Super Bowl Sunday & Tucker Carlson & Vladimir Putin, Ep. #215

In this gripping episode of Capitalist Investor, join Derek, Tony, and Luke as they delve into the complex world of electric vehicles (EVs), government intervention, and financial forecasts. Today's episode takes you on a thought-provoking journey analyzing the impact of government incentives on automotive giants like Ford and Toyota, discussing the potential hindrances to EV innovation, and debating the readiness of the market for widespread EV adoption. The trio doesn't shy away from the big questions as they examine the Federal Reserve's balancing act with the banking sector, the risky arbitrage game banks are playing, and the looming concerns over a centralized banking system. The discussion takes an intriguing turn with predictions on the big game, a humorous debate on Taylor Swift prop bets, and a candid conversation on the significance of CEOs engaging in high-intensity activities for personal and business growth. Don't miss their take on the upcoming interview between Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin, and potential repercussions on media transparency and freedom.

Electric Vehicle Market Disruption and Government Incentives: A Double-Edged Sword?
The Capitalist Investor podcast team, Derek, Tony, and Luke, dove deep into the heated discussions on government incentives for electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers like Ford and Toyota. With Ford receiving substantial incentives, leading to certain inefficiencies and possibly stifling innovation within the EV segment, the hosts emphasized the importance of sustainable development versus the urge to rush EV deployment. Notably, Ford's electric truck, the Lightning, was used as a case in point for potential pitfalls. They scrutinized the government’s role in potentially hindering EV innovation, suggesting that such actions could disincentivize profitability and adversely affect future investments in research and development.

The Economic Consequences of Federal Reserve Policies and Banking Behavior
What is the current arbitrage game played by banks—borrowing at lower rates and investing in higher-yield treasuries—a strategy frustrating the Fed itself. The duo cast a critical eye on the challenges faced due to higher interest rates, especially the refinancing of commercial real estate, with looming foreclosures that could reshape the banking landscape and increase government control over finance.

The Evolving Role of Media and its Influence on Public Perception
Luke and Tony set the spotlight on the highly anticipated interview between journalist Tucker Carlson and Russian President Vladimir Putin, illustrating the potential for significant media influence. They expressed concerns over public misinformation and stressed the importance of informed questioning, with suggestions on possible queries regarding US political outcomes and foreign policy. The conversation underscored the responsibilities and power held by media figures in shaping narratives and the public’s understanding of global events.

San Francisco vs. Kansas City: Super Bowl Predictions and Pop Culture Bets
The atmosphere lightened as Derek, Tony, and Luke discussed predictions for the upcoming Super Bowl, with differing opinions on the likely victor based on team strategies and player experience. Amidst the sports talk, they injected a dose of humor with prop bets related to pop icon Taylor Swift and her potential Super Bowl appearance, adding a layer of celebrity culture to the competitive sports discussion.

CEO Risk-Taking and the Critique of High-Stakes Leadership
Concluding the episode on a thought-provoking note, the Capitalist Investor hosts examined the mentality behind risk-taking CEOs like Zuckerberg and Musk. They debated the criticism these leaders face for their daring ventures and high-intensity lifestyles. Luke notably defended the correlation betw

Transcript

0:00

Hello and welcome to this week's episode of the Capitalist Investor. As always, you have me, diamond hands D, and we got the dream team back again. We got Tony the tiger, cool hand Luke. What's going on, guys? It's like an all star game every freaking week around. It pumps me. I know you just get juiced on that. All star team is here again. It's like, man, all pro, all bowl. Whatever you want to call us. Oh, God, here we go. Non sports guy trying to talk sports. I love it. Is there not an all bowl like thing kind of type stuff like an all bowl? I don't know, like the All Pro, the Rose bowl and all those crap. That's a game, not a player. But yeah. Good. All right. We'll work on that, Lou. Yeah, we'll give you some Cliff notes. Yeah, try. But we got the all star. I'm too busy focusing on what's going on in this crazy world. That's right. We got a good show. I like this is going to be a good one. So we're going to kick things off with Tucker Carlson interviewing Vladimir Putin. That set off a lot of reaction already and we only got a few snippets. So we'll talk about it and what we think they're going to talk about. Yeah. Our hot takes on what questions that Tucker is going to roll out. So Luke and I were actually chatting about this last night, so that could be fun. And then we got the, is there another banking crisis ahead? This is an extremely important point for 2024, I think. So we'll talk about that. We'll talk a little evs, we'll talk about Toyota and kind of what they're doing versus maybe Ford and Chevy. We'll talk a little Zuckerberg, see what that guy's up to. And Super bowl predictions obviously need to get to those because that's going to be a big game and it's going to do record numbers. So we'll talk about that briefly. All right, so, guys, let's kick it off. Tucker Carlson, I saw his clip. Did you guys see the clip of what setting up what he was doing? I have not four minutes and 30. Seconds or so of him talking about why he's out there, how the government tried to cancel him before and how they tried this time probably, but they still ended up somehow getting out there to Moscow and why they're doing it because of freedom of speech. How did that start? Like, you just call up Putin, be like, hey, man, I want to interview you. And he's like, yeah, sure. Come on over. Probably. I don't know how does that probably. Is exactly what happened. How many layers of people did he have to get to? You got to remember, Tucker's connected, man. Everyone around the world likes Tucker. I mean, when you're walking around with Trump at UFC fights and stuff, they come out together. You might think he might be the president. After the next president entrance, Putin wants to tell his. And that's why I think he was very. He probably hugged Tucker. He's probably hugging Tucker. He's like, how, you know, come be my best friend because he's ready to preach to the western world and western societies about what his perspective is of what's really going on. So he's going to use Tucker. I don't want to say maybe use, but he's going to use his platform to preach what he. So, you know, as we were talking, obviously, as of today, Wednesday, I know we are on Thursday, none of the topics have been really dropped or anything. So I asked these guys to Derek and Luke to say, what do you think your hot take is? What would you love for Tucker to ask Vladimir? Well, so in that little setup, he basically says that Americans, we have not heard from Vladimir Putin at know. He's just portrayed as know, very evil figure and we have no idea what he's thinking, why he's doing what he's doing. Relations with the United States, we have literally no idea. I don't like to get too far off into all these narratives, one side versus the other, but that is intentional. It feels intentional. It feels like much of what's going on in the media is kind of error by omission or lying by omission. Pretty much by not giving us the full story. That seems to be a common theme of things that have gone on in the last three to five mean, you. Bring up a great man. Like, you have not heard really a peep from Vladimir Putin, but you throw Zelensky on the COVID of, like, think about how it's starting to be portrayed in the United States and everywhere else. I think it's because of what happened that blew my mind when that happened. When he's on the COVID of Vogue, I'm like, isn't he supposed to be like, commander in chief of a freaking war with Russia and he's on the COVID of Vogue? Get out of that. That's when I knew this was all Bs. Like something else is happening. And Tucker does say that in the setup know basically the other guy on the other side of the fight is, you know? Yeah. It's like WWE level trying to push him. Know? And that's exactly what, you know, talk shows, freaking David Letterman, interviewing him in the Ukraine in some train station. It's like, how does that stuff even happen? That's what Tucker said in his setup video. It's like he has questions, too. So it's a chance for us to learn. And that's really one of my main gripes on everything that's going on is not being informed. Right. And then you got to go to other sources to try to find out information, and then there's misinformation there. So everyone's just trying to find the truth. It shouldn't be this hard. Yeah. So, Luke, what do you think that the best question he could ask, the. Bomb that I think that he might ask and potentially most likely will ask is who do you want the president to be for 2024? Like, who is the outcome that you, as Russia, would like to see? What happens if Donald Trump becomes president? What happens if Joe Biden stays president? I like that. Maybe it's a two part question because you and I talked about that. Do you want President Trump more of, it's more like, hey, what do you think happens if Trump wins? Answer that question then. What do you think happens if. I mean, we talked, Tony, like, one of the things, kind of the perspective that we have as Americans is one is kind of allowing it to happen per se, kind of more easy and perceived to be weak, obviously, and funneling billions of dollars to Ukraine on the other side right now. And then one says that this wouldn't be happening underneath him. Right. So it's just kind of interesting to see what his perspective would be and see if that actually would happen. Yeah. What do you think? I would love that question. I would love the question of if Trump wins, what do you think happens? And I bet you in Trump's campaign trail, I assume he's going to be the candidate. He is going to just say, like, if I'm president, I'm going to make three phone calls and this war and that war will be over. If that does not come out of his mouth during his campaign trail, I'd be surprised. It's going to come out of his mouth. Yeah. So I think you're going to hear, I mean, I forget who it is because somebody else was being interviewed and it was a know, I think he was like some type of higher up official in Europe somewhere. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name, but he goes, what needs to happen? And he goes, Trump needs to come back during this interview and this high ranking official is just like, he may be brash, he might be rough around the edges, but he struck fear in a lot of people to chill out. He was the bully, and there were no other bullies. Everyone just knew like, hey, he's not going to really mess around, and he's going to have his sights if you mess up. One of the other things I think. Is that good or bad, though? Anything's better than what's going on right now. But if you're the biggest power, do you want to show weakness or do you want to continue to show strength? I think that also goes with the question that I think will be asked to Putin as know right now in know, western societies perceive you to be this evil figure, horrible person. What do you have to tell those know, coming from America that think they know they're kind of been the number one nation in the world, and they perceive you to be infringing on that and try and take over the world? What would you tell the western civilization people? Yeah, dude, I'm kind of laughing right now or smiling because I can just hear what you just said in 20 seconds. What Tucker would like. He would say for two minutes. Yes. And his eyebrows would go down and. He'D setting up the devil and he. Would have that face on. He would have that face on himself. Just stare down and leave his mouth open. I love Tucker's faces. It's like 70% of communication. Do you know that you're hated in the United States? 70% of communication is nonverbal. And he is the perfect example of nonverbal communication. Obviously, I'm not a Vladimir Putin fanboy or anything, but I'm starting to think of the way he's going to set up these questions, and they're just going to be, it's going to be gold. I wonder how long the interview will be. 2 hours, hour and a half hour. Yeah, it's got to be at least an hour. At least an hour. All right, well, we'll find out in a little bit because it sounds like it's going down. And I think Twitter and maybe, possibly the Internet will break when that thing drops. I think you can view it on tuckercarlson.com and websites crashing. Well, he mentioned in the video that the government might try to censor it for sure. Sure. Twitter. I don't know if they will be able to or not. But basically, he alluded that the government most likely will try to censor that video some way somehow. Yeah. And I think I couldn't find it. I was scrolling last night. But the question that I would like to know is, what contact has Russia had with the White House? What is the White House trying to do to end conflict? That's what I want. To the opposite. It seems like America is pushing this war to make money. That's what it seems like on the outside. I know that's a simplified explanation, but that's when you dig down into know the conflict is profitable. So that's what I want to know. What is America trying to do to end this conflict? Because people don't want war in general. Right. No one wants it. So what are we trying to do to end this? That's what I would like to know. All right. I don't know, Derek. I'll pose the question. I don't want to answer this today, but I'll pose the question. Do humans like conflict or do we not like conflict? I think that's an important question. I would say. I think it's possibility that humans. We like conflict. I don't think so. We are excited, the people at the top, that like the conflict. I think the masses want no conflict whatsoever. I agree with that. I think that's a question we should answer at some point down the road. Yeah, I like it. Deeper in it as a thinker. All right. So are we on the verge of the second financial crisis in two years? 2.0 to a financial crisis of 2024. The reason we bring this up, we have the New York community Bank, is their stock is down 60% so far this year. 40% of their assets aren't not held by the FDIC. I don't know how that's possible. They had a$260,000,000 quarterly loss. Doesn't sound good for them. No. They acquired signature bank. Correct. Is that what they did? Okay, so they required signature. Were they a bunch of bad assets, too? Silicon Valley Bank's signature? Yeah. The two that went under back in March. That's when everyone got scared. Sounds like those assets. And look what's happening one year down the know here in March almost of this year. Same thing's happening with other banks. So get this. As I was kind of researching this topic, something came up and they said that we have possibly the first, maybe not the last, bank crisis of the year. And in March of this year, in a month, the Fed set up something called the bank term funding program. And it was set up for the Fed to have liquidity for banks that need money so they don't go out of business. That's how I'm going to tell it. Like a layman. That's what it is. The Fed set up their version of FDIC, but it was actual money. Like, hey, you need a billion. Here you go. It's not like, hey, we're insuring you. No, here's a check. Don't close your doors. Tomorrow is what it sounds like. So get this. It was designed for emergency situations. As soon as, basically, Silicon Valley bank went down. So they're like, okay, let's set up this fund so people can borrow against it or the banks can. In December of 2023, there was$120,000,000,000 on the Fed's balance sheet for this program. Less than two months later, that is up to 160,000,000,000. It went up 30% in two months. So who's tapping into that now? Here's the thing that this sounds like, oh, my God, they're going to take that away and let these banks fail. And maybe, maybe not. I think they'll still interject and save the smaller banks. And Luke, to your point, not let capitalism persist and happen. But get this, these banks. So I don't even know of this $160,000,000,000. I don't know how much are levered assets by bad banks or stressed banks, because what these banks are doing is playing this arbitrage game with them because the bank term funding program lends out money at 4.9%, and guess what? Treasuries are paying 5.4. These banks are taking the money and investing it in treasuries. And the Fed's getting pissed off. Imagine that. They're arbitraging the government's money. Yes, our money. Our money, our tax money is being arbitraged by smarter people in the banks than what, the Fed. How do you not stop that? Don't you have a loan application that you have to get approved for? Can you don't allow that to happen? You don't allow borrowing against future tax revenue from us. I cannot believe they're playing arbitrage game against. That blew my mind. And should everyone else listening? Well, I think what's also happening on the bank side is this commercial real estate. I guess it kind of refinances every ten years or so. So all that's starting to come up with higher interest rates, and these commercial properties basically can't pay the extra interest and still be profitable. So all these banks are going to start to have huge decisions when it comes to these loans. And are you going to foreclose and basically guarantee yourself losing money or are they going to renegotiate? So there's going to be a huge wave of that. And I don't know how all these banks are going to survive that. It seems like a really big problem. How's our government survive when debt is coming due, paying principal, 2%, 3%, and they have to refinance at five? Here's what's happening. We are centralizing every banking system. We are taking private banks and making them government controlled banks by doing this. So once you do that, you government systematize the banks, then that then allows you to government systematize the whole monetary system in general, to control all of the assets and control all of the money. This also goes along with the future of cbdcs, things like that. If you control the banks, you can implement new currencies, control systems, control people. So this is where you start taking precedence. You take one step, unlimited FDIC insurance. Then you basically have control over everything. And then it allows you to then push other things that come down the road. It's like a stepping stone to bigger issues that come down the road. This is again the problem why that, yes, banking runs are scary. People can lose money. That's why you have to do research on where your banking assets are held. But it's also the reason why we don't have these government controls is to prevent them from ever controlling us. And we are past the point of no return, I think, between what is capable of coming from the government. Well, I mean, what do you have? You'll have JP Morgan, you'll have chase, you'll have bank of America, you'll have a couple other big banks. You'll have like the big four or five. I'm worried. I mean, this could be the end of regional banks. That's the smaller regional banks. And I know a lot of people like small regional banks. They don't want to deal with some of the bigger banks. They don't want to go into the bank of America office or chase office. They want to go to PNC or key just because it's smaller and they feel like they're not a number. Think that's, I don't know how they centralize it unless they just get in the pockets of the big. If the Regionals go away, then you have the big five and. Yeah. Can you manipulate five rather than 5000 because there's how many smaller banks, right, or regional banks? Well, how many people trust the US dollar even anymore? It's like people are just having not as much trust in the whole system. Right. And it's interesting. Human behavior can cause things to happen even though there was no original issue to be concerned about. So if you convince enough people to be concerned about something, then everyone goes and withdraws all their assets to try to have cash underneath their couch, or if they go invest it on bitcoin, or they invest on physical gold to hold have. If you convince enough people to do that, the whole system starts to unwind itself, even though maybe there was no issue in the first place to be concerned about. I think people are on edge nowadays. Cleanest dirty shirt, man. Yeah. The dollar is the cleanest, dirtiest shirt in the laundry, in the hamper. So it will be that way until maybe we get to $50 trillion in debt. And now everyone's just like, damn, you got a lot of debt over there. How are you doing? Right. We're just giving money to everybody. Who else is racking up debt? I know China's national debt isn't near. I mean, it's a fraction of what we have. It's crazy. But anyway. All right, well, we'll see what happens with this. I hope it's an isolated situation. Well, it seems like the government's going to be there to backstop everything. And we saw that back March, and it's going to be the same story this time. Something starts to ball, starts to drop, they're going to be there to back it all up. That funding program supposed to sunset in March, and it won't. That's all. They'll just kick that can. We are past the point of no return when it comes to bailouts. We will bail out everything until we can't bail out things anymore. No one to tell you no. Tell them no. Just turn on the print machine anyway. All right, my favorite topic, evs. Oh, yeah. All right, producer. So outside of. What was that, Tony? It's like the gunslinger. Pew. Pew. Pew. Love it. All right, so outside of Tesla, because they're the EV company, right. Of evs. But you had yesterday, Toyota came out with their earnings and they were a stock jump 7%. And what they kind of came out and said is that one thing that they are going to be doing is they have a total investment of $10 billion into their evs and they're going to pump another 1.3 billion into the program. When you got a company like Ford saying, I'm out. So, like in a Texas hold them kind of thing, you got one dude pushing all in and you got one dude just getting raked and knocked out of the game. It's crazy folding. From my standpoint, Ford, this is okay, I'll go full on capitalism here. Ford, I'm pretty sure, got a lot of government, I think they got a lot of government incentives. They got, I think, loan grants on their loans. They didn't have to pay interest and things like. Like there was a lot of government incentives for Ford to invest money into evs. Now they're losing billions of dollars by manufacturing evs and no one wants to buy evs. Toyota, on the other hand, from my understanding, did not get as much from the US government because they're not a us company, did not get as much government incentives. So they're able to allocate cash flow, not interrupting their free market cash flow and balance sheets to then allocate enough money to get enough money into evs to design them when the market's capable of doing that. So 1.4 billion to Toyota is nothing but multibillions dollars in Ford incentives to then incentivize them to speed up things. That's the key. I think Toyota's been messing around with EV in hybrids and stuff for years, way before most any other company was doing it. And so it's slow growth and it's sustainable growth where Ford's just like, yeah, let's roll out these evs. How's the R and D going? I don't know. It's good enough. Let's get them out there, right? And then you get the Ford lightning net. What doesn't that thing catch on fire and go 100 miles and it's supposed to be a work truck. And how do you work? And you can only travel 100 miles in a pickup truck. Good job. Well, that's the key, man, is free market. R and D allocates dollars for the future that they think will be rewarded. R and D, that's not incentivized by the free market, interrupts free markets from working improperly. So like you said, the speed of access is really what it is. They dumped a ton of money and I'm sure it was very inefficiently spent because it's just so fast. And that's where I think Ford and I think government intervention downfall is slowing. Like I think I said this before, government intervention on evs is actually slowing the innovation of evs to bring them to the free markets. Nailed it. Because you are incentivizing companies like Ford to be not profitable and then they cannot invest future R D dollars into that and putting them at a disadvantage. Yeah, that's it right there. There's politics, obviously, we talk about them constantly, but how can anyone support these programs? They're just burning money just for straight political points. I always go back when it's evs. When that guy tried to make his plant electric and he had ten forklifts and he wanted the forklifts to be electric, and basically the electric company said, are you a psycho? You want to pull more energy than the entire city. I don't know if that was the case, but it was a huge draw. Basically impossible to do what he was trying to do with ten forklifts. So how is this going to work everywhere? And the answer is, it's not. It's not going to work. That is what drives me crazy, is because there's no goal at the end. It's like, hey, what headlines can we get out there for this product? It's not going to work. It's not ready. What was that stat? Because obviously we talk about evs quite a bit because we're fans, but what was the one statistic where to sustain 70% of EV? If cars were to instantaneously become like 70% evs on the road, wouldn't we have to build a charging station every 30 seconds for the next ten years to keep up with. Yeah, it was something ridiculous. We need like 12 million and we have like 250,000 built. So there would have to be one built every minute and a half or something crazy. So the consumer goes out there, especially in not warm climates in northeast Ohio, if you're just driving to and from work, and that's it, it's a commuter car. That'll get done. That'll get you done. But it's nothing. I think Tesla rolled out their first semi, and I knew when they were testing that years ago, the weight on that truck is immense because of the size of the battery. They have weight stations all over the place. Can you imagine? What are you going to tow when half of your load is your car? Evs are nothing new. What's interesting is you take a look back to the 1980s, I believe, early 90s. There's articles and there's videos of us, the people out there that had EV technology and created kind of electric vehicles, or even, I think it was hydrogen vehicles they created on water, essentially, back then. Right? I thought we were supposed to have. Flying cars by now. I have seen flying cars recently on the Internet. Okay. The technology has obviously gotten better the past 30, 40 years, whatever we want to call it. But the fact is, I think that's a great example of back in the, people weren't ready for evs. We're still not ready for evs. Technology is a little bit better. There will come a point where technology is great enough and the free market will bring it. We're just not there yet. I think hybrids would be a great start. I think the one car I had is, as I was off the accelerator, it charged the alternator or whatever, the battery. It wasn't like a real battery. It was just like holding a charge, and then it would help slice into some of the fuel consumption. Right, alternator isn't there. No, it was something more dynamic than that. But as your foot is off the accelerator, the wheels are storing, the wheels are charging another battery inside the car. And like the Teslas, I know the brakes, when you take your foot off the gas, it automatically slows down because the wheels are charging. Sir. It's called an accelerator, not the gas. All, all right. Right. Let's talk about Zuckerberg. Oh, who doesn't want to? So I found this article and I thought I kind of chuckled. They're like, now that meta is doing wonders again, they're what, up, like two or 300%? They said they were going to do a dividend, so the stock rose like 40%. So a lot of investors are worried about Zuckerberg's outside business activities. So our boy Zuck, he is into MMA. That's why him and Elon wanted to fight, right? They wanted to get in the octagon and start fighting each other or whatever. Surprise that never took off. But didn't Zuck tear his ACL or something? He might. I thought he got hurt. I don't think it was ever going to happen. It's not going to happen. But I chuckled because, yeah, they're worried if he gets hurt, maybe not more mentally hurt, like a concussion or worse. Right? Not like I broke my ankle. Like, you'll still go to work. Right? But it's more of the psychology behind the mental capacity of getting hurt and doing outrageous activities. Right. But that made me laugh, because the reason that he's where he is, along with Elon, Musk and Bezos and all the, because they are their risk takers inside and outside of their business, that's just them, that's their competitive. You know, you're not going to change. Know, you don't have somebody who's very passive build a. Normally you don't have somebody who's very passive minded build a huge empire because they don't have the quote unquote killer mentality. That's the way I look at it. Like, this dude's going to do what he's going to do, and you're going to have to deal with the consequences if he hurts himself. That's my take. You ever see, like, an r rated movie and then they make a sequel and it's only like, pg? That's what Zuckerberg, he's not in the mma, all right? He just likes to spar. So I don't think he's really in danger of getting head injuries or concussions. I took a boxing class, and I nearly broke my wrist. And that was the end of me taking a boxing training class. I did it for cardio, but then the guy's like, oh, you should hit this harder. Next thing I know, I had to wrap my wrist, and I'm like, actually, this is not for me. It's interesting. People care about things they shouldn't care about. Deep thought. Let's go. When you're at a high level, operating, like you said, working 100 hours a week, and you're dedicating most of your life to your business, the outside activities to keep your mind sharp and on points that you fill, to fill those voids are usually high intensity things to make sure that you don't fall off track. Because the time that you get lazy and you sit down and do nothing and stuff, that's when it starts going into your business practice. So as every person that's not a CEO, like Zuckerberg and Musk or whatever you want to call it, performing that level, that's working 40 hours a week. What do you fill the other 100 hours a week with? Going out to the bars on the. Weekends, not going to the bar. It's not watching wrestling. It's not watching South park. Exactly. Sitting at home munching on nachos and Cheetos, you're criticizing a guy for going out there making his body better to perform at the highest level mentally, because physical and mental strength actually go hand in hand. They do. It's actually very irritating that people care about that. Another fact that Elon Musk gets thrown under the bus for some of the micro dosing, LSD, psychedelics, whatever you want to call it. At the end of the day, I'm sure he doesn't do that every day, but also, at the same time, it helps a visionary like him vision stuff. I'm not saying that everyone should go do that, but I'm just saying it helps a visionary really think deeply about the world and kind of ways to fix the world. So I'm just saying, why do people criticize these people for certain things? I don't know. I don't get, dude, I love that take. I really do. It helps them recharge and rethink and recalibra and same thing. I know for me, I feel like the past, like six months, I've been pretty unhealthy in my body for saying I'm trying to get back on track myself, as in, like, I'm trying to find high intensity things to kind of fill my time up so I can be more productive in a lot of other areas. Yeah. I mean, just getting in shape makes me feel great. I wish I can go more intense, which I could, but I kind of do it to maintain and I incrementally do more weights or longer or whatever. It's like competition sparks growth. Competition sparks growth in companies and competition, like MMA or Jujitsu, whatever you want to call it, where you actually have an outcome, where you're competing against somebody else that produces growth in some sort. Of way, you're winning in another arena other than just your business. Right. You have to have that. I believe that. So you don't think Zuckerberg's watching Monday Night raw every week, tweeting from his burner account for Cody to finish the story? You wrestling fans out there would get it, man. I feel like I have a group text now or like a group in my text messages that just focuses on wrestling. I don't know how I got involved, but I'm involved. All right, let's wrap up the show. Let's go with our Super bowl predictions. I believe what? San Francisco is a two point favorite. I don't know what the over under is. It's probably about 40. It was 47, I think I guessed that. That was good. 47. 47. All right. Watching the lines too much, Tony. I didn't even look at. I just knew what the line was. I didn't know what the over under was, and I guessed it pretty good. Anyway, what do you guys think? I watched a video. It's like Taylor Swift of Taylor Swift up in the stands and, like, cheering with her music in the background. Then all of a sudden, you're like a damn. It has, like, purdy, like, coming out of the fire, out of the tunnels and, like, this is the only man that can save the NFL. It gave me chills down the spiral. I loved it. I think San Francisco is going to win. Okay. High scoring, like, by a large margin or barely or what. I think they're going to win by. I'm going to take the over and I'm going to go 21. Like 20 or 20 117. That's not the over. The over. That's right. Take the under 20 117. Got to add up. I was thinking 38, 48. My bad. That was rough. That was rough. Yeah. 20 117 under. All right, so Luke's got San Francisco in the over. We'll just under with that. Under. Oh, you're going under. I'm sorry. 20 117 under. Once you did the math, you're like, oh, yeah, that means under. Got it. Derek, where are you at? Well, this isn't good. I wrote mine down before the show, but I feel like as soon as the matchup was set, I just felt like everyone thought Kansas City was going to win. So I'm going to take San Francisco. I do like the under, though. So Luke changing his mind to it concerns me. That never goes well, but I have 2017, San Francisco. Oh, same. Yeah. Okay. All right. I am going to go with Kansas City. Not because I'm trying to be different, but I've given this thought and I think it is going to be a close game. I think that Kansas City's defense is a little bit underrated and they're going up against a rookie quarterback where Patrick Mahomes is definitely not a rookie. I'm just, I'm going on pure quarterback experience. Could different things alter the game? Absolutely. But I just feel that I'm going to go with experience over a rookie. That's the only reason. I just don't think this is going to be a blowout. I don't think they're both going to go crazy and take risks. I think they're both going to play pretty conservative, frankly. They're both risk taking teams. But I think in the Super bowl here, it's like, let's just try to hold the other team as much as we can and try to just scrape by a win. Yeah. All right. So outside of like. But I think the NFL wants scoring. Yeah, they want action. I like that. Now, here's the other thing. So you got the Taylor Swift factor and how much money she has made the NFL just by being in the suite cheering on her boyfriend. What about, so how many drinking games are there going to be for the Taylor Swift? Every time she's mentioned or shown you'd got to have a drink. There has to be. You're not going to make it to halftime, right. There's got to be a stat. And I wish I would have looked for this, but what is the over under on either her being shown and or being mentioned during the whole Super bowl. It's got to be like 20. There's 100% a line for it, though. None of us know it. I would take a stab at, like, at least 25. Oh, that much? I was going to say it would be like seven. Really? Five to six. Oh, I would kill that over if it was a high single digit. Oh, my God. Mortgage probably is right along mortgage payment. It's probably, like, right along the lines of whatever the over and under is for the caught passes for Kelsey. Every time Travis catches a pass, they'll probably show her. I bet you his over under on catches is probably, like six or six and a half. They'll probably do a hook. They'll have the hook in there. Yeah. So I say six and a half. Well, so see you next week. I'll be in New York Sunday watching the game. Awesome. Just going to be chilling out. Going to be filling

in for the man, the myth, the legend, mark on 06: 38:30

00 a.m.. Moyes, the Maria. Oh, you'll be on a Monday Super Bowl. Mark's busy during the Super bowl, so he's like, you can go out to New York. You can fill my spot. Yeah. Awesome. All right, Derek, take us home, man. All right, well, I was trying to find the Taylor Swift prop bets before. Okay, so will Travis Kelsey propose to Taylor Swift? Yes. Plus 1060. So if you bet $100 and Travis Kelsey does propose, you would win $1,000. That's a horrible bet. No is.-3000 so those are bad ods right there. Will the MVP mention Taylor Swift plus 600 for yes. No. -1100 that is hilarious. All right, everyone. Well, thanks for listening. We enjoyed doing this show. Thanks for listening. Every week, if you guys have questions, comments, show ideas, hit us up at info@swpconnect.com and we'll talk to you next week. The opinions expressed in the podcast are for general informational purposes only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any investment, legal, financial, or tax strategy. It is only intended to provide education about the financial industry. Please consult a qualified professional about your individual needs.