BREAKING: SpaceX IPO Makes Musk a Trillionaire, Awful Inflation Numbers | Receipts Live

Summary

Bulwark Takes Podcast Summary

Episode: BREAKING: SpaceX IPO Makes Musk a Trillionaire, Awful Inflation Numbers | Receipts Live
Date: June 12, 2026
Hosts: JVL & Catherine Rippell

---

Episode Overview

This high-energy episode dives deep into three huge recent news stories:

• The dramatic, market-moving (but ultimately inconclusive) back-and-forth over a potential U.S.–Iran deal;
• The explosive SpaceX IPO, which has crowned Elon Musk as the world’s first trillionaire while raising profound questions about financial engineering and market froth;
• New, ugly inflation numbers and their implications for the 2026 election, the economy, and the Federal Reserve. Throughout, hosts JVL and Catherine Rippell combine sharp economic analysis, political skepticism, and plenty of dark humor, tying together global events with the actions (and tweets) of the world’s most powerful–and controversial–men.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Breaking News: U.S.–Iran Deal Drama & Market Timing

[01:31–09:49]

• The episode opens with breaking news: President Trump nearly launched a strike on Iran but pulled back at the last minute, causing wild speculation about motives.
• JVL hints that this could be about keeping the market up for the SpaceX IPO – but Catherine suggests it’s more about Trump’s fixation on markets and self-congratulation than on Musk per se.

"He has done this so many times... on the ‘we're close to a deal’ routine—it's in the dozens at this point. And those seem to be timed with market closings, or market openings."
—Catherine [03:43]

• The hosts note the recurring Trump tactic: escalate, then de-escalate major geopolitical tensions around sensitive market moments.
• JVL floats a “VI Day Rally” scenario: Trump announcing “victory” over Iran timed for his birthday/cage-fighting spectacle, preferring an “MOU for a plan for a framework for an MOU” rather than a substantive deal.
• They highlight the theatricality and lack of substance in these diplomatic “victories,” often designed for spectacle and domestic consumption.

"It will not be a deal. It will be a memorandum of understanding... so the deal won’t actually be a deal."
—JVL [05:13]

2. SpaceX IPO: Musk Becomes a Trillionaire, Markets Lose Their Minds

[09:54–28:05]

The IPO Frenzy

• SpaceX goes public, skyrockets in opening trade (from $135/share to nearly $168/share—a major “pop”).
• Musk is now officially the world’s first trillionaire.

"He is the first trillionaire in human history. I don’t know if we have the ticker..."
—JVL [09:54]

Valuation Lunacy & TAM

• Catherine skewers the IPO valuation: at ~95x revenues, “which is like unheard of” and comparing to Nvidia’s ~20x.
• JVL jokes they should use a P/TAM ratio (Price/Total Addressable Market), since SpaceX claims a $28.5 trillion TAM—“one quarter the entire economic output of Earth.”

"SpaceX says that their total addressable market is one quarter of the entire economic output of Earth."
—JVL [13:22]

How Musk Engineered the Sky-High Price

• Hosts explain how Musk, through “exotic financial engineering”, ensured index funds and retail (often unsophisticated) investors were forced buyers at any price.
• Normally, IPOs gradually enter index funds. Here, Nasdaq and Russell fast-tracked SpaceX, creating forced demand from 401k holders, BlackRock, Vanguard, etc., despite the stock’s lack of profits and Musk’s dictatorial corporate control.

“A lot of dumb money out there ... usually only 5–10% of shares go to retail in the IPO. This time, it was like 20% for retail… These are like the least sophisticated traders.”
—Catherine [14:24]

• Limited public float + massive forced buying = the price soars.

Governance Trainwreck

• Despite the IPO, Musk retains perpetual voting control.
• SpaceX incorporates in Texas (not Delaware) with “draconian” shareholder terms: small shareholders have almost no rights.
• The timing: lockup periods end just after index funds must rebalance—letting Musk and early insiders cash out at inflated prices.
• Catherine: SpaceX contracts with Musk’s other floundering firms (Twitter/X, Boring Co., Cybertruck), making SpaceX an engine to bail out his failing side hustles as well.

“...when you are being forced to buy SpaceX because it is part of the index fund you hold in your 401(k), you are bailing out Twitter. That is what is happening here.”
—Catherine [25:36]

The Carnival Barker Economy

• Musk’s unique ability: relentless self-hype and groupies. Catherine calls much of it “good old-fashioned carnival barking—Ponzi-scheme type situation, again, legal...clever enough to deserve that name, but a lot of it is just good old-fashioned carnival barking.”

—Catherine [27:07]

3. Musk’s White Nationalist Tweets & the Power of Wealth

[28:13–34:40]

• JVL highlights Musk’s disturbing online activity while the IPO is in motion: amplifying racist, pseudo-violent “reconquista” rhetoric and boosting white nationalist talking points.
• Catherine laments how Musk’s wealth insulates him from consequences that would “ban someone from polite society” if they weren’t a trillionaire.

“One of my most deeply held beliefs is that having access to great fortune insulates you from the consequences of severe mental illness, but also severe moral bankruptcy.”
—Catherine [31:45]

• Corporations and financial institutions “look the other way” because they want access to Musk’s ecosystem, even as he courts far-right extremists from his public platform.

4. Surging Inflation Numbers & Election Impacts

[35:09–41:38]

• The latest data show both consumer and producer price inflation at multi-year highs (CPI up 4.2% y/y; PPI up 6.5%), eroding real wages for Americans.
• JVL plays a mocking Trump soundbite: “I love the inflation!”—and notes how Trump seems to hand Dems soundbites for ads.

“At best, tone-deaf, at worst, pretty dismissive of the economic pain he is wreaking across the country through his wars, through his tariffs, through his everything else...”
—Catherine [38:37]

• Plunges into election consequences: Will voters hold Trump accountable? Will the popular vote “rebuke” be translated, or will gerrymanders and structural factors keep the consequences muted?

“I am not optimistic that the electoral outcomes will be proportional to the scale of economic damage...”
—JVL [39:06]

5. The Fed, Kevin Warsh, and Rate Hike Prospects

[41:38–44:19]

• European Central Bank just raised rates; U.S. Fed (run by Trump ally Warsh) faces similar pressure.
• Markets now expect not rate cuts but more hikes within months, despite Trump’s selection of Warsh for promising easy money.
• JVL/Catherine review the gender, race, and even height-based criteria Trump used for Fed appointments—a window into the president’s unorthodox governance style.

6. American Ambition and the MMA/SpaceX Analogy

[44:19–52:11]

• Marco Rubio gives a speech likening UFC’s rise and American innovation to Kennedy’s moon shot; hosts have fun deconstructing the (flawed) analogy.
• JVL offers a brief MMA history lesson, noting the UFC only became a “legitimate” business under *threat of federal regulation—not by pure entrepreneurial grit.
• Dana White’s real genius: realizing and monetizing UFC’s back catalog as the DVD craze took off.

7. Closing Thoughts: The Dystopian Capitalist Present

[52:11–End]

• Musk’s triumph isn’t about space; SpaceX’s prospectus reveals most “income” is promised from AI, not rockets.
• The company now acts as a bailout machine for Musk’s other misadventures (Twitter, Boring Co., Cybertruck).
• JVL jokes the future is pamphlets for “democratic socialism”—not out of ideological fervor, but frustration with regulatory and market lunacy.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Quote | Speaker | |-----------|-------|---------| | 03:43 | "Those seem to be timed with market closings or, excuse me, market openings... It’s easy to have that cynical interpretation because that is usually what the timing implies." | Catherine | | 09:54 | "He is the first trillionaire in human history... He's got the high score, the highest score of all scores." | JVL | | 13:22 | "SpaceX says that their total addressable market is one quarter of the entire economic output of Earth." | JVL | | 14:24 | "20% for retail... These are like the least sophisticated traders." | Catherine | | 22:34 | "Basically you have no rights as a shareholder unless you get to... 3% of the company, or $5 million." | JVL | | 25:36 | "When you are being forced to buy SpaceX... you are bailing out Twitter. That is what is happening here." | Catherine | | 28:05 | "It's clever. You have to admire it to some extent that he was able to finagle this, at least for the time being." | Catherine | | 31:45 | "Having access to great fortune insulates you from the consequences of severe mental illness, but also severe moral bankruptcy." | Catherine | | 35:18 | "Consumer price index rose at 4.2% year over year... Producer price index... up 6.5%" | Catherine | | 37:06 | "The numbers were great. You know what I really love? I love the inflation." | (Imitating Trump, JVL) | | 39:06 | "I am not optimistic that the electoral outcomes will be proportional to the scale of economic damage..." | JVL | | 41:07 | "I think that the national popular vote will likely be more than 6D, possibly a lot more than +60. But... it should be like +19D." | JVL |

---

Important Timestamps

• 01:31: U.S.–Iran deal speculation and analysis
• 09:54: SpaceX IPO launches, Musk’s new ‘trillionaire’ status
• 13:22: Explaining the ludicrous $28 trillion TAM claim
• 14:24–18:19: Dumb money, index funds, and financial engineering behind SpaceX’s valuation
• 20:56: Musk’s perpetual control, corporate governance red flags
• 24:35: Timeline manipulation for investor cashouts
• 28:05: Why Musk’s “Ponzi-scheme” is legal and uniquely effective
• 28:13 – 34:40: Musk’s right-wing tweeting spree; system failure to hold him accountable
• 35:18: Latest (bad) inflation numbers and effects on real wages
• 44:19: Rubio’s MMA/Apollo analogy, UFC history lesson
• 52:11: SpaceX: actually an AI bailout machine, capitalism’s dark turn

---

Tone & Style

The hosts oscillate between biting sarcasm, technical expertise, and political cynicism—with frequent, darkly comic asides about the dystopian state of both markets and politics. They blend clear explanations of financial mechanics with larger sociopolitical implications—never losing sight of who’s really benefiting (and who’s getting fleeced).

---

In Short

This episode delivers a brutally honest, highly informed look at the intersection of tech, markets, and politics at an inflection point—painting a portrait of unaccountable wealth and institutional failure, with a side order of gallows humor. If you want to understand how the week’s headlines fit together—and what they might mean for the country—this is an essential listen.

Transcript

[JVL]

USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With usaa you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a'@usaa.com bundle restrictions apply if you walk into a room and can't remember why. It could be nothing or something more. If you confuse a familiar recipe, it could be a slip up or it could be associated with amyloid plaque buildup in the brain. Amyloid is a protein that your body produces. But a buildup in the brain could lead to memory and thinking issues. To see what may be behind your memory and thinking issues, talk to your doctor about getting a full assessment. It's never too early to start the conversation. Visit amyloid.com to learn more. A billion dollars isn't cool.

[Catherine Rippell]

You know what's cool?

[JVL]

You know what's cool, Catherine? A trillion dollars. Hey everyone, I'm JVL here with my colleague, my friend, my compadre, Catherine Rippell, the author of the receipts newsletter at the Bulwark. Do me a solid because this is going to be a, it's going to be a journey today. Hit.

[Catherine Rippell]

Hit.

[JVL]

Like hit. Subscribe. Follow us along Leave a comment Join in because we're gonna go. Catherine doesn't know this yet, but we're gonna go to a very dark place.

[Catherine Rippell]

That's, I mean I had a feeling just that's usually my inkling with Fridays with JVL sometimes, you know, it often ends up in a dark place. But go.

[JVL]

I gotta, I gotta say that we're gonna get to SpaceX soon. That's coming because that's the world we're living in now. But first we have some breaking news. Maybe there's a deal with Iran, maybe there's not. So Catherine, we have gone from the space of yesterday, the president saying gonna drop a whole lot of bombs, gonna bomb them. Bomb, bomb, bombity ran. That was the thing that was bad when John McCain said it and, and then he said, I think it was late in the afternoon right before markets closed. He said, nope, nope. Hearing from some highly respected people, it's going to be great. There it is. Based on the fact the discussions have been brought to the highest level and approved. He's canceled as President of the United States of America. The scheduled strikes and bombings. This sounded a little bit like it was being done as a favor to Elon. Gotta, gotta go to the market. Don't want to have, don't have a lot of bombs falling the day before the night before Elon's ipo, I want the market to be good and hot for that. And then this morning we got a bunch of reports from. Yeah, hold on, hold on. This one. This morning we had a bunch of reports from Iranian state media saying, actually that the two sides were pretty close, that a bunch of things were locked down and the Iranian state media were laying out a bunch of those posed conditions to which the President then replied, no, no, forget it.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah, I mean, I don't know that this was really about goosing the markets for Elon per se as much as it is about goosing the markets for Trump, because he has done this so many times over the.

[JVL]

How many times, Katherine?

[Catherine Rippell]

I don't know. I saw that Justin Wolfers had a tally of something like five. I feel like it's 50. Okay. I was going to say five times

[JVL]

that he's pulled back on the attacks, but on the. We're close to a deal. Justin's got like 50.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah, okay. I was going to say it feels like it must be in the dozens at this point. And many of those times when we have reverted from the stance of bombing the civilization off of the planet to actually, we're close to a deal. Those seem to be timed with market closings or, excuse me, market openings. You know, he's clearly very attuned to the fact that markets are not super psyched about the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, about escalations of the war, about anything else that might compromise oil flows as well as other kinds of commodities that flow through there that then might lead to, you know, more disruptions in the global economy. So, yes, actually the one time that he said we were close to a deal when I actually kind of believed it was when it was Memorial Day weekend. It was. And I was like, oh, well, there are no markets open on Monday. So like, this must be real because he doesn't have this other motivation. But then it's then he back, you know, then we were no longer close to a deal maybe because he realized that markets were closed. I don't know. I mean, it's. It's easy to have that cynical interpretation because that is usually what the timing implies. So, yeah, I don't know. This is about Elon. Elon maybe a beneficiary of it, but Trump just cares about markets, period.

[JVL]

I, I kind of believe it this time, actually.

[Catherine Rippell]

Okay. Why?

[JVL]

Can I give you my thesis?

[Catherine Rippell]

Yes.

[JVL]

My thesis is that the Trump birthday slash cage fighting spectacle on Sunday would be even more amazing if it Doubled as a VI Day rally where he is announcing victory over the, the, the Iron Sheik and the, the Iranian mullahs and says, look, we got their complete and total surrender. That feels like a visual that he would really like. And so, I mean, my view has been that we all basically know what the eventual contours of any deal will look like. It will be not a deal. It will be a memorandum of understanding subject to further negotiation, so that the deal won't actually be a deal. It will punt all nuclear stuff and to a like, oh, we're going to very serious negotiations very soon about the nuclears. It will not say that the Iranians can do tolls, but the Iranians will be managing the flow of the strait, which will then allow them to do tolls. So, like, the old international law will be gone.

[Catherine Rippell]

It may be an environmental impact fee.

[JVL]

Environmental impact fee. We got, I mean, fisheries. Right. Got to keep the fishing stock. Got it. There's probably a lot of plastic flo there. You got to get that cleaned out. Okay. They care about the environment and, and it will set the conditions for release of funds and easing of sanctions. And so, like, those things won't happen immediately because Trump has to be to be able to say, see, I didn't give them money today. And so that's what the deal is eventually going to look like. It's just a question of when. And so, like, why wouldn't Trump finally be willing to swallow that now? Because he either for this Sunday or coming up for his America Fest 250, where he can turn it all into a. See, we've turned the page. The war is over. We won our glorious war. Does that, does that sound right to you?

[Catherine Rippell]

I think the contours of the, the no deal deal that you describe are approximately right. However, we have gotten too close to that point in the past. And then you have one very disappointed tweet from Lindsey Graham or the like, and the suggestion that, as you point out, this will be some sort of humiliation for Donald Trump because it's not really a deal and it's worse than the jcpoa and it doesn't deal with the nuclear concerns or the proxy groups in the region or whatever, all of the things that suppose that the Hawks promised that we were getting and Trump may again back down. It's very hard for me to understand how we get out of this loop.

[JVL]

I have, I have an answer for that as well.

[Catherine Rippell]

Please.

[JVL]

Trump just this week dragged Lindsey's ass over the finish line in South Carolina so that he doesn't have to go to a runoff. So Lindsey is in a period where I cannot imagine he would criticize Trump. And if Lindsey is willing to bless whatever the non Deal deal is, I think that goes a long way towards assuring the other hawks that Mark T will be like, well, Lindsey says it's okay anyway.

[Catherine Rippell]

Maybe we'll see.

[JVL]

I mean, this is not a JBL is always right. Prediction, guarantee. I'm just saying that this is the first time that I've looked at it and said, yeah, actually it wouldn't surprise me if they signed something in the next 48 hours.

[Catherine Rippell]

Could be, could be. And again, what, what that something is should matter. And if they sign something, but it doesn't actually mean anything because it's an MOU for a plan, for a framework for an mou. Who cares? Donald Trump will, and he'll say, it

[JVL]

was the deal, the greatest deal. Nobody's ever thought that anybody could get it. This is the strongest thing. And for 47 years people said it couldn't be done. And look at it. He did it.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yes, because that's what he says about everything. In fact, just as a little tangent, Trump is now contemplating pulling us out of the usmca, the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, rather, that replaced nafta. That at the time, that was total

[JVL]

idiots who, who negotiated that deal. He said how stupid they were.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah, well, Donald Trump said back in whatever that was. 2018, 2019. I forget the year that 20. It was the best trade deal ever, ever negotiated on behalf of the United States.

[JVL]

Oh, he's the one who negotiated it. Yeah.

[Catherine Rippell]

But now it's some dummy. Must have been some dummy. Yeah.

[JVL]

All right, so believe it or not, that was the optimistic portion that I think that we could maybe. I actually think we could maybe get a deal to end the war. Now we have SpaceX. SpaceX has gone public. Trading has begun as we speak. And I believe we can officially say that Elon Musk has now broken the record. He's atop the leaderboard. He's got the high score, the highest score of all scores. He is the first trillionaire in human history. I don't know if we have the ticker. I think, I think they went live at 135 a share, are now 167.94 a share. So that's a pretty good pop. That's. So 32 is what percentage of

[Catherine Rippell]

24?

[JVL]

24. Okay.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah.

[JVL]

So I, I would say the rule of thumb on IPOs is that you want about a 20 pop because that makes everybody think that they should be chasing it. But it doesn't make the people who bought at 135 or who were selling it at 135, the, the owners feel like they left money on the table because if it's a, if it goes more than, than 20%, the people on the company think, well, crap, we underpriced this.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah. Which, what's interesting here is that the general consensus is that this was way overpriced, that this was a very expensive stock relative to its fundamentals or sort of lack thereof. This company has not been profitable and may not be profitable for a very, very long time. If you look at how much revenue it makes, which is, you know, it's not unheard of that a tech company IPOs before it is turning a profit. So then the alternative metric people use is often, well, what's the valuation relative to its revenues if not its profits? And like Nvidia or something like that, I think is around the, you know, 20 times revenue, which is very, very high. In this case, when it IPO'd, it was 95 times revenue, which is like unheard of. I can't do the math immediately to figure out what it is now that it's the, the stock prices are up even higher. Maybe somebody in the comments can do some quick arithmetic for me. But basically this is cuckoo.

[JVL]

This is totally ready for me to delight you.

[Catherine Rippell]

Oh, please.

[JVL]

Because I have a theory. It's not a real theory, this is just a bit. Roll with it, people. Normally stocks are evaluated on their PE ratio as you were talking about the price via earnings. But really we should be evaluating SpaceX on its P. Tam ratio. The Tam, of course, is the total addressable market for a company. And according to the SpaceX prospectus. Hold on, I want to make sure I don't get this wrong. I want to get this exactly right. They claim that their total addressable market is 28.5 to trillion dollars. I want people to understand the sum total of all goods and services exchanged anywhere on the planet this year will be $123.6 trillion. So SpaceX says that their total addressable market is one quarter of the entire economic output of Earth.

[Catherine Rippell]

That's pretty good.

[JVL]

And if you believe that, then their price versus TAM ratio is actually quite attractive.

[Catherine Rippell]

Okay, Some little bespoke valuations there, sure. So that's whatever makes you happy, Elon.

[JVL]

That's a bit. But here, here's what I, I want to just put a quarter in the machine. Let you go on, because you and I have both written about this a lot. Sure. SpaceX is dog as a fundamental stock if it is a value stock. Right. This is the kind of thing Warren Buffett would look at and say, doesn't make any sense.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah.

[JVL]

However, as a piece of exotic financial engineering, which has been designed to force index funds to buy it at an incredibly light float of the available stock, I mean, it's a good value play in that way. Right. Like it's. It's a piece of financial engineering.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah. Why don't we explain what that means for people?

[JVL]

Please do. This is why I just wanted to set you up, so you could knock them down.

[Catherine Rippell]

Sure. So basically, SpaceX has a few things going for it that allow it to have this crazy high valuation. One is that there's a lot of dumb money out there that got a first crack at it. Usually you have only like 5 to 10% of the shares that get sold in the actual IPO, not in subsequent trading. Go to retail investors, mom and pop, people who are just like day trading out there. And in this time around, it went to something like 20% for retail. So what that means is these are like the least sophisticated traders out there. So maybe they're.

[JVL]

But they're on Reddit. They're on Reddit, Catherine.

[Catherine Rippell]

They're on Reddit.

[JVL]

They got the Robinhood app.

[Catherine Rippell]

This is their Meme stock. This is their Meme stock of the moment. Yes. A lot of it went to Robinhood, for example. Doesn't mean that nobody out there who's dating who's on these platforms knows what they're doing, but a lot of people don't. And that they're not good at reading balance sheets. Just as an example, they are good at being influenced by hype on Reddit or elsewhere.

[JVL]

And Robinhood, that's their financial plan for life.

[Catherine Rippell]

And look, Elon Musk, richest guy on earth, he must know what he is doing, therefore let's trust in him. Forget about the fact that none of the financial statements make any sense. So you have like one pot of not super price sensitive dumb money buying the stock that way. Then, as you point out, you also have index funds. So index funds are basically funds that you buy them because they are supposed to represent the market in some way. It's like a big basket of diversified investments. That's the idea. You are not the person who is trying to pick individual stocks and say, this is a good one, this is a bad one, because you're not informed enough. You don't have time, you're a Normal person. This is probably what like your 401k is in, right? You are buying an index fund like the Nasdaq, what is it, the NASDAQ 100 or the Russell 1000 or whatever, or the S&P 500. And so normally index funds wait a little while before they add a new stock to that basket and they have to meet. And the new stock, that IPO stock usually has to meet some criteria about profitability, maybe governance, things like that. This time around, the Nasdaq, Russell and some others kind of said, you know what, we're not going to wait for all of that. We're just going to add it to this basket of stocks that we would buy normally. We're going to let them cut the line, we're going to fast track it. And why they did that. I don't think there's some shady backroom deal. It's partly like fomo. They don't want their investors to miss out. They don't want to look silly. If The Nasdaq rose 20% or whatever this year because you had this super buoyant stock, this kind of frothy stock here, that was part of it. And the Russell didn't go up that much, you're going to have some weird stuff where people rotate out of those funds and it's a little embarrassing. So both of those ftse, Russell and Russell actually, and Nasdaq rather all decided that they were going to like jam them in, fast track them into their index funds pretty close to immediately. S&P 500 has held out for a little while.

[JVL]

There's a lot of backlash there.

[Catherine Rippell]

There is a lot of backlash.

[JVL]

They signal that they were going to do it and then.

[Catherine Rippell]

Exactly. And then they backed off, like kind of at the last minute. Because I remember I was writing about this last week and the last week

[JVL]

when they backed off, right?

[Catherine Rippell]

Yes. Actually, the day that I wrote about it, they backed off. And it was like as we were going to press or whatever the online equivalent of going to press is. And I was like, oh, that's surprising. And so I had to pressing a button. Yeah, but what happens is when these get added to an index fund, that means that the index fund has to buy that stock. Right. Doesn't matter what price, doesn't matter what price. They are taking the price. They are not looking at whether it's a good valuation. They are just saying it's in our basket, we got it, we got to buy stuff. So that everybody who has a 401k, who has a, who has Some, you know, some of their investment in our fund, in our index fund, it's supposed, you know, that investment is supposed to be representative of the overall basket of, of stocks. And so they have to buy a whole lot of SpaceX, in this particular case, whatever the price is. And there actually isn't that much SpaceX stock that is available for trading. That's, that's the float that you mentioned. So they basically have these index funds that are chasing after not that many stocks out there, which is going to bid up prices even higher. So you have the dumb money retail investors, you have these sort of captured investors through BlackRock and Vanguard and Fidelity and others that hold these big passive investment index funds, all chasing after a very tiny sliver of stock. And that all bids it up higher and higher and higher. So that's how they were able to get that really high valuation to begin with. And now you have all of the hype around all of that and this understanding that like, yeah, you have these captured involuntary purchasers of stock coming pretty soon and that's going to bid up prices even higher. So all of those things basically help sustain the Elon Musk hype, which feeds into all of this as well.

[JVL]

And none of which is about making money, by the way.

[Catherine Rippell]

No.

[JVL]

None of which is about profits or sales or any of that.

[Catherine Rippell]

No. And then, you know, the other piece of all of this that I think is kind of interesting, I mentioned that governance is usually part of the expectation for like how you get into the big boys club of being in an index fund. I don't know that there are like strict rules so much anymore about this, but there is some expectation that the corporate governance of the stock that is being added to the index fund is decent. And there are all sorts of red flags here as well. I mean, you have Elon Musk, who

[JVL]

will Delaware, is it?

[Catherine Rippell]

Well, I just mean that Elon Musk will retain control of the company basically in perpetuity, even though they are issuing stock out there. And this is not totally new, even though he may not own a majority of the stock, he will still own a majority of the voting rights for the stock, basically in perpetuity. So he cannot be fired. He controls the majority of the board. Elon Musk, not known as like the most stable, even keeled investor, whatever, executive out there. Like, we all saw some of his shenanigans via Doge. We've seen some of his shenanigans on Twitter, which I know you want to dive into. All of those things suggest that like he may continue to suck as an executive, by which I mean continue to lose money in perpetuity. And there will be no recourse to any of these shareholders who have bought at a very, very high valuation. There also may be no recourse to the federal government, which has given, whatever it is, I think, $22 billion in contracts at this point to SpaceX. So, you know, there are a lot of red flags out here about the valuation and about where this thing is going and how well it'll be managed. And we all just kind of have to suck it up and hope for the best because we're investors in it, whether we like it or not.

[JVL]

And just a couple other things on the government side, the prospectus and the terms of this also are like, really draconian regarding shareholders.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yes.

[JVL]

So, you know, shareholders have rights. And one of the reasons companies often incorporate in Delaware is because Delaware is like, really good about that. They have, you know, a serious system. Texas is much more friendly to owners and hostile to shareholders. They're incorporating in Texas, not, not Delaware. And basically you have no rights as a shareholder unless you get to, I think you have to have 3% million dollars in the company, or 3% of the company, or $5 million or something like that. The other thing is about lockup. So when you, when you, let's pretend, Catherine, that you own SpaceX, not Elon Musk, and you went public, you yourself retain a large number of shares that you can sell, but your shares are what is called locked up. You cannot sell them for a defined period of time. Hold the lockup date in your mind for a one minute. AUDIENCE. These index funds that Catherine was just talking about also do periodic rebalancing, where they go through and just sort of rationalize, okay, let's look at the price of this. Let's look how much float the stock has and let's adjust our basket and our requirements. So when SpaceX is rebalanced, in theory, a lot of the index funds will be able to like, get right, they'll be able to rationalize their positions. The timing of this is such that that first rebalancing point will come just after the end of the lockup period. So that Elon Musk and all of his early investors who are holding on to SpaceX stocks will be able to cash out at the inflated index fund buttressed position. It's like the Great Train Robbery or something. And this is capitalism and I can't even believe it. Yeah, I mean, we're going to wind up as a socialist country because of the fucking capitalists.

[Catherine Rippell]

Well, again, Elon Musk's net worth is largely depleted, dependent on the federal government as well as his other companies. Like there's sort of a, a legal Ponzi scheme going on here where he has what's called a lot of related party transactions. So SpaceX is funded by federal government, now, public markets as well. Meanwhile, it's giving some sweetheart deal, or what appear to be sweetheart deals, but legal as far as I know, to other Elon Musk controlled companies. Just like. Such as, such as nobody wants to buy cybertrucks anymore, right? Because their doors and wheels keep falling off. Guess who does want to be a, you know, proud Cybertruck owner? SpaceX. So SpaceX bought, I forget what it was, but like 20 or 25% of all Cybertrucks that were sold in the last quarter of last year. SpaceX also giving out contracts to the boring company, which Elon Musk also owns, Twitter X which Donald, or not, I was going to say Donald Trump. Elon Musk promised he would, whatever it was like quadruple the revenues or quintuple the revenues. I forget what his projection was when he first bought it, of course, revenues instead fell because he mismanaged the company and made it a place where lots of neo Nazis gather and lost a lot of advertisers in the process. That is now owned by SpaceX. So when you are being forced to buy SpaceX because it is part of the index fund you hold in your 401k, you are bailing out Twitter. That is what is happening here.

[JVL]

Told you we were going dark.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah. So basically Elon Musk has done this clever thing where he's able to inflate the value of SpaceX by which he makes himself a trillionaire, but also can bail out some of his other failures, essentially, whether it's Twitter or Cybertrucks or some of these other assorted. The boring company, which has not exactly realized the full potential, at the very least that Elon Musk declared that it would. So it's very, very clever. And I kind of wonder like, why doesn't everyone else do this? Why, why doesn't everybody else find a way when they're ipoing to capture a lot of the dumb money in the retail investment market or strong arm the index funds or get a bunch of federal contracts from the US government, particularly when they have a friendly administration in office. Why don't they all do this? And I think the, the answer is some degree of like Elon Musk is a really, really good marketer and he is able to sustain that kind of like Ponzi scheme type situation, again, legal, through hyping himself. And he has a lot of groupies online. You call it financial engineering. And in a way it is clever enough, I guess, to deserve that name, but a lot of it is just like good old fashioned carnival barking, I think, and doing all these side deals for his other, you know, screwed up companies. So. But I don't know, it's. It's clever. Like, you have to admire it to some extent that he was able to finagle this, at least for the time being.

[JVL]

Have you ever read A Tale of Two Cities?

[Catherine Rippell]

A long time ago. Like in sixth grade. Why?

[JVL]

No, Just, you know, think about the French Revolution, that's all. So while we're here, I think I would like to talk a little bit about Elon's activities over the last week. He's been on Twitter a lot while waiting to become a trillionaire, and you'll never guess what he has spent the last like 96 hours tweeting about. Catherine, I mean, go ahead and guess. This is like Family Feud style.

[Catherine Rippell]

The. The white South African refugees. Is that one of them close?

[JVL]

No, it's not. You're very close. A lot of tweets about the ways in which white people are systematically discriminated against everywhere.

[Catherine Rippell]

Oh, okay. So not just in South Africa. Got it.

[JVL]

So richest man in human history, white guy, white people, very put upon. But also a lot about Europe. And so he. Do we have the. The tweet where he was doing ducks, Lux or whatever, whatever that guy responding to him. So here. Ducksville. Right. So here's a tweet. If I ever have my head cut off. This is by. Not by Elon, this is by Ducks. Vol. You know, just a great guy, I'm sure. If I ever have my head cut off by an African, please politicize my murder. Please use it to push a far right agenda. Please start a reconquista. To which Elon Musk replies, fire, fire. Same. You may be asking yourself, what is a reconquista? Well, it turns out Duxval has been tweeting a lot about that and he has some other thoughts about things that are happening. And we have those. Belfast, where he's talking about there was a. An attempted murder by what seems to be allegedly an African immigrant and a lot of rioting by right wing nationalist types targeting immigrant communities. And Duck says Belfast is proof that a reconquista is possible. Humans didn't Forget how to drive invaders out. They just need something to wake them up. Did we have some more, do we have any more tweets in there? Sudanese people are a cancer. Wherever they go, they spike the crime rate and bring down GDP per capita. Every Western country should expel them. We don't have to tolerate this, etc. Etc. Etc. And we then have an interesting retweet by Elon Musk of a person who writes ironically, quote, you can't solve problems with violence opens history book. Well, well, well. Elon Musk reposted this. I don't know how to read this as anything but an incitement towards ethnic cleansing because that's the thing again, the backdrop is that that is what is happening. So you have right wing gangs sort of carrying out pogroms right now in Europe. And Elon Musk is saying that it should happen and suggesting that violence is an answer and taking people on. And that's just like the other thing he's doing while becoming a trillionaire. And that's, you know, we're all supposed to even forget about the USAID stuff, which again, studies suggest have already resulted in the deaths of at least tens of thousands of poor brown people. I don't know, Catherine, tell me why it's all going to be okay. Because I look at this and I just think to myself, I mean,

[Catherine Rippell]

I think that's a reasonable reaction. One of my most deeply held beliefs is that having access to great fortune insulates you from the consequences of severe mental illness, but also severe moral bankruptcy. And I think that's kind of what you're seeing here, right, that a person who espoused these views would normally be banned from polite society, would not be able to get gainful employment, let alone, you know, generous loan terms and access to basic functions of the economy and society. Unless that person happened to be a trillionaire, the richest person in the world, then everybody looks the other way. Financial institutions look the other way. Other kinds of counterparties and transactions look the other way because they kind of can't afford not to. And you know, that's one of the suspicions for why, for example, NASDAQ decided to fast track the addition of SpaceX into its index funds. I don't know that that's really what happened here. But you know, they, they probably still want access to Elon Musk's various businesses, which are again, all subsidizing each other to his great wealth. But other people want a piece of that pie as well. So we have this guy who is at the Very least playing footsie with white nationalists. I don't know what's in his heart, but he's certainly eager to amplify these people. Maybe it's just trolling.

[JVL]

His heart goes out to people.

[Catherine Rippell]

His heart goes out. Yes. Particularly when he's doing something that looks like a knob.

[JVL]

So we know actually what's in his heart. It goes out to people.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yes. So, yeah, I, I, I don't know what's going on here with, in, in his heart or in his head, but he's going to.

[JVL]

Jack Welch was doing this. Like, if Jack Welch was calling in to Rush Limbaugh's show and talking about the need to have pogroms against African migrants and stuff, like, would the board of GE been like, no, no, it's cool, it's cool, bro. He's just trolling. I don't think so. I think they would have thought this is a huge corporate risk. This is crazy.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah. And it is a huge corporate risk. It is a. Just as we saw with Twitter, X whatever you want to call it.

[JVL]

Right.

[Catherine Rippell]

He lost a lot of advertisers precisely because of this, let's call it eccentric behavior.

[JVL]

His eccentricities.

[Catherine Rippell]

His eccentricities. His, you know, racism, curious eccentricity, controversial opinions. Exactly.

[JVL]

This is, this is what like the mainstream media is like. Oh, he's controversial.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah. Although you did see some of those same advertisers coming running back after Trump won reelection because they, again, they can't afford to lose the relationships with a Donald Trump or with an Elon Musk because there are so many other transactions that are also potentially on the table besides just the one that is problematic. You know, the advertising along neo Nazi tweet. Yeah. So, yeah.

[JVL]

So can we move on to inflation data? Because I'm gonna go dark today. Sure. So we got some inflation numbers this week, Catherine, would you like to tell the people about them? They were good, right?

[Catherine Rippell]

They're bad. They bad. Yeah. Yeah. Let me, let me pull up the exact number so I don't goof it. But basically the, both the consumer price numbers and the producer price numbers, which is what prices are for, basically, like wholesale prices, more or less. Those were at their highest levels in something like three years. Oh, here we go. So consumer price index rose at 4.2% year over year.

[JVL]

Sounds bad.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yep. Producer price index for final demand up 6.5% over the past year. In both cases, the largest year over year increase in several years. Largely driven, of course, by the energy shock. But even if you strip out what's happening with food and energy, which is generally what the Fed does because they're volatile. The numbers were still way above the, the Fed's target rates. And the other piece of all of this is that nominal wage growth has been slowing. So in real terms, after inflation, people are earning less today than they were a year ago. Even though they are working more hours per week, they are taking home, you know, thinner paychecks in the sense of what, what they could actually purchase with those paychecks.

[JVL]

Donald Trump.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah, I know. Well, look, egg prices are down, so.

[JVL]

Egg prices are down. So the reason I was confused and I thought that these inflation numbers were good was because Donald Trump was asked about them.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah.

[JVL]

And this is, this is what he said, Mr. President, about the latest inflation number which came out this morning. Could that be it?

[Catherine Rippell]

No, I love it.

[JVL]

The numbers were great. You know what I really love? I love the inflation. You know why? Because as soon as this war is over, you know, I can say it now, something you didn't know. Do you know, we've been taking out millions of dollars. We don't need to listen to the rest of the garbage. So he loves inflation, Catherine.

[Catherine Rippell]

He does. Sometimes

[JVL]

we live in a world in which nothing matters.

[Catherine Rippell]

Well, this should matter for the election. Sometimes it feels like Donald Trump is deliberately providing material to the Democrats for their attack ads. Right. Like you can see the lights coming up upon a grocery store aisle and the price tags flipping higher and higher and higher for, you know, common goods that people buy, grow, you know, for produce and everything else. And then you hear Donald Trump in his voice, you know, his, his, his voiceover saying, I love the inflation. And like, that's the ad. That's all you need. That's all you need. But this is not the only time, of course, that he has said something that sounds like it was made in a lab for Democrats to run on. He also said that he wasn't thinking about Americans financial stress when it came to the war with Iran. And then when he was asked about it again, he was like, yeah, I totally meant that. I. Yeah, why are you even asking? I said perfect things. So there have been a few times when he has sounded, at best, tone deaf, at worst, pretty dismissive of the economic pain he is wreaking across the country through his wars, through his tariffs, through his everything else, you know, his meddling with the Fed, which we haven't even gotten to, and through mass deportations of the agricultural workforce. Potentially all of those things quite bad for Americans, including the voters who voted for him because he promised lower Prices.

[JVL]

Yeah, well, I, I suppose I should wait and see. We do have an election coming up in five months. That said, I'm not optimistic. I mean I, I am not optimistic that the electoral outcomes will be proportional to the scale of economic damage. Right? I mean like Kamala Harris got crushed. I mean she didn't really get crushed crushed, but you know, she was running as a semi incumbent and the economy was not great, not terrible. And like Donald Trump runs out to a plurality victory and Republicans control both houses of Congress. I don't think we're going to see anything like that scale. And the economy would just objectively much, much, much, much worse.

[Catherine Rippell]

Well, I think maybe I'm wrong. It depends what you mean by that scale. Are we talking about the popular vote? Are we talking about the post gerrymandered outcomes from that popular vote? Because I think those are two different questions, right? Like how, how mad are our voters and how do they vote and then how do those votes actually get translated into elected offices and representation? And those are two separate issues. And if you look at the generic ballot right now, Americans do seem to really hate where, where the overall economy is, where the, the direction of the United States writ large. And Republicans, they also hate Democrats, but they also seem to hate Democrats primarily because they think Democrats are not doing enough to hold Donald Trump accountable. So, you know, I'm relatively optimistic that we will see some sort of electoral rebuke in the popular vote. What that translates to in terms of who holds the Senate, I think is a totally different question.

[JVL]

I think you're right about that. And I think that the national popular vote will likely be more than 6d, possibly a lot more than plus 60. But just going by the reality around us, it should be like +19D. You know, like it just like things are so bad and they're bad for very specific reasons having to do with choices that Trump. Anyway, whatever, we don't need to keep it on.

[Catherine Rippell]

But look at SpaceX, man.

[JVL]

Like look at SpaceX.

[Catherine Rippell]

How can you not be optimistic?

[JVL]

So quick Fed talk. Because the European Central bank had their meeting and they raised rates 25 basis points. What does that mean for poor Kevin Warsh?

[Catherine Rippell]

Poor Kevin Warshevo? He, he's cooked up. He's cooked. Look, he got the job because he promised lower interest rates to Donald Trump. Everybody knows it. Donald Trump has been fairly explicit that that was his. I don't want to say. Yeah, it was a litmus.

[JVL]

Didn't he say it?

[Catherine Rippell]

Yeah, yeah, he said it was a litmus test. I was going to say his sole criteria for the job. It's not. Probably not his sole criteria, but it was necessary criteria, if not sufficient.

[JVL]

Also that the guy be white. That was a very, very important criteria for the job. And handsome white guy, handsome.

[Catherine Rippell]

And, yeah, again, a little bit of a tangent, but it was reported that Donald Trump did not reappoint Janet Yellen in his first term, in part because she was short, which as a short person, I take some offense to, but mostly because Janet Yellen was a very talented Fed chair who would have given the pretty dovish outcomes that Donald Trump wanted, but that didn't matter because she was a short woman. In any event. Yeah. Kevin Warshot got this job because he promised lower interest rates. He is not going to be able to deliver lower interest rates. The markets definitely do not think that he will. In fact, when I looked at the numbers earlier today, the market is basically betting on the fact that the next decision from the Fed will be a rate hike, just as we saw.

[JVL]

I thought they would try to. Wait. Wait.

[Catherine Rippell]

Oh, sorry, sorry.

[JVL]

The next try to do.

[Catherine Rippell]

Sorry, I missed. I was imprecise. I mean, the next time they make a change, it would be a hike. Not that it will come at their meeting, which I think is in a few days. Next week. Yeah, no, sorry. Then the expectation is that the Fed will hold for a little while, and then once it makes a change, it will not be a cut, it will be a hike, which was not what the expectation was just a few months ago, frankly. So now hikes are on the table probably by the end of this year. Maybe some more coming next year. These are things that Donald Trump clearly does not want. I don't know how well he's going to react to it. We saw how he reacted to Jay Powell pausing rate cuts he was very unhappy about that resulted in a criminal investigation and smear campaign and lots of other unpleasant things. So we'll see how.

[JVL]

Ken, I'm looking forward to the rate hikes.

[Catherine Rippell]

Are you. Do you have a mortgage?

[JVL]

I do have a mortgage. It's locked in.

[Catherine Rippell]

Oh, yeah. There you go.

[JVL]

So, all right, last thing we're gonna do, a little bit on Marco Rubio in the ufc, because you had thoughts on it, and I have some story time. So let's roll the Rubio and Ultimate Fighting Championships. And America, everything we've done since then

[Marco Rubio]

as a nation, time and again, how can. How can you achieve some of the things, you know, we're going to put a man on the moon. When President Kennedy announced that we were going to put a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth. No one thought that was possible and we did it. We are a nation founded on doing what no one else dared to do and no one else aspired to do. And at some level, that's what this whole company, what UFC has been. You see, mixed martial arts is not new. It's been around now for about 30 years, I would say maybe 35. But there were no rules, there was no structure. I remember the early fights, I used to watch them back in the day and it was, you could get like a 170 pound Brazilian Jiu Jitsu guy fighting a 250 pound heavyweight who was a striker. Like how did know, how do you put this? The rules weren't clarified and Dana and the people around him had a vision and that is to create a structure around this company.

[JVL]

So there are two parts of this. There's the part about America and then there's the specific part about Dana White and ufc.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yes.

[JVL]

Catherine, why don't you go first?

[Catherine Rippell]

I think it is amusing that the analogy that our Secretary of State, State slash, whatever his other jobs are right now is making is that going to the moon is as impressive and ambitious as starting a mixed martial arts company. Because that's the American dream, right? It's putting two guys in a cage.

[JVL]

Look, if you put two guys on a rocket, you can put two guys in a cage. Catherine.

[Catherine Rippell]

Maybe we can combine those two ambitions and send some astronauts to the moon and have them do an MMA zero gravity ufc. Exactly. I think we found our new next, you know, multi trillion dollar business right there. So anyway, I just, I, I thought it was amusing. I don't know exactly that this is econ talk, but except for the fact that is a celebration of a particular brand of American entrepreneurship.

[JVL]

So as somebody who enjoys the sweet science myself, which is boxing, not mma, but I'm, you know, I, I know, I know a little bit about M and A mma. I've been watching UFC for a very. And the story Marco is telling is, is a little bit right, but is mostly wrong. Oh, when the Ultimate Fighting Championships began, they really were like watching a gorilla versus a shark versus a lion. And so you would have a sumo wrestler versus a Muay Thai striker and then a Greco Roman Wrestler vs. A Brazilian Jiu jitsu guy. So the UFC was originally the brainchild of the Gracie family. The Gracie family being a legendary group of practitioners of Brazilian jitsu. So a bunch of Brazilians, the, the scion of the Gracie family hoist. Gracie actually won the first two UFCs, I think. And it was amazing because I remember I watched these things with my brother and sister and. And he's this like little 150 pound guy, and he would just beat these enormous monsters and you couldn't believe it. And it was all through technique. It was super cool. So that is a true story about the ufc. That is how UFC began. And over time, it did change. Why did it change? Not because Dana White had a vision, in fact, when UFC changed and began regularizing and developing weight classes and rules. Because originally, like, it was anything goes. And if you gouged somebody's eyes out, there were a. There was a fine for that, but it wasn't like illegal, you know, like eye gouges and headbutts and that stuff. That stuff on my. You could, you could. It's like a 500 penalty for that or something. That was it. So we wound up being regularized because John McCain and the federal government threatened to regulate it. And because the federal government took aim at ufc, the company, which at that time, Dana White had all to do with it, was owned by a totally different ownership structure. They, in an attempt to avoid federal regulation, decided to professionalize and move away from Tiger versus Shark versus Gorilla. And so that. This is actually a story for UFC about the federal government threatening to get involved, the company changing to avoid regulation, and then later prospering because they changed. So again, it's a very. It's actually a very Elizabeth Warren type story.

[Catherine Rippell]

Very paternalistic government. You know, you didn't build that as. As Obama might say.

[JVL]

Again, it's the threat of regulation which caught. You know, you don't even have to do the regulation, but a government which can credibly threaten to regulate can force private industry to become more responsible. And without the credible threat of regulation, you wind up with irresponsible corporate governance. But on the Dana White specifically thing here, I have all. I've long been fascinated with Dana White because he does have a very particular genius. And when he came in. So his ownership group is the first, third ownership group of UFC, and they come in and I think it's 2001. I could be wrong. Please don't. If it's 2002, don't at me, okay? I'm doing this from memory. And he's part of an ownership group. He's made the CEO, although he's not the majority bankroller. And they buy UFC basically one step ahead of bankruptcy. I think they paid $2 million for it. And Dana White did something very Very, very smart. Are you ready for this?

[Catherine Rippell]

Yes.

[JVL]

He bought the back catalog rights to video, which had passed on to Lionsgate. I think the previous ownership group, in an attempt to, like, raise cash, had sold off home video rights. And this is, again, I think it's 2001. And Dana White says, you know what, if we package our stuff really well, we can get it to Blockbuster, and people will want to rent this stuff. And that becomes the backbone of the UFC as a business. And so the home video rental market, which he realizes that's, like, the first thing he does as CEO that goes and stabilizes the company. So Dana White recognized the value of intellectual property and the supremacy of home video at a very key moment in. In, like, the consumer electronics industry. And that's not quite putting a man on the moon. You know, like, it's. It's great. This is how businesses are built, you know, but it isn't. It isn't coming up with the idea for ufc. It isn't professionalizing ufc. It's simply. Look, it's much more. It's much closer, actually, to, like, venture capital or. Or private equity. You know, a guy who saw a distressed asset and realized that there was a piece of that asset that wasn't being properly monetized, that's the end of story time. So I love it.

[Catherine Rippell]

I did not know any of this.

[JVL]

Can't even get that right. Okay, Catherine, you're very tolerant to put up with me.

[Catherine Rippell]

Hey, man, I'm not going to watch MMA myself, in case you can't tell. I'm very squeamish. But I love hearing about the economic history. I'm definitely here for that.

[JVL]

It's the most important part of it, honestly. All right, friends, hit, like, hit subscribe, go buy your SpaceX, because it's a great company with a total addressable market of $28 trillion. And so there. We're going to get data centers in space. We're going to go to Mars. We're going to have. Soon we'll have cities on Mars and people running around in space.

[Catherine Rippell]

That's where all the cybertrucks will end up.

[JVL]

Don't look too closely at the prospectus, which says that something like 90% of the company's income is supposed to come from AI, not space stuff. That's the other. Funny, we didn't even talk about that. Yeah, it's actually not even a space company. It's an AI company.

[Catherine Rippell]

Yes. It's an AI company. Slash bailing out Twitter company. Slash bailing out cybertrucks. From Tesla company Slasher Bailing out Boring Company company. It's, it's all about just shoveling money around and then potentially leaving index fund holders holding the bag.

[JVL]

Yay, capitalism. If you're interested in Zoran Muhamdani, give him a call. And he, he has some pamphlets about democratic socialism and, and maybe you'll be interested. All right, guys, thanks for joining us. Hit like hit. Subscribe. Follow us, Leave a comment Tell us how radicalized you've been by this week in America's economic history. And we'll be back next week. Catherine, see you later, friend. Everybody else, good luck, America.