National Affordability. Is it the uh yeah, there you go report N A R. Top one, scroll down. Quarterly. Uh actually let's do monthly. Let's go back. It's from the National Association of Realtors.

SPEAKER_05 1:11:33

The qualifying income for the median home in America is $105,648, updated as of May.

SPEAKER_04 1:11:46

That number used to be $42,000, by the way.

SPEAKER_05 1:11:49

Pre-2020. That was that was in the 40s and 50s. It was in the 30s coming out of 2011-2012. Pre-2008 30s. Now is $105,000 to buy the median home. So I hear you, grandpa. You should live below your means. You shouldn't buy the exact median home, even. You shouldn't buy a bigger than median. You definitely even shouldn't buy median. You should buy below median. I'll take you up on that offer. Let's look at $300,000 homes. Oh, wait, they don't exist in most markets. And where they do exist, I'm gonna go ahead and counter your arguments here. A lot of them are trailers and double wides with this thing called lot rent or land lease. You can look in southern Delaware and find homes that are worth $180K, but they have a $700 a month land lease attached to them. Or condos that have a condo fee attached to them. Or they're homes that are dilapidated and wouldn't qualify for a mortgage. Or lastly, they're in Oklahoma, West Virginia, Alabama, and Arkansas. Which you can say, well, why don't you move there? Their job markets are atrocious. So in an atrocious labor force market that we're already in, why would you go to a place where it's even worse? Okay. That's where we get past your grandpa abilities, and people might have to start doing digital things or making money online whilst living in these inexpensive areas. But that is a that is a Venn diagram that not everyone's going to be able to accomplish. What's the number again? Median? $105,648. By the way, that's been going up since January. It was it was starting to stabilize and trend down through the end of 2025. It's now going back up. It's now going back up. The median home in America is $343,000.

SPEAKER_04 1:13:36

So even if you were to buy a $320,000 home, you still need to make $80,000. 2023. Hey Boomer Dad, when did you make $80,000 as a 20-year-old? Yeah? What were were you were you at manager status by by 24?

SPEAKER_05 1:14:03

Were you really raking in the bonus hours by the time you hit 30? Because the way I look at a lot of the graphs is a lot of the boomer and Gen X money didn't really hit until mid-30s, 40s for most of you. That's when the accumulation started to build. And of course, the beginning is supposed to be a grind. It's supposed to be difficult. In a capitalist system, that's the way it's supposed to be. Okay? I get it. I did it. I did it. I joined the army. I got out. I started a business. I grew it. I woke up early every morning. I was working on weekends. I was working on holidays. I was putting family time to the side sometimes to pursue the growth of finance so that I can survive this economy. And I did it. I made a good amount of money. I created a business. I created opportunity for others to make money. I did it. I've done the grind. I've climbed the ladder. I've helped others climb the ladder. That ladder in 2026 is obsolete. I could give you the exact plan that I followed from 2017 to today to grow what I grew. And if you followed that plan line by line, step by step, you wouldn't be at 20% of what I was able to accumulate. And it's not because you're worse. It's because the economy is. It's because the opportunity is less. It's because of the dollar's weakness. It's because of AI and automation. It's because of the labor force market. It's because of the cost of assets. It's because of the cost of living. It's because of the war. It's because of everything that you're watching unfold in front of you and told to ignore. You're being told, oh no, you know, you should be able to work harder and make it. You must be a lazy American. America's where Americans' dreams can make, uh can come true. No! The American dream is a dream because you have to be asleep to think it's real. It's not available to us right now. And those that will achieve it, because there will be, those that do, there will be a much smaller percentage than those in the past that succeed than do today. There'll be a much lower percentage of people to that succeed in today's economy. Succeed meaning now you gotta make more than 100k just to afford the median home, the normal home in America. Shit, that used to be 45 grand. So now we're saying 45 grand, 100 grand is the new 45 grand in terms of shelter. And again, most people putting the poverty line above that. So, boomer dad, what's your argument? Which send by the way, send this video to someone who does not think the economy's broken. Because I want them to get to this part. Send them the timestamp. Hey, hi, it's me, young Millennial Zach in the basement in Delaware. If you are a Gen X or Boomer, can you please explain to me, having watched this video, how this economy has not been skewed in the favor of the elite, of the wealthiest individuals in this country, and skewed against the youngest, most energetic, most educated generation that we have ever seen. We are lit, Gen Z is the most well-educated generation that we have ever had. They have more ability to exercise their tech abilities, social media abilities, internet capabilities to grow whatever they would like, whenever they would like, way more than you who may struggle with turning on and off your router. No offense, different people. In a world where tech is the leading the way in every direction, why aren't the most tech favorable, tech knowledgeable, tech savvy generation we've ever seen thriving? Why are the people that don't know how to how to reset their internet thriving in the tech age? It's been skewed dramatically. It's not all dark, it's not all black pill, it's not all nihilistic, but it's facts. We're here to look at graphs. We're here to look at numbers. The numbers paint a picture of an economy that has been ripped out from under the most recent generation. It started in my generation to rip, and now Gen Z is facing the repercussions of that rip. And that rip has been slow but sure from the 70s to the 80s through the 90s, from the Nixon shock and the Powell memo and everything all through Reaganomics and the ripping out of labor unions and the tax redistrict uh redistributing. Then we have NAFTA in the 90s, along with Glass-Steagall with Bill Clinton. We have a margin rule change in 04 that leads to the market crash where we start printing money agnostium, allow corporations to be whatever they want, allow citizens united for super PACs to infiltrate all of our elections, and then we get greedflation and more printing from COVID. I'm just trying to understand why every corporation is reporting record profits post-COVID up until 2023. Meanwhile, everything's getting more expensive and wages drop. Real wages dropped after COVID. If you look at the real wages of a household between today and 2019, they're the same when you account for inflation. People aren't making more money, but yet everything is 20, 30, 40, 50% more expensive. And that's undershooting it for most. So again, I love you, old head. Unk, whatever, whatever the kids call you these days. Apparently I'm an unk now, so I don't even know what the heck you'd be. It's different. And I ask for compassion. I ask for a little less. Oh, just because I did it means that you should be able to do it. Okay, that motivation sucks. Just to be frank. It's very ignorant. And I want you to open your eyes and understand this economy is rigged. You got the benefit of the rigging, and you never looked up at the system and wondered why it was operating that way. Because guess what? You could afford healthcare. You could afford to send your kids to childcare or hire a babysitter. You could afford to go on a vacation every year. You could afford date night. You could afford whatever you would like within means, all while working a 40-hour job. God forbid you had two 40-hour jobs in your household. You didn't have to worry about the corruption that is seeing, that we're seeing right now, because you got to live a normal life. You never had to struggle so badly and got to see an economic wall play so high in front of you that you started to look up and wonder why is this happening? Guess what? All of Gen Z is. And they're tired of it. They see the enemies and they want it to stop, but there's nothing we can do unless there's some form of big major change. And so when you hear younger generations complaining about this economy, it's not because they're looking for something to complain about. It's because they're looking for answers and they found it and it's evil. I love you. Back to talking to my maid audience, though. Thanks for joining in, boomers. Let's go to this last graph. 40%. 40%. Some of the uh old heads that tuned in earlier are probably a big portion of this. 40% of US homeowners have no mortgage. That's almost half, everybody. That is two out of every five homes that you see in a neighborhood. Two out of five homes you see driving into work. Two out of five homes in your neighborhood don't have a mortgage. Let's scroll down and look at the graph actually, because it's been growing. It's been growing little by little. And old heads would know, pre-2008 people were using their homes as ATM machines, refinancing like crazy. They got a little bit more disciplined. Realize crashes and things like that can happen. And so people have been holding on. 40% don't have a mortgage. So let me ask you for those that want to crash, what's gonna cause somebody that is an investor to have to sell their properties? How bad is an economy gonna have to get for an investor to say, we need to sell, we need to sell now, and we're willing to sell for less than it's worth? How bad would it have to be? One out of three home buyers is an investor. Forty percent of homes don't have a mortgage. How bad would the economy have to get? For Gen X, Boomer, whoever who owns a home and doesn't have a mortgage attached to it, how bad would the economy have to get to force that person to need to sell?

SPEAKER_04 1:22:03

Think about that. Two out of five homes don't have a mortgage every month. What's gonna force them to sell? How bad would the economy have to get for the normal everyday person for that person to need to sell? There's not a lot of cards I can look at in this deck that show me, oh yeah, crash is coming.

SPEAKER_05 1:22:22

But at the same time, devil's advocate myself. Said it before, I'll say it again. It's the bus you don't see coming that kills you. You know, in 2008, we had a bank crash. Two banks crashed. Nobody saw that coming. That's what spurred along the great financial crisis. But we did see the supply increasing before that. We did see the labor force weakening before that. We saw unemployment rising before that. We're not seeing those same signals. We don't have the same ratio of home ownership. We don't even have the same ratio of homes on the market. And if we look at the economy, we've seen the same thing play out for the last five decades, little by little, in pretty much every genre. We walk through just a few graphs on that. And we know where the economy is focused right now. It's focused on stock buybacks. It's focused on AI and tech. It's focused on these data centers that are now being built at a higher rate than commercial buildings. And we see it's affecting the job market, which again is one of those things that's affecting the Gen Z and young millennials that we're told growing up, oh yeah, if you want a good job in this country, ha ha, learn to code. Learn to code, design something. You know how to design a website? Man, you got a bulletproof career in your future. Where's that? Zach, you're just complaining. People were lied to about how to treat their livelihoods, whether it was by just pure uh lack of knowledge or foresight, or or I don't'm saying people were lying, but people were led in a direction to pursue a degree, to pursue a tech background, a tech job, and now and now we're seeing that tech is one of the leading underemployment positions that exists in America.

SPEAKER_04 1:24:03

Things aren't great economically at this exact moment.

SPEAKER_05 1:24:07

I'm not here to complain. I'm here to talk about the numbers. We're here to look at graphs, 11 of them to be specific. We even threw it a couple bonuses, a couple PDFs.

SPEAKER_04 1:24:16

This economy is not for you specifically bad because you're dumb.

SPEAKER_05 1:24:28

Like you're not, you're not crazy, you're not lazy, maybe you are, and to be frank with you, for those of you like uh in a boomer bob that's stuck around, listen, I'll call you Robert. There are a lot of people out there that are lazy, that are putting their opportunity to the side in lieu of I want to play video games, I just want to smoke weed all day, I just want to go out and party and club, and I'm gonna go to another music festival, and I got 18 subscriptions, who cares? My money's bleeding, 18 different directions, who cares? Those people exist. I'm not saying that they don't, but there is a, in my opinion, larger majority of those that would have succeeded under normal economic scenarios that are not, specifically because of the current economic landscape, not because of their will, their intellect, or whether or not they are lazy or not. That group does exist. Not saying it doesn't, but there's a so a whole other group that is working hard, making more maybe than they have in the past, that feel a lot broker than they did when they made more. Okay? All right, that group exists. People aren't just lazy, crazy, or dumb. This economy is a bit crazy and dumb. What changes it? I'm not here to say. I don't know. I've just been examining graphs for the past few years, and I figure you should know it's not your fault. Sean, thoughts, concerns, prayers, or hallucinations for the end of our show?

SPEAKER_03 1:26:04

I'm hallucinating that I'll own a home soon. Beautiful. Ah, yes, I can picture it now. Picture it now. Man, it's the only time I'll be able to have it.

SPEAKER_05 1:26:12

Gathering all the dust so that I can eat for me and my family.

SPEAKER_03 1:26:16

Yeah, man. And not only did grandpa have to live in a house with no furniture, he also had to hike 10 hours to school every morning.

SPEAKER_05 1:26:24

Up and down. Exactly. Isn't that crazy? Both ways. Through snow in April doing handstands. Yeah, I I have heard they had to do handstand or they'd get arrested for uh for being racist back then. Something about that, some civil rights thing. Yeah, remember that.

SPEAKER_03 1:26:41

I will say though, on a serious note, and maybe Oh, we weren't being serious. My bad. Uh my baby. Oh, let me lock back in. No, I I think like I'm just gonna say, and maybe people will disagree, a lot of these issues are just the actual basis of capitalism. We have to work to prove our worth. We have to work. We like you're born into this life, whether you choose to or not. Choose to. You're in, you're here whether or not you can or not, whatever. No choice. And you have to say that I have to prove my worth because I was born. I have to prove that I have to get a shelter, like I have to work to get a shelter because I was born. I think it's the the idea of that blows my mind. Like, I don't think it should be that way. Does that make sense? It does.

SPEAKER_05 1:27:36

It's so it's such a worldview shift, though, that I think myself and even others won't really hear what you're saying.

SPEAKER_03 1:27:46

It's I guess what you're saying. I hear what you're saying. And I guess like, and obviously, you know, we live in this society, maybe we can change it, maybe we can't. I hope we can. That's my that's my brain, that's how I think. But I I think that people whether you're in a home or not, have shelter or not, you know, living with your parents, like understand that you do have value. You're not crazy, like you said. This no matter what people say to you, this is a hard time. And and and just keep keep pushing forward, keep doing what you can. Because you know, if you stay stagnant, you're not gonna go anywhere. You're gonna get to a better spot if you keep moving. So maybe a little motivation, um, but it does suck. Hopefully it'll get better soon. I'm not an expert. Do whatever you can. Um, and that's really all I gotta say. But I I my brain though, like, yeah, like you said, I know a lot of people might not understand, but like just the basis of capitalism itself annoys me.

SPEAKER_05 1:28:46

Well, a lot of the isms, socialism, capitalism, you know, any any of the isms, Marxism, Georgism, they all have pros, they all have cons. And the biggest con that comes with free trade capitalism is kind of the same con that you get with socialism. Many people will say, Well, you can't do socialism because then whoever's running the socialism is just gonna grift off the top and make themselves elitists while everyone else stays poor. It's like, okay, what do you think capitalism's doing?

SPEAKER_03 1:29:12

That is literally capitalism is socialism for rich people. That's what it is essentially. We're all the way at the bottom.

SPEAKER_05 1:29:17

We're just the fucking unfettered, undisciplined, non-free market capitalism, especially post-2008 when we started printing money and we started infiltrating the bond market and deciding when rights would go up or down. That's a big one. That's a huge moment where we just said, screw the free trade, screw the free market, we're we're infiltrating it. It wasn't the first time we'd done it, but a big mark in the sand of stating we don't give a shit about infiltrating what's supposed to be a free, you know, free to move around, crash, recover as needed, market.

SPEAKER_03 1:29:49

Yeah, absolutely.

SPEAKER_05 1:29:50

But yes, many people would account it as late stage capitalism, uh, which is mentioned in George Marx's books um as the end of any capitalist system is this eventually it just all starts accumulating to the top. There's a separation between the haves and the have nots that leads to some form of social, if not legislative, large revolt change. Um will we see that in the future? Could. But I think we're heading that direction. The have and the have not separated is pretty dramatic. I mean, we watch that YouTube video. It's pretty pretty freaking dramatic.

SPEAKER_03 1:30:22

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:30:22

Listen, hey, what Sean's saying is right. The the fact that you're born into a life, you pop in, and by the age of 18, you gotta prove your worth. You know, there's there's a level to it, I think, that's extremely virtuous, and there's a level to it where it's taken advantage of by our American economy, especially in 2026. Because I think about like Fallout 4, brother. I've been playing Fallout 4 recently.

SPEAKER_03 1:30:43

Have you really?

SPEAKER_05 1:30:43

Yeah. Oh, cool. I got a little bass going. I'm rocking. The community system of Fallout 4 is if you don't bring value to a community, you're useless. You're probably gonna be an ostracy. If you're of of working age and ability, you need to be doing something. We're in a little 15-person community. I need someone over here running defense, I need someone over here managing the tomatoes, I need someone over here who who's gonna go out and scavenge. I need people that are gonna do specific tasks to uphold and grow our community so it survives and thrives. And at a very minuscule, like tribe-like level, it's really easy to think about like, okay, I'm gonna go gather lugs. Okay, I know how to cook. Okay, I'm really good at guitar, I'm gonna do music night for everyone at night. Like, you're gonna find your place and find your skill set and bring your value to that community to grow it. In America, we preach that same thing. We preach the American dream is this thing. You can walk into our country with no money in your pocket and you can succeed. You can bring value and you can succeed, you can grow. And the problem with it now is it's not just as simple as stepping in and adding value and you're gonna be sustained. Just like in Fallout 4, if someone steps in and they're monitoring the tomatoes, they're gonna have a place to sleep, they're gonna have food and water, and they're gonna be secure. If they're not a part of that community, none of those things are promised. So in America, when you're a part of this community and you're told if I bring value, I'm going to be supported, and then you bring that value for 40, 50, 60 hours a week for five years, and you're like, holy shit, I don't feel supported. I think it's worth pointing out.

SPEAKER_06 1:32:25

Yeah.

SPEAKER_05 1:32:26

Because the same person, if they were running defense for my Fallout 4 shelter, and I said, No food for you, they'd be like, What the hell? I did my job, I brought my value. And a lot of people just feel like they're bringing the value and it is not being reciprocated in their lifestyle or cost of living. And I think that is worth shouting out, it's worth talking about, it's not complaining, it's just looking at the reality. We're living in Fallout 4.

SPEAKER_03 1:32:50

Bottle caps.

SPEAKER_05 1:32:51

Bottle caps. Bottle caps. I'm a very big apocalyptic survival gamer. I I love a good survival game. Maybe one day the Mad Max world hits us, and I'm gonna be ready.

SPEAKER_03 1:33:02

Try the game. Mad Max game's actually pretty good.

SPEAKER_05 1:33:04

The Mad Max game is good?

SPEAKER_03 1:33:05

Yeah, it's underrated. No, it's underrated.

SPEAKER_05 1:33:07

See, those movie games I'm always like, uh Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 1:33:10

I feel like there was a time where they were good. Can I tell you?

SPEAKER_01 1:33:13

Okay, I'm gonna finish with this. Okay. And then we gotta leave. And then we'll play the song and we'll get out of here.

SPEAKER_05 1:33:21

There are two games that I played that are movie adaptation. I used to be a real big gamer. And I was an ADHD gamer, so I was always trying out new different games. The two games that I played that were as good as they were touted to be, that were based off of movies, were two. And I'm curious what yours is. One was 007 Quantum of Solace. Oh. Splendid game. Single player and multiplayer, top-notch, better than the movie. The second was Narnia Bridge to Terabithia. Or not Bridge to North The Line, the Witch in the Wardrobe. What the hell? That was a game? A fire RPG game. What? It was great. It's more of like a story adventure, but yeah, no, I really enjoyed, I really enjoyed that game. I really it was Peter, I think Peter and Edmund were were the main Peter and Edmund. Where's the line? Where's Aslan? It was a fire game, dude.

SPEAKER_03 1:34:28

How about you? Okay. Uh, my one of my favorite games that I love playing was Monster House on the PlayStation 2. Monster House at a video game. Yeah. And it was good. I really enjoyed it. I really enjoyed it. It was a really good game. Um, that was that was a fun one. It was very uh broken, but it was good. Uh my second one I was thinking of was another uh PlayStation 2 game. It was Meet the Robinsons.

SPEAKER_05 1:34:59

It was so funny. I do not even understand for the life of me what that game was about.

SPEAKER_03 1:35:04

I can barely even remember it, but I remember the beginning of the game was like there was sand coming up uh and you had to escape this temple. And I used to stay in the back and get in the sand because I thought it was fun. I I don't know what I'm talking about.

SPEAKER_05 1:35:17

By the way, I'll throw in, I forgot my actual number one favorite PS2 movie adaptation was Battlefront 2. Oh, clearly clears all of them, in my opinion. That's a classic. Oh my god, you know, absolute classic. I don't even consider Star Wars like movie adaptations because there's so many, but yeah, that game was spot on. All right, guys, that's 11 graphs to stay up to date on what's going on in the reality of this economy today. This has been myself and Sean. If you enjoy the show, like, subscribe, and again, send to somebody who may view this economy differently so we can walk through some numbers together. I got my parents off the ledge by slowly sending them videos and docs. Maybe you can do the same too. I love you. Work hard, take care of yourself, and understand you're not lazy, crazy, or dumb. You're beautiful, you're awesome, you're worth life, your net worth is not your self worth, and you can have a beautiful life that is not revolving around how much money you make. You're awesome. So, Sean. We need the Epstein list, we need it now so all of them can be a static.