Episode 5160: Iran Tensions Grow; President Of Korea Sentenced To Life In Prison
Donald Trump’s tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court (6-3), with Gorsuch and Barrett dissenting, yet he imposed new 10% tariffs via executive order. Experts like E.J. Antoni and Steve Bannon argue Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act still allows broad protectionist measures, citing Hamilton’s 40%+ tariffs as a blueprint for prosperity. Meanwhile, Iran tensions escalate with 350 U.S. aircraft deployed, including the USS Gerald R. Ford, as Trump’s incremental strategy risks civil war if kinetic action follows. South Korea sentences ex-President Yoon to life in prison, raising concerns about Lee Jae-myung’s alignment with China and potential troop cuts—Trump should privately push back. Bannon warns Georgia Republicans’ quiet opposition to Trump’s election tactics could backfire, as unconstitutional moves like fake electors threaten democratic legitimacy. The episode reveals how legal loopholes, geopolitical brinkmanship, and partisan power struggles define modern economic and military policy. [Automatically generated summary]
They really strongly said President Trump's tariffs policy is unconstitutional and illegal.
They said, look, if you want to get tariffs, the way to do it is to go to Congress and ask for authorization.
And so, you know, it's not a decision about any particular president.
It's a decision about the presidency.
And the Chief Justice, writing for six justices, used very strong language about the president to the president, saying, you know, the Constitution requires you to get this affirmative approval of the Congress, and you can't just do this on your own.
In America, the stroke of the president's pen is not enough to impose taxes on the American people, and tariffs are nothing else but taxes, the Chief Justice said.
And I think it's notable that this decision wasn't just written by some group of lefty justices, to the extent there even are any.
It was written and joined by six justices, including two justices appointed by Donald Trump himself, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of them saying in full that these tariffs were unconstitutional.
And so, you know, when I presented the argument to the Supreme Court on November 5th, I made about six key points.
Every single one, Nicole, of those six points was accepted 100% by all six justices today on the Supreme Court.
Well, Jackie, first of all, it's hard to make sense of U.S. policy because it's somewhere between incoherent and opaque.
The United States has assembled all these forces.
It's not clear what the objectives would be, what would be our definition of success.
It's not even clear what triggered it.
The only new thing coming out of Iran the last couple of months is not their nuclear program, not their missile program, not support for proxies.
It's their slaughter of Iranian dissidents.
And it's not at all clear how American aircraft carriers and the like and airplanes could protect individual Iranians or bring about regime change or anything else.
So I literally do not understand American policy.
And by the way, the administration hasn't bothered to explain it.
Congress hasn't bothered to hold hearings and ask questions about it.
This idea of a limited strike, yeah, the president may feel compelled to do something because threats don't seem to have moved the Iranians.
The problem with limited strikes, by definition, is what happens if they don't do the trick?
Do you then double down or triple down?
Then we find ourselves in a large war.
And by the way, Iran has all sorts of ways to inflict pain on oil shipping, on oil refineries and wells, on American forces in the region.
So we shouldn't kid ourselves that simply because we want to keep an interaction limited, the Iranians do.
It only takes one to start something, but it takes two to manage it and end it.
Watching what appears to be a collapse of rule of law today, I'm compelled to question whether we should proceed with an appeal or continue to participate in these criminal proceedings at all.
Frank Januzi is the president of the Mansfield Foundation, which works on U.S. relations with Asia.
He calls Yoon's the most momentous domestic trial in more than 30 years in a country that has a history of presidents who've been impeached, jailed, or overthrown.
This allowed him to cool down the temperature a bit and also allowed him to focus really on where he needed to focus, which was his foreign policy priorities, sustaining an outreach to Japan and reassuring the United States that South Korea would be a loyal, faithful ally.
The markets are driven at this point largely by AI, right?
We talk about this, the magnificent seven mega-tech companies that are not largely impacted by tariffs or mass deportations.
But if you look under that seven, things are much shakier.
And we've talked about it before.
So many businesses are in this no hiring, no firing, no growth.
They're bracing themselves, right?
Foreign investors are not feeling great about investing in the U.S.
And a funny thing, as happy as people have been about the markets in the last year, look abroad.
Markets abroad have been stronger than ours have.
Well, the amazing thing is that they don't react badly to Trump anymore.
They just kind of grin and bear it and hope to get through.
And the positive for the markets is that they hope that Trump won't like regulation.
But when something like this happens today, they really like it because it means that we do adhere to the rule of law here.
And if we're a country that doesn't adhere to the rule of law, then expect your markets to fly out the window because nobody's going to invest a red cent here.
Obviously, a lot of forces in the world are coming together to try to thwart President Trump's populist nationalist revolution here in the United States.
We're going to get to all that.
I've got two of the top experts, E.J. Antoni and Spencer Morrison, Spencer Morrison of the great classic book, Reshoring.
We're going to walk through in a moment all of this with tariffs and really economic nationalism is what it is and putting the country first.
The American system is thought up by Alexander Hamilton.
I want to get to the moment, but I got Captain Finnell for an update.
Two things.
Number one, Captain Finel, latest, we continue to pour assets into the Middle East, into the region, what they call effect is a breaking story about Portugal, the airbridge, more assets coming on the airbridge from Portugal in real time.
Your assessment of where we stand with this, as President Trump refers to, a vast armada.
Well, Steve, I think right now we're seeing, as you said, all the chess pieces are getting into the region, into the UCOM, European Command, and Central Command's area of responsibility.
So, from the Eastern Mediterranean down into the Gulf of Oman, over on Friday night, it was reported that the USS Gerald R. Ford and its carrier battle group had chopped through, went through, transited through the Strait of Gibraltar, and is now in the Mediterranean Sea.
And the latest reporting from air on air asset updates, we basically have over 350 combat aircraft that are in the region, both afloat and ashore.
And more importantly, we have over 100 tankers, which allows our combat aircraft, the F-16s, the F-22s, the Strike Eagle F-15s, the F-N-A-18s, and the F-35s that have shorter range, those tankers on your screen can get now fuel to be able to sustain what is called air supremacy over a combat area.
Normally, we talk about air superiority, which is a temporal time and space where you have combat air control over a geographic area.
But air supremacy is where you can control the air at all times in that whole geographic region for a sustained, long, long period of time.
And so, it seems to me that we are moving in and preparing our forces for air supremacy.
And I would just say to Mr. Haas, who talked about managing, if we do a strike, we'll have to manage some kind of deal with the Iranians.
No, we're not going to manage anything.
We're going to come in, and if President Trump decides to use military force, we will destroy Iran's military, 100% of it.
We will take down their SRBMs or medium-range ballistic missiles and their naval forces and their remaining little air forces that they have and their air defense forces.
And we will sit over the top of Iran and call fires down on anybody that tries to shoot off an air defense missile or a ballistic missile.
They may get off one or two here and there, but they are not going to be able to sustain any kind of campaign against our allies in the region and against our forces.
Okay, we're going to get to EJ Antoni and Spencer Morrison in just a moment, but there's updates.
And Sam Fed is going to join us in the second hour to go down and take another cut at this.
Captain Finnell, the Wall Street Journal has done a pretty good job reporting because the Pentagon and the National Security folks leak to them a lot.
And it's a leak to try to put out into the public President Trump's thinking and get responses.
What they're putting forward is President Trump's got a strategy, and it's kind of Trumpian.
You saw that when he didn't do regime change back in June, when he took down the total obliteration of the nuclear program, and in Venezuela, where he took Maduro and the wife and cut a deal with the rest of the regime, this would be he would he's got this deal he wants.
If they're not there, he'll do a limited strike, dust them up a little bit, see if that opens up to him.
If not, if it is, they'll go back and talk.
If they tap him along, he'll hit it again and he'll continue to do this until he reaches some point where he goes full kinetic.
Is that a strategy that you think works, sir, from your years in naval intelligence?
But Captain Final, hang on, hang on, but that was a limited strike.
President Trump took out total obliteration of the nuclear program.
The Israeli initiation of that entire war was a regime change strike.
They took out Witkoff's counterparties in the negotiation.
They hit the military.
They had Mossad guys killing people.
They continued to push for a regime change strike.
And President Trump wouldn't do it.
The reason he had to bail it out is that, as you remember, and this is why the ballistic missiles are on the target list now, is that Tel Aviv was getting crushed.
Tel Aviv, and now Israeli media reports that.
The Tel Aviv was taking incoming.
President Trump had a very targeted, limited strike for obliteration of a program, but it was not a regime change strike.
He said, my objective is to take out the nuclear program, which he did in 100% full capacity.
Venezuela, the same thing.
I have to get rid of Maduro.
100%, I got rid of Maduro.
So this time, when the president comes out and says, I am going to take action because the Iranian regime will not give up nukes or will not stop terrorizing their people and murder their people.
We don't know exactly what the president will say is his final rationale or the full scope of his action.
But if we make the arguments about terrorizing their people and we take out the military and the Ayatollahs and the Mulas, then we've come to the defense of the people.
Then we own everything they're after.
You just can't say, oh, because terrorizing people, and then we take them out and then you fall into chaos.
The mainstream media is covering this up like it's a return to democracy and that this new South Korean government is some great ally of the United States and Japan.
Gordon Chang's got a tweet out that thinks reality.
Two days ago, we came very close to having a death sentence on a conservative politician that had that at least tried to work with the United States as an ally.
Do you believe the Chinese Communist Party and others are in back of this move in South Korea?
And do you think you can count on South Korea now as a full ally in East Asia?
I think the cold open with the MSNBC analyst on saying that South Korea is moving towards Japan is not correct.
They're moving into the sphere of the PRC.
And we just saw on the 18th of February, as Gordon puts in his tweet, we had B-52 bombers fly into the region, which is a routine operation for our air forces.
And the South Koreans did not help escort those bombers.
Only our FNA-18s did, that are there in the theater on peninsula.
And after that occurred, the South Korean Minister of Defense called the commander of U.S. Forces Korea in and dressed him down for why we were doing that.
This has never happened before, as Gordon notes, and he's correct.
And this is not, this is an indicator of where Lee is and where his head is at.
So we need to be very careful and not allow the same people that told us that we should go along with six-party talks and all these other crazy schemes on the peninsula.
We should not follow their advice.
We need to be careful where we're proceeding with South Korea, and we need to hold them to account.
We have 25,000 plus American soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen on the peninsula, and they're there to defend them.
And if they're going to treat us like this, then we need to talk to them about that and where we're at.
And I'm afraid, though, that this could be a ploy for them to justify removing our troops there, which would be something that would be very dangerous for America and the region's national security.
Do you think, President Trump, should we insert ourselves now, since you've seen Bolsonaro or Le Pen, should we insert ourselves now in this situation with the South Korean government and say it's just not acceptable to us, the guy got life in prison, sir?
Well, we should have said something before the presidential elections and influenced the elections to the extent that we said this is what we stand for.
And we didn't do that.
And so we're eating the results of that inaction.
So today we should be saying something.
I would hope that President Trump and Secretary Rubia would be contacting the South Korean president privately first to express our displeasure, how they reacted to our flights in the Yellow Sea and the West Sea and their lack of support and in fact dressing us down.
And if they don't want to deal with us on that, then you have to take it public.
Captain Jim Finnell, former head of naval intelligence for the Pacific Fleet.
Okay, we're going to pivot now to economic nationalism.
Yesterday, was it a death blow as the media once reported to President Trump's redoing of commercial relationships through trade deals and tariffs?
Or did they shut the front door but open up the back door?
We have two experts, Spencer Morrison of the classic book Reshoring, and of course, our own EJ Antoni, one of the smartest guys out there about the American worker.
We'll take a short commercial break.
Take your phone out.
Now more than ever, you should be talking to Birch Gold.
Take your phone and text, bannon, B-A-N-N-O-N-989898.
You get the ultimate guide.
Totally free, no obligation for investing in gold and precious metals in the age of Trump.
You know, one of the things we try to do here, whether it's geopolitics, capital markets, everything related to the fight, the legal aspects, the fight for our country, obviously lots of economics, populist economic nationalism.
We always try to put you ahead of the curve by bringing the smartest people that really talk, understand topics and really talk it through.
That's why Captain Fennell, and look, obviously I disagree with a lot about this Iranian situation, but the reality is he's been dead spot on about the military aspect of this.
What's interesting, Sam Fatto is going to join us later.
It's going to come down to Intel.
I think a lot of this is going to come down to intelligence of exactly where the military in Iran is, where the Aitolas are, not physically where they are, but what this really is President Trump's incremental, because obviously he's running that up the flagpole.
Is there a chance to do incrementalism here or are the Persians just going to negotiate, which they're famous for, negotiate to have another negotiation?
That's where we had Trita Parsi on last night.
Now, he's quite pro-Iranian, but he brought up the part that I think has to be addressed immediately.
We're not in direct negotiations with them.
It's all this kabuki theater where they talk to, you know, they're in Mana, they got Oman, they're here, they talk, and they go in another room and talk.
Even Trita realizes that with this type of military surrounding them, you got to stop with the formalities and drop the intermediate.
You got to get in a room with Kushner and you got to get in a room with Steve Witkoff, the president's emissaries, and see if there's a deal.
If there's not a deal, then the balloon is going to go up, folks.
I want to pivot now.
Okay, President Trump and trying to, he's doing something to change 50 years of sellout of the American worker.
Number one is the Big Beautiful Bill, which is the supply side.
It maximizes to the extent you can the reinforcement of investment in capital equipment in the United States to bring manufacturing jobs back.
Because President Trump has seen through the folly of gutting our manufacturing and trying to turn us into a service economy.
Everybody that told you on Wall Street and all these puns were not kind of wrong.
They're dead wrong.
Now he's redoing the commercial relationships.
He's using trade deals and tariffs as a forcing function to force international operations to make their plant and equipment here and therefore hire American workers and have this whole ecosystem around manufacturing that will rejuvenate our economy based upon a plan written by Alexander Hamilton that is just one level down from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,
the report on manufactures that the genius Alexander Hamilton wrote in his earliest days as the first Secretary of the Treasury.
And you heard Scott Besson talk about it yesterday at the Dallas Economic Club.
And I want to reinforce Rob Sig and Parker Sig to play that entire thing yesterday shows you the difference between Real America's voice and other channels.
Other channels are going to run around and talk about the noise of the day.
Here, it's pure signal all the time.
Now, the Supreme Court has stepped into there.
EJ and Tony, we read your text message.
You sent me from the train.
You're coming from Wall Street back to the Capitol.
Walk me through what you had to say yesterday, your feelings of, because the left's out there today, there's spiking the football.
It's illegal.
It's illegitimate.
Trump's a dictator.
The Supreme Court stood up to him.
It's separation of powers.
But also you brought up this act from 1930 that gives Trump even more leverage, President Trump even more leverage.
Yeah, Steve, it's amazing to hear the people on Ms. Now and all the other loser networks talk about how Trump's a dictator.
He's the worst dictator ever.
The people that he got on the Supreme Court voted against him.
Are you kidding me?
I've never seen a dictator fail to get his way on so many different things.
Regardless, it doesn't matter.
Let's get into the meat of this, Steve.
You're absolutely right.
You can go back to the Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338 of that law.
And again, this is almost 100 years old here, all right?
This is not as if it's some newfangled thing.
Along with the Tariff Acts and the Trade Acts in the 60s and 70s, we've seen them be used.
We've seen them be held up in court.
If we go back to this particular law, though, from 1930, it actually gives the chief executive the ability to issue tariffs up to 50%.
And if he wants to go beyond that, he can issue outright embargoes.
So again, this is an incredibly powerful law.
And in order to do that, Steve, what he needs is to find as a fact, the law says, that there has been some kind of discrimination against U.S. commerce.
Well, that is an incredibly broad definition.
It's a very large umbrella under which you will find everything that Trump is trying to fight against.
When the Chinese engage in intellectual property theft, when they engage in subsidization of industry and dumping of products here in the United States, when Canada imposes quotas on U.S. dairy, when you have American automotive manufacturers who face unfair trading practices, whether they be tariff or non-tariff barriers in the EU.
I mean, you name it, all of the different things that were cited in that book that Greer and his folks put together last year, all of the different unfair trading practices from around the world, all of these different discriminations against U.S. commerce that are faced, that are instituted by other nations, again, from literally around the globe, everything falls under the umbrella laid out in section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
And I believe actually, if I remember the opinion correctly, in Justice Kavanaugh's dissent, I think he actually mentioned this law as well in his list of about half a dozen different tariff authorities the president can use.
So, Steve, what I'm getting at here is this.
Although getting rid of IEPA, saying IEPA no longer can be used to institute tariffs, that does limit the president in terms of his speed and his flexibility with which he can implement tariffs.
But that's about it.
This changes, in my opinion, this changes nothing in the long run.
It has a short-term impact on the president's trade policy, absolutely.
And again, it affects, I think, the speed and the flexibility he has in terms of making decisions with these negotiations.
He can't necessarily make the snap decisions, turning tariffs on and off.
But again, as long as he can demonstrate some kind of discrimination against U.S. commerce, as the law says, he finds it as a fact, it's a blank check.
The reality is, is that there are many, many different legal avenues for President Trump to impose further tariffs.
This is sort of a hiccup along the road.
But ultimately, I think this is a good opportunity for the president to sort of take stock and look at what we actually need to do to set up a trade policy that's not going to just be something that's at the whim of the presidency, but change the entire sort of economic cultural shift, right?
What we have to do is we have to get back to the situation where we were, you know, 50 years ago, where tariffs were not simply being imposed sort of on an ad hoc basis, but were baked into the fabric of the American legal and economic landscape.
America prospered under the American system, which was derived again from Alexander Hamilton's report on manufactures all throughout the 1800s, that period where America industrialized and the average worker grew to become the most prosperous worker in the world.
All of that was done under a high tariff regime.
America had the highest average tariff rates in the world, over 40%, over 40%.
And that was at a time in history when we didn't have bulk shipping.
That was at a time when, you know, foreign trade was not such a large proportion of our overall economy.
You're saying, hey, the individual trade deals and redoing the commercial relationships is fine, but you're saying we have a deeper, he has a deeper challenge here.
We got to bake it into the and into basically a tech, a tech bro, oligarch, and Wall Street lords of easy money that are adamantly opposed to what you're saying, sir.
Right now, they're spending all day in these freaking frontier labs trying to get rid of the American worker.
So how are we going to, I agree with you a million percent.
Tell me how President Trump's going to do that when you got both Wall Street, the corporate America, and most importantly, the tech bros that spit on the floor as soon as you mention that, sir.
I mean, it's an uphill battle, but it begins and ends with the American people.
President Trump has to take this case directly to the American people and have people understand exactly what's going on.
I think that this needs to be packaged in a way that people can understand.
Everybody understands, you know, that national security is an important, you know, national security is of utmost importance.
Package tariffs as a part of that.
I mean, think about the national security concerns when America doesn't manufacture its own GPUs when we're entering into the AI age, right?
I mean, what about the fact the country doesn't manufacture, you know, like light bulbs, ball bearings, engines, right?
The entire country is over the last 50 years has been integrated into a global economic system and in such a way that the economy is now dependent on foreign countries' products.
This is why you guys are going to be at the forefront of changing this.
The House, Trump could not get, if you put it to, if you go back to the Republican conference and you go to the Hassett rule, which you have to have a majority of the majority, right?
You have to have enough in the House conference to put it forward.
His trade policies today, if put to a vote of the House, let me be brutally frank, would not do it because they're still neoliberals.
They're believing that school, they raised on the mother's milk of Milton Friedman.
They're not with Spencer Morrison.
They're not with E.J. Antoni.
They're not with Donald J. Trump or they're not with Stephen K. Bannon, the populist nationalist.
I mean, EJ, you know these guys better than I do.
And I'm not even talking about the Senate.
Forget the Senate.
I'm talking in the House.
They may all sing out of the hymnal of President Trump and MAGA.
But if you went and put what you and Spencer Morrison are talking about, which I think is absolutely logical, how many votes do you think we get, sir?
And Steve, look, this is why, and I'm not necessarily sure you need to get different people in there.
I think it actually was Milton Friedman.
One of the things he said that I definitely agree with was that getting the right things through Congress is not necessarily a matter of getting the right people in there, but giving the wrong people the right incentives.
In other words, it doesn't matter who you put in Congress necessarily, but if they know that voting against these things will result in their loss in the next election, then chances are they're going to change their mind and they're going to vote the way the people want them to.
So I think the problem is maybe more so we have to change the hearts and minds of more voters out there.
We need to get people to understand that the kind of ivory tower world from which Milton Friedman was often speaking is not what we have today.
Look, if you are coming at this problem, or I should say if you're coming at any kind of situation from a perfectly idealistic world, then you would never want to impose tariffs.
In other words, if everything is already fine, if there is no problem, you don't want to then impose tariffs.
If the patient doesn't have cancer, you don't want to give them chemotherapy.
In the mercantilist strategy of the Chinese Communist Party, right, which they learned from the British East India Company, we're going to take a short commercial break.
Spencer Morrison, the author of Reshoring and the great E.J. Antoni, who knows more about the American working man than anybody in the United States of America.
Trump's visit comes amid escalating threats to federalized state-run elections, which would go against the Constitution.
Just that old thing.
For now, a Trump-aligned Georgia election board has declined to intervene in Fulton County.
But notably, one of the five members left the door open to further action, telling reporters, quote, I'm waiting to see what happens with the DOJ and the FBI seizure and see what comes out of that.
Yeah, look, Donald Trump and his cast of characters that follow him as Republicans, this is all a solution in search of a problem.
And they want to try to fit their narrative of this election being rigged through this shiny object and this shiny object.
It's all been lies and continues to grow and they're doubling down on it.
Look, if somebody shows up to the voter rights conversation, access to voting conversation fairly and squarely, then they're not trying to limit crowds.
They're trying to open up access and just validate.
That's what this should all be about.
And it's all about those exceptions.
What about that nurse who works a 24-hour shift to support her family that can't show up on election day, that has to mail in that ballot early?
What about that person that's homebound due to an injury or an illness?
The list goes on and on.
Look, this is an outright attempt for Donald Trump to put his thumb on the scale.
You have to look no further than the FBI raids.
That had nothing to do with the 2020 election.
That's been validated, certified, hand-counted, double-counted, all of it.
It has to do with sowing little seeds of doubt so that he can claim fraud when they lose the midterms in 26.
Mr. Duncan, I want to stay with you a sec on this, though, because in 2020, you were one of a handful of Republicans really across the country that actually stood up against Trump and maintained that you had seen no evidence of voter fraud that Trump was claiming.
Do you think that there's anyone left in an elected position or an election administration position in Georgia who, if there were similar efforts to overturn the results of a future election, would actually be there and be in place to stand up to President Trump and the Republican apparatus?
And it's interesting to see how Republicans react to me in my stance to push back as hard as I possibly can in private.
They're very supportive.
They can't wait for Donald Trump to get out of the scene.
They cannot explain tariffs or Greenland or weaponizing the Department of Justice or these ICE raids or even these vicious attempts to try to limit voting just to steer the election towards Republicans.
But publicly, most of them lack the courage to say it out loud.
Until Republicans have the courage to call Donald Trump out for being the worst mistake this country's ever made, they're still going to have those problems.
And the best thing we can do as Democrats is win these elections, continue to win them fairly and squarely, continue to harness the momentum of this movement to push MAGA back into the closet and let us run this country in a way that's fair and equitable, even for the people that don't vote for us.
I think that's an important cornerstone of democracy.
The thing that makes me continue to worry about the unique threat that this administration at this hour poses to the constitutional order is the unfolding January 6th.
Not just the insurrection at the Capitol, but the recruiting of fake electors, the challenging of the results.
If Mike Pence had not done the courageous thing, and I have liberal friends who say, why do you give him credit?
I said, because you've never been in the Oval Office being yelled at.
So shut up, right?
This is our point about knowing people.
Mike Penny.
The braying mob out front saying, hang Mike Penny with the gallows, right?
So he did the right thing.
The strategy, as we know from Peter Navarro and others, was that they were going to delay the certification into the next week, week and a half, get toward the 20th, and then take it to the House because there wouldn't have been a result out of the election.
So what do you do if President Trump had prevailed in the House, thereby offering a constitutionally sanctified remedy to an illegitimate result?
What do you do?
I don't know.
And I think if he could do it, I think President Trump would do that again tomorrow.
And if you want to be optimistic and say, well, yes, but it didn't happen, I just don't think we should be running that, making it that close run a thing.
It's why I thought he was a unique threat, argued against it.
No one cared.
And by the way, the folks who voted for him, their votes count absolutely as much as mine does, right?
I don't think he is an illegitimate president.
I do not, they said that about President Biden.
I don't share that.
A big, big part of this moment and whether we emerge from it is whether people are going to have the citizen capital, if you will, to accept a loss and to see a loss as seasonal as opposed to existential.