War, Oil, and the Lost Decade Trade

We break down the latest economic data, rising geopolitical tensions with Iran, and what a potential oil spike could mean for markets. 

Plus, are we entering a lost decade for stocks? 

Want a free Portfolio review? Feel free to schedule a call with our team today-

https://lifegoalinvestments.com/contact/#get-started

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

From Wall Street to managing hundreds of millions in climate money, Nick and I use our alphabetic tube of credentials to discuss the investing and tax strategies that actually work. Oh, and we played Division I college football together. So strap in. This one hits hard. Let's go.

SPEAKER_00 0:21

Alrighty, folks. Lots of stuff to catch up with Taylor from Life Goal Investments. We're going to talk about Friday's jobs number. We're going to review what Jerome Powell said. We'll talk about oil shocks and the history of recessions. Talk about could oil see 200 or 50. Really divergent options there. We'll talk about war and by the dip. Talk about a lost decade for stocks, perhaps. And finally, we'll just see what is going on. So, Taylor, how are you doing, buddy? That's a stacked action-packed kind of agenda here. Let's do this. Well, let's talk about jobs on Friday. Again, jobs came in. I think they were like 176 on an expectation of 60. Uh, the previous month was obviously horrible at like negative 138, revised even lower. What's your initial takeaway from the jobs number?

SPEAKER_01 1:07

I I hate to be such a cynical person, but I think it's literally you can't take anything away from the BLS numbers these days. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has shown shown just an inept nature to tell us actually what's going on in the jobs market to a wide, wide, wide degree. At one point, there was 14 straight months or something to that regard where their numbers had been revised lower. So it's it's a terrible process. It needs to be improved. They have the technology to do it, they just seem stubbornly stuck in their old ways when the number, the data that should become completely untrustworthy.

SPEAKER_00 1:43

Yeah, the other thing to point out is you know, more and more people are looking at not the jobs number created or not because again, nobody can trust it, but the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate unexpectedly went down and went from 4'4 to 4.3. Any thoughts on that?

SPEAKER_01 1:58

Yeah, I think that um we kind of discussed this a little bit in last week's episode where we talked about the fact that, like, you know, the job hirings number has not been all that productive, right? Last month was at a bit of an anomalous number at 178, but moreover, it's been just basically a neutral jobs market where they haven't been hiring anyone, but they haven't been firing anyone. And I think that that's largely a function of the changes that we have to immigration policy, um, where it becomes that no hire, no fire. You don't see a big jobs number on a month-to-month basis. And that concerns some, but when you actually peel back the onion, it isn't all that concerning. So it doesn't surprise me that if you get a shock higher at 178, that you get an unemployment number that gets pushed down further. I think probably what's more important and what is a more trustworthy data set are initial jobless games. Um, and they come on a more regular basis. So every thing, yep. Yeah, and that's the number that I think that most economists and kind of market prognosticators are watching these days. Maybe maybe you feel differently. I don't know.

SPEAKER_00 2:58

Well, uh, you know, there's a couple of things. So, first and foremost, I saw the 178 number and almost fell out of my chair last night. It's like, come on, guys, how stupid do you really think we are? I mean, this point um, but the second, the unemployment rate. This is something I've been on, and not a lot of people are. And that is actually what's a factor of that, and that's the participation rate. Right. So if you step back from 4.4 to 4.3, and the answer is, you know, Taylor, Michael, we lost 348,000 people out of the workforce. Yeah, gone. That's why, that's why the that's why the unemployment rate went down. I'm not, you know, when I look at that, I'm like, I'm not sure that's a good thing.

SPEAKER_01 3:36

Agreed. All of a sudden people are just not feeling productive, and they say, hey, I'm done searching for a job because this job market's really hard to find a productive job in, and I'll step away from it. So I don't, I don't disagree with you there. I don't think that the labor market's in a funk where it is like a glaring red signal as to huge weakness, big cause for concern, etc. But I don't think it's a glaring green light as well, where just keep passing right through it. It's yellow, it's cautionary right now. And I think that that's basically what every data point continues to tell us. We've been in in that kind of cautionary light now for you know the better part of a year. And now it becomes does that light go from yellow to red, or does that light go from yellow to green? Because it seems that we're kind of at a at a stance where we we probably don't stay here at that yellow cautionary signal for an extended period of time.

SPEAKER_00 4:29

No, I agree with you. And then lastly, you're absolutely right. I tell my audience all the time, watch the weekly numbers. You know, don't get too fixated on one weekly number, but watch the trend, right? Watch week after week. And we've been below 220 now for seemingly six to eight weeks. We've been below 260 for years. And I've told my audience for quite a while the number that scares me, there's kind of the round number of 300, but it's actually like 323, 325, somewhere up there, where you know, this thing gets off the rails and you know that's panic mode. But we haven't sniffed that in a while.

SPEAKER_01 5:00

I I would actually bring it down a little bit. I think if you start to see 250,000 be surpassed with any sort of consistency, that's where I start to say, you know, this is becoming more worrisome. Um, and if it does get up in that three, three and a quarter, I I'm totally with you. That's where it becomes um a little bit more, a little bit more worrisome to state the obvious. I love that.

SPEAKER_00 5:23

Well, let's switch to oil. Uh, you know, something I've been reading a lot about since World War II. Every oil shock, every, I mean, there's not many things that you could say are 100% accurate, but every oil shock since World War II has led to a recession. And I would A argue we had an oil shock, right? Gas is up, you know, 40% or whatever, diesel's up 60. Uh, this is a worldwide problem. I don't know how the world doesn't go into recession unless this thing is magically over tomorrow. Yeah. What do you think?

SPEAKER_01 5:53

Yeah, I think that we did have a caveat to every in 2022. And your argument maybe, Taylor, come on, you're you're calling what we were in 2022 not a recession. Like that might be the argument to it. But from a technical standpoint, 2022, we did get that oil price shock higher. Um, I think oil got to 150 or so on the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Um, you had you had the same disruption in supply markets that we're seeing right now in the Middle East, um, in Russia. Um, and so yeah, anytime you get a massive player coming offline and, you know, or just again, just mass, mass disruption, you get that shock higher and it bleeds through. And so, you know, I think we talked about this last week as well, where you just talk about the fact that okay, you get a shock higher in short term, and there's no doubt that we're gonna see for an intermediate period of time, and and that's a little bit unknown as to how long that period is, is sustained higher oil prices. You can't shut down the Strait of Hermoose where 20% of the oils travel through, et cetera, et cetera. You've heard all the statistics at this point. You can't do that without expecting oil prices to go higher. That just creates a weird reverberation where all of a sudden higher oil prices let me put it this way the cure to higher oil prices are higher, higher oil prices, and that's basically every commodity because we can go source more oil, right? OPEC can produce more oil, the United States can produce more oil, and so, but it takes a period of time where an oil producer understands okay, we are going to get this higher price if we go source higher oil. And right now, there just really isn't that level of confidence to say that we're gonna be at the sustain higher prices for any period of time. So there really isn't this ramp up in production that will come if they start to have the confidence that, hey, if we produce more, it's gonna sell at these wide profit margins.

unknown 7:46

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 7:47

So let's say this oil shock is currently four weeks old, might be five, you know, maybe six, but let's call it four just to make the math easier. How long do you think it has to go on before recession is almost guaranteed? Is it eight? Is it 12? Is it 16?

SPEAKER_01 8:00

I think you start to widen out to that kind of three-month frame. And that's where all of a sudden it becomes really, you know, really burdensome on an overall economic backtrack. I mean, I I was driving, I don't drive very much. Um, I got three little kids we beat around town. That's like the end of our driving. So we don't drive much, but I had a uh my grandparents' 65th wedding anniversary this weekend. Oh good to them that we had to travel to, Klaus and Sharon. Um, but anyway, um, and we drove and and it wasn't gas that caught my eye, and I wasn't looking for this, right? We had driven by one of those massive truck stops, and I was like, Oh my gosh, that's gonna hurt diesel price. Yeah, and everything that we ship, largely speaking, comes to point of point of the end end consumer via some sort of diesel used vehicle, and so you can see how it bleeds through into everything. Everything that we own that has any plastic in it is a function of crude oil prices. So everything we consume these days, in some way, shape, or form, whether it be transportation of a package, whether it be transportation on an airline, whether it's all oil oriented. And so as we start to spend more money on oil, our discretionary income gets pulled from other things where it might be spent. And I don't know exactly how they calculate this, but every economist seems to use the number$700 a month on or$700 a year on average is how much less people will have to spend in other areas. Okay, and to the top of the K, you know, the the K-shaped economy really it makes no difference.

SPEAKER_00 9:33

No, no difference.

SPEAKER_01 9:34

Yeah, but the bottom of the K, it makes a dramatic difference. And the bottom of the K all of a sudden starts to spend less at McDonald's, and McDonald's share price gets hurt, which the top of the K owns, and it becomes this trickle on event. And eventually, my point of this rant that I'm not getting to very quickly is higher oil prices actually lead to lower oil prices in time because the demand for it starts to dissipate.

SPEAKER_00 9:58

Yes, demand destruction, folks. If you're on my channel, we've been talking a lot about that. Could the high the cure to higher oil prices is higher oil, aka demand destruction. Correct. Uh so again, uh, you taught you did a reel. I love your stuff on Instagram. Shout out and look at life goal investments. Trump's uh sent out an Easter warning saying basically open the effing straight, you bastards. Uh I think his I think his um you know clock ends either today or early tomorrow morning. Um, I really see this as a point that either A, we get a peace treaty or some kind of you know ceasefire, or hell on earth is unleashed. And how will I measure that? Is oil, right? I think if I think if you start taking out infrastructure, oil goes to 200. Because you got to remember, Iran's not gonna sit back and do nothing, they're gonna launch their own attacks, and this thing could get wild. And then, of course, if we have a ceasefire, the risk premium comes off and you know, oil's back to 60 bucks. So it's really gonna be an interesting 24 hours. What say you?

SPEAKER_01 10:54

Yeah, I think you're right. The the biggest thing that I took away from this, not the biggest thing, the most shocking thing I took away from it. Short order is on public television now they are dropping F bombs because Trump tweets it and they read it verbatim. And I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa, what is this? What would that become okay? If the president says it, apparently we're allowed to say it on live TV. The the F bomb uh is is out and live these days. Wow, okay. Um, yeah, yeah. So, you know, I guess your your your question was I got distracted. Your question was regarding what what basically happened like we have a pivot.

SPEAKER_00 11:31

Like it you're standing at a fork in the road, yeah, one fork has$200 oil, and one fork has 60. There's like nothing in the middle.

SPEAKER_01 11:38

Yeah, yeah, I think you're about right. And so the interesting thing was, you know, basically the threat that Trump threw out there is we're now gonna go after civilian targets. And so power plants and bridges were the things that were directly quoted. And so that's not that's not military capability anymore. That is bringing pain to the everyday person in Iran, which is a which is a scary thought. And then if we do that, Iran has promised backed uh widespread, I think was the the quote that they had widespread retaliation. And Iran really only has one defense right now, and it's to launch missiles, throw bombs, whatever it is, at the oil energy market. And so that is going to be the response. And and Trump's timeline um was updated. It was today, and now it's tomorrow at 8 p.m. for them to open the effing straight as as a quote. Um, so it it will be interesting. I think that you're right. I think there is that this diverging path. I don't think that oil comes back down quickly, even under a ceasefire. Does it come down? Absolutely, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it comes down back down quickly because um what we've done is we've drained a lot of inventory. So a lot of the strategic petroleum reserves globally have been have been drained, and just the the transportation and motion of this stuff has come to a screeching halt. So we're bleeding through right now all of the underlying inventory, and we'll need to repurpose that. Just like when our military launches all these missiles and now we are going into a regime where the budget next year is forecasted to be one and a half trillion dollars.

SPEAKER_00 13:18

Up 50%.

SPEAKER_01 13:19

Up 50%. That's what that's what the administration is proposing. Like a lot of that goes to just rehabbing and rebuilding out the military kind of war chest that we depleted. So we have to do the same thing with oil. And so, therefore, I think that even if we get a direct ceasefire, okay, we are all good. There is oil traveling through the straits. I think it takes a month, two months to get back down towards that, you know,$60,$70 a barrel ballpark. Um, but the other way is more burdensome. And and you know, if we get a prolonged involvement here, then you do get a higher oil from here.

SPEAKER_00 13:55

Yeah. One of the things that I've been thinking a lot about since this started is this just another reason to sell America, right? The sell America trade going on. We can't trust them. Obviously, Trump is peeing on all of our quote unquote friends in Europe and whatnot. And, you know, when do they step back and just go, enough's enough? You know, we're gonna stop supporting the 10-year treasury, we're gonna go somewhere else, we're gonna try to create our own block. And, you know, this thing that we've counted, the petrol dollar, just disappears.

SPEAKER_01 14:23

Yeah. It's an interesting question because this is no doubt us going out and trying to be kind of the world's policeman, which has long been a debate as to is that the United States as the world's superpower from a military standpoint, is that our job? Right. And I think that, you know, maybe as our bleeding heart Americans on our side, we're like, yeah, you know, I we want global safety and sovereignty of all these countries, et cetera. And so therefore, we have to step up as the biggest power, even when the detriment is going to be disproportionately felt by others. And I think that's really the sticking point right now. It's just like Europe doesn't have energy, they don't have oil to any any any you know real degree. Southeast Asia right now, they don't have oil. There's literally, I I think it was I was reading India, there's, or maybe it was Sri Lanka right off the coast of India. They are mandatory holiday right now on a Wednesday. Mandatory holiday, just so lights aren't being flipped on, energy isn't being utilized, gas isn't being used at restaurants to cook food, etc. Mandatory holidays. Like they are really feeling the pain of this. And we, you know, like granted, yeah, does$4 a gallon suck? Absolutely. It sucks, especially when you're paying three or sub three and now you're paying a dollar more, and that billboard is out there slapping you in the face all the time. But the reality is, we are not feeling this. Norway right now is is north of eight dollars a you know, a respective liter to gallon, eight dollars a gallon. Um, so they're feeling the pain we aren't. So your comment there is at some point there is this point of frustration and this point of tipping where either, you know, Trump's prerogative is we're gonna pull them into this thing, and they're going to have to go get their own energy and open up this straight so they can continue to heat their homes and they don't do much air conditioning in Europe, thankfully, because they won't need that much natural gas in the in the summer. But that they have to figure out this snarled energy supply chain. And and Trump's thought is hey, we're gonna bully the hell out of them and pull them into it, and they're gonna have to take care of themselves. Or it's they they throw their arms up and they go, F you, America, you know, like we didn't decide to get you guys involved in this, but we're the one bearing the brunt of it.

SPEAKER_00 16:36

Yeah, I mean it's it's interesting. You you talked about being the police force for the world, and that's long been kind of a badge that I think America wore with honor, probably. I I would argue that a lot of people look at what Trump did in this situation as the police, but as a thug, right? Not you know, I don't know if that's a fair comparison or not, but you you hear it all the time. Um, but this is the big thing I think you brought up here is is this is a worldwide problem. This this I think already or very quickly will become the largest oil shock the world has ever felt, right? Because you have come countries like Sri Lanka, Philippines, and all these others. It like every day ticks by, another country will become, you know, not have enough oil to just do basic things. And um, I think that's a very risky place because at the end of the day, I think you already have India buying Iran oil in Chinese wan, you know, you do, which is this is you know, no secret, and we talked about this last week as well.

SPEAKER_01 17:33

This is this is a proxy as much as is anything else, too. So, like, you know, if you look at you know global geopolitics, one of the things that we've you know been warning or scared of, or whatever you want to call it, is like China feels that Taiwan is is uh a function of China, they think that that is something that's owned. Well, right now, if everyone's so distracted in the Middle East, like it might be an opportune time, and and this is terrible to say for China to step in and say, all right, well, we'll take that. We they can't fight a two-front war, right? And I you know, I hope it doesn't come to that. But at the end of the day, like what we're doing is showing cards right now when other countries are holding cards tight to their chest, and um it puts us in a disadvantageous scenario.

SPEAKER_00 18:17

Yeah, well, let's switch gears. We get CPI on Friday, and CPI will be for March, so we're not, you know, delay data like we've been for so long since the shutdown. This will be the first real indication of the war impact. It won't be complete because it'll only be portion of it, but uh the last reading of CPI headline was 2.4. I'm calling for three. What uh what C what do you think uh Friday brings with CPI?

SPEAKER_01 18:40

Yeah, I this isn't gonna be the peak. What we see that what we see. No, so like I don't know. Maybe you've actually done some math. I have not done math on this. Let me be clear. Um, I don't know how quickly we can see that result of higher gas prices, higher oil prices, higher transportation costs, etc.

SPEAKER_00 19:01

I would imagine going that direction, though.

SPEAKER_01 19:03

Yeah, I would imagine that we really don't feel it to that uh variant of a degree this month, but I think I think next month we will. Yeah. Right. That's that's that's where it starts to to say, okay, now we've had you know, we've been involved, we're going on week six, or we're it we're just at the start of week six right now of this war or whatever you want to call it. Conflict or whatever conflict, war, whatever it is. We're on week six now. And so I think that one, we're looking four weeks in the rearview mirror right now. So you are getting some of it. Um, but I think you know, you're gonna get a full digestion of it next month. Next month.

SPEAKER_00 19:39

No, I agree with that entirely. Uh, the next thing I think about is uh, you know, we've got a lot of buy the dippers out there. Frankly, they've been right if you look at the stock market uh over the years. Uh war is a different animal, conflict's a different animal. Um, we had Warren Buffett on CMBC, I think, last week and talking about a six percent discount being nothing. Uh so again, he's keeping his uh capital dry. Uh, but you know, there's a lot of people that are looking to buy great companies at a discount. You know, are they out there? What do you think? You know, do you stay in dry powder until we figure out ceasefire or bombs? What do you do?

SPEAKER_01 20:13

I think that it depends on your time frame and and how your positions. So, like we have used at our firm some of this dip. Now we came in very diversified, right? So you have assets in the alternative space that have held up incredibly well during this drawdown and have actually gone up in value, and some of them meaningfully so. And so you're able to take from some of that, trim it, and add on weakness if that's your desire. And so we've come in in more of kind of a neutral stance, um, or maybe if you you know have a five-year speed, we're maybe in gear two or three coming into this, because we just didn't see great value in in stocks, broadly speaking, and specifically here in the United States. And so we came in on an underweight basis, um, which served us really well. And so we utilized this as an opportunity to add to some in places. We still have more to add if we get continued downdraft from here. It's it's funny if you listen to a you know the pundits on CNBC or on the news, whatever, they say, hey, stock valuations are now looking much, much more attractive. And I kind of look at that and I'm like, guys, you're not that stupid, right? And and and my what I mean by that is what you have is Wall Street's earnings expectations have have remained high. And actually, they've shifted a little bit higher, right? And prices have come down. So all of a sudden that price to earnings ratio starts to look more affordable and more discounted to where it was. But what stocks are doing ahead of Wall Street is pricing in compressed earnings due to a shock in the supply system and the supply chain of oil, et cetera. It's going to affect some of these companies. And so it's like, guys, it can't be that stupid to think that there isn't going to be any impact on earnings from this conflict and this disruption that we're seeing. That's what the market's pricing ahead of Wall Street ratcheting down. Its earnings expectations because there just hasn't been enough data produced for Wall Street to accurately move those expectations lower. So the thought of like stocks are lower price to earnings multiple right now is a stupid thought. They're not. It's just that earnings haven't been adjusted downwards, which then forces that price to earnings multiple back upwards.

SPEAKER_00 22:20

Yeah, that's actually the line I wrote down. It seems that stocks are mispriced. They're not, they're not incorporating demand destruction like we talked about earlier, the war risk, all of that. They're all sort of priced still nearly for perfection out, you know, outside of some SaaS companies and the whatnot that have been reset lower. Uh, but yeah, stocks being mispriced now, you know, the fear I have is this could set up another lost decade. Obviously, we had a big run-up in the dot-com crisis. It took over a decade, or I think it was nine years, for stocks to kind of get back to where they were. Are we that kind of overpriced, not have the right risk premium where we could be in a, you know, theoretically another lost decade, or is that too extreme?

SPEAKER_01 22:58

I think that's probably too extreme, but it's funny coming into this, so coming into this year, we were sitting at right around 24 times forward expectan expected earnings. And JP Morgan does this phenomenal chart where basically they show a scatter plot of the time frame from now to the 1990s, and it shows every data point and what it corresponds with is what the starting price to earnings multiple was at each given date. And then what you can do is you can see, given that starting price to earnings multiple, what the next five years' worth of returns were for the SP 500. And it is so glaringly obvious that when stocks start from a low price to earnings multiple, the returns are exceptional over the next five years. Shocking 20%, right? Yeah, buy low, sell high, right? At the end of the day, but no one has the ability to do it. And right now, when we are coming into this year at 24 times earnings, the if if history is any indicator in the best fit line, by the way, linear regression, the best fit line, the data points surrounded the best fit line so closely. My mother's a statistician, so I kind of know how to extrapolate and interpolate that data. When you ran the line across, if history is any indicator, when we start at 24 times earnings, you came across and hit 2.4% annualized return for the next five years. So basically inflation. Yeah, exactly right. So no real return at all at the end of the day. So it's funny, I think that when people look at the market over the long term, they just look point to point, right? And that's not how investors really experience returns, right? So I think what you're trying to do as someone in our shoes is when you're in a stance where the data tells you you're gonna have more muted returns going forward, is what you do is you look to find assets that can move in a positive direction, irrespective of the direction of the broad SP 500, we'll call it. And you start to overweight those assets. And then what you're doing is you're sitting in those assets. And if you do get the periods of dislocation where the multiples come down and you get stocks selling off, maybe even unduly to the nature of what their earnings do, that's when you step in and you start to add to that position. So now you're building your position in stock during a period of dislocation. And when you zoom out and just look at the returns of the SP 500, you might go, ah, you know, that five-year period sucked. But it didn't suck if you were underweight here and added here and then rode the train back up over here. And it will be multiple times when you could start to enter the market. And I always tell people like, people are like, Hey, are we at a bottom? I'm like, I I and anybody else that answers that question has no idea. No idea. My brother, who's my partner in his business, like he always says the famous line of like, the only person that calls the bottom is a liar, right? Because no one effectively does that. So what you're trying to do is like the market will V-shape. And and and there is a period of time when it becomes much higher probabilistically that you're actually at a bottom. And when that happens, is when you get a nasty gap down. The market's already been trending down for a while. You get a nasty gap down on really high trading volume. And what that is, is that is that point of capitulation where everyone steps back and they just puke. And that is the period where you want to have added to your position prior to that. And so you're not trying to time that and go bang, I'm in here. What you're trying to do is you're trying to add around that bottoming period, and you're probably buying afterwards after. So you might get a V-shaped bottom, but what you're trying to do is have your purchases be shaped more like a U. Coming into it, you're not buying the bottom, you're buying ahead of the bottom, and you're buying after the bottom on the way out as well.

SPEAKER_00 26:45

I like it. Well, let's get to the last thing that this channel probably cares about, giving it is definitely real estate focus, and that is the Fed and interest rates. Uh, at this point, it seems pretty obvious it's going to be higher for longer. Probably no cuts all year. Are you in that camp? Or do you think one cut is still possible?

SPEAKER_01 27:01

Yeah, one cut's possible, but I think it's more likely that that we don't get cuts this year. Uh it's just this they're in a quandary. They're in a situation where short-term inflation expectations have demonstrably moved higher. Or had to had to move. Yeah, and they have to, and they should have, right? The the biggest input cost outside of maybe labor, the biggest input cost of our economy, broadly speaking, is oil. Yep. And so that shocked higher. You look five years out, it hasn't moved. No, so five-year forward expectations on inflation haven't moved. And largely that's that's a function of the people actually putting out the bets in the market that drive that five-year forward expectation. They've seen this game, they've seen this playbook before. You get a higher shock in oil prices in short term, it creates demand destruction, as we talked about before, and oil prices come back down. So I don't know that there's any lasting higher interest rate environment that's meaningfully different than what we've seen in the past year. And directionally, where we'll continue to move is kind of a lower interest rate environment. But for the intermediate period, and that intermediate period is gonna be determined by how long this conflict in the Middle East continues to persist, we're gonna be in an interest rate environment that remains higher than what we we wanted to or what we thought was going to be prior to this. So, cost of capital is gonna remain more costly, is my view.

SPEAKER_00 28:24

Well, I just realized I had a quote from Jerome Powell I did not read to you earlier. So I will close with this quote. And this is Jerome Powell talking about the goods job number on Friday. And I don't believe you've seen this, but here he goes. Uh, good jobs number is inflated by systemic overcounting error. Strip it out, and for six months we've had flat job growth. So Jerome Powell is basically saying BLS is full of shit.

SPEAKER_01 28:51

That's what he said. I did not see that. Yes, I did not. Jerome Powell's on his way out. He's like, I'm gonna say what I want at this point. I've been dealing with these buffoons and trying to extrapolate what their data actually means now for four years, or way more than that, actually. He's like, these monkeys, they can't calculate anything.

SPEAKER_00 29:09

So uh systemic overcounting error. That is not good for a statician to use.

SPEAKER_01 29:15

Uh uh uh we need I I one of the things that could potentially come of this is whether it be unemployment, whether it be the jobs data, every statistical data point has come in, has been so putrid from an accuracy standpoint, even like even taking as far as say voting, like our voting process is broken, right? And we've had you know insurrections based upon this. And I'm not this is not a hey, Trump won or that does not this comment. I'm just saying everything that we're doing these days can be technologically enabled. Yeah, and we're going with this old school methodology that has proven time and time and time again that is completely deficient in its ability to accurately source data. At some point, someone has to step up and say, we need to refresh how we do this.

SPEAKER_00 30:08

We need to do it, it needs to be better. I mean, yeah, at some point, just throw it away.

SPEAKER_01 30:12

Yeah, it needs to be better.

SPEAKER_00 30:13

Taylor, you're amazing, man. Thank you for being here each and every week. Where can people find you?

SPEAKER_01 30:17

Yeah, find us at Life Goal Investments. We're on every big platform that you watch, daily social media videos, doing 60 second clips.

SPEAKER_00 30:24

Awesome, buddy. And again, I don't know how he gets three minutes of value inside 60 seconds, but he routinely doesn't, and they're actually pretty funny. So keep it up, Taylor. Take care.

SPEAKER_01 30:32

You're the man, Michael. Thank you so much. Quick ask: if you're enjoying the show, hit the follow and drop a rating. It helps more folks find our podcasts. Thanks so much. The information discussed in this video is for educational purposes only and should not be considered investment, tax, or financial advice. Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principle. Always consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions. Past performance is not indicative of future results.