June 8th Episode
01:15:38 Share

Welcome to Money Talks. My name is Mike Campbell. I'm thrilled that you're with us. Great weekend to do it. So much happening in the world of finance, and we're going to be talking about it. Hey, I'll tell you this right up front.

We've got Tom Corsi coming on with us. He's a managing editor of Black Locks Reporter, one of my favourites for sure. Actually, I've got a show full of favourites because I'm also going to be talking with Doomberg coming up, another one. I pay for subscriptions to both of those. But what Tom's going to tell us, a lot of debate about whether the government subsidies to the media impact the coverage. He's got a story.

that even the most ardent supporter are going to have trouble explaining. But as I said, Duhnberg with me too. Lots of things to say with him, lots of things to cover. But we will talk about his take that, you know, will green energy policies actually mean the end of the European Union? That's going to be interesting. Plus, he's going to weigh in on the Chinese interference that, of course, we've been dealing with for the full week. He's going to weigh in on that because he had been writing about that

uh really for months so more with him more with doonberg i've also got aussie juror coming up there i've got rob levy mike levy excuse me i got mike with me he's back and we'll talk of course about interest rates as i will with victor adair so no shortage of things to talk about plus a goofy award

It's super serious. It starts with actually maybe the silliest thing I've heard a politician say in my memory. Think of the competition for that, eh? But silliest thing, but it goes to a very serious goofy right after that. But first, you want to know why it's so difficult to change the status quo in politics. I mean, people talk about that all the time. You know, we want politics done differently or whatever.

Well, especially when it comes to how government contracts are awarded, how they spend our tax dollars. Well, simply put, you know why it's hard to change? Because there's too much money involved, too many people who directly benefit from the status quo. You know, it's in their best interest versus our best interest, and it's easy to see which one wins out.

I mean, literally billions of dollars are at stake. And I'm not just talking about obvious instances of questionable conduct like your Rivecam app or the money the federal government funneled into We Charity. Well, actually, We Charity is a good example because it was $43.5 million and it was never reviewed by the Treasury Board. That's the federal agency mandated to overseeing federal spending.

You know, you saw maybe this past Tuesday where the Treasury Board admitted to 163 conflicts of interest in awarding contracts in the last two years. That's not our interest, that's for sure. You remember that old line that governments can't manage a lemonade stand? Well, sadly, there's a ton of evidence to support that point of view. But the main reason is no incentive to clean up the management. There's absolutely no incentive to spend our tax dollars effectively. Well, so they don't.

I mean, governments literally make mediocre businesses and people involved multi-millionaires at our expense. And I don't know, maybe we don't care or maybe we just feel helpless when it comes to the waste and mismanagement of our tax dollars. But every time we get another Auditor General report, we get something from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, some other example, man, most of us seem to shrug our shoulders. I don't know. But as I say,

Some people are doing awfully well from it. I mean, think about this. In response to the internal audit of Foreign Affairs, they found that 26% of the contracts awarded didn't follow their own federal guidelines. That's about 2,100 contracts, $147 million tax dollars. And the minister in charge, well, that's Melanie Jolie, she thought that was a pretty good result. 26% of the contracts not following government rules. Wow.

You know, in March, when the Commons Public Accounts Committee asked Parliament to consider not allowing federal employees to get contracts awarded to them. I mean, they were going out, they'd form a business, then go back and bid. Well, you know what? That's not in the public interest. But here's the thing. Every Liberal voted against making that change.

You know, I look at the consultant issue that's been talked about so much recently because it's a huge increase, 16% increase, $21.6 billion last year. But think of what Sam Boots, he's a senior policy advisor with the Treasury Board said, it's hard to tell what work was involved, let alone how successfully the contract, you know, turned out or not.

Adding insult to injury, the Treasury report states there are numerous cases where consultants are hired to check the work of other consultants. I mean, the list just goes on. I mean, the Canadian Infrastructure Bank, $35 billion tax dollars involved, but they just cancelled the Lake Erie Connector Project after spending $899,000 on consultants. Special Rapporteur David Johnston, you know, he spent the three months studying the Chinese interference.

Well, he awarded millions in sole source contracts, but the one that grabbed my eye was the one that said, identify columnists and key opinion leaders to say nice things about them. That isn't my tax dollars in operation. My point is, do you think any of these people want to change in how the government operates? I mean, taxpayers are no match when it comes to trying to affect change in how government spends our money. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being made by thousands of people with the current system.

and there is no interest in accountability or change. Meanwhile, as taxpayers, we seem to be paying more, but getting nothing more in return. Certainly not efficiency.

Hey, just a reminder to join us on Mike's MoneyTalks.ca. You can sign up for five minutes with Mike's. I love the feedback, by the way. It's terrific, but five minutes with Mike. We can also go Money Talks tweets. Also join us on Michael Campbell's Facebook on Money Talks. It's my chance to get a whole bunch more information out there to you. You can decide what to do with it, but I do appreciate when people sign on. They recommend us to friends.

The Western Canada Monthly Income Fund is starting pre-sales on its new project called Portal. This waterfront development in Maple Ridge is expected to sell out quickly. The fund is making limited amounts of investment available. If you're looking for a secure investment in real estate and relatively quick turnaround, what would be better than using your RRSP and TFSA to help build much-needed homes for Canadians? It's common sense investing. A

Established in 2018, the fund pays a monthly fixed target interest plus a generous participating profit share. Request your investor package today at easy-invest.ca. That's easy-invest.ca. Conditions apply. Past results are no guarantee for future results. Check the website for details.

As I said at the outset, very pleased to welcome back to the show, Doonberg. Why? Because I love quality research. This is exactly what they do in a variety of subjects, but focuses on energy, for example. So again, much appreciated, Doonberg. Thanks for being with us. Mike, I mean, who could turn down an invitation to a podcast that sings such high praises of its guests? I mean, really great to be back with you. And I always enjoy coming and talking with you guys. And so looking forward to another great one today.

Well, and that's the show is really focused on this today in terms of quality, quality stuff that the public can see. And that's what I think we're lacking. My simple sort of approach is the higher level of understanding, the more information we get of quality and analysis of quality, the better we're all off. I mean, the better democracy is for that being informed. And I think that's why.

it was so instantly popular what you were doing because you had to look deep dive into the energy industry in so many different ways, whether it's just explaining the impracticality of energy policy, the insanity at other times of energy policy, the decision making at the government level that you sort of said, boy, if I could close my eyes and think of the wrong direction, that's the one that keep taking. So I think all of that combines.

And I think that's what's explained your success. And it brings me to a couple of things. Big story in Canada this week, and you've been writing about this. So I thought it would really, you know, ring a bell or touch a chord with you. And that is Chinese interference.

And by the way, you had one of my favorite headlines, and that's one of the reasons you're also successful is a great, great, great writing ability. But you go, Western elites can be bought and Chinese communists are limit long. Well, I love I just love that turn of phrase.

But we had a report this week. Every Canadian probably knows now the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Bottom line, in their words, said some MPs are semi-witting and witting participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere our politics. Now, China's front and center. We also have some India interference there. But this is something you guys have been writing about, you know, numerous times, especially just lately over the last couple of months.

Yeah, we wrote a piece called The Greater Fools, which was a follow on piece to one we wrote about the semiconductor industry called Chipshot. And maybe I'll start with Chipshot because that's something that's very important that people who don't have direct experience in industry might not understand. The Chinese, when the Chinese Communist Party, and I'm always very careful to separate the CCP from the Chinese people, you know, the CCP.

If it were just up to the people, we'd have no wars and we'd have much more prosperity than we have today. But China is ruled by the iron fist of the Chinese Communist Party. And when the CCP decides that they want to monopolize a strategic industry, they have a very clear set of tactics that they use over and over and over again. And they almost always work. Those tactics include bribery, blackmail, intellectual property theft, and so

They have found that Western industry, which is beholden to quarterly financial reports to Wall Street and the management is compensated with stock options that are sensitive to the price, that the short-term financial gain of the senior leaders within industry is often a point of jujitsu for the CCP that they can monopolize to their own ends. And it's not just limited to industry. They do the same thing in politics,

which is what you're seeing. Canada is home to an enormous amount of natural resources. China is short many of those resources and they have a national strategy to bend the political, the politics of net energy and commodity exporters to their will, which is again, not to blame the CCP. We blame the Western elite who allow this to happen. Every country behaves in its own, you know, selfless interest.

Internationally, the U.S. is certainly not innocent in this regard, nor is Canada. We have a long history of, we as in the collective West, have a long history of colonialism and various other uncouth activities that we would probably be ashamed to talk about today. But the Chinese are ascendant. They are, we jokingly said in a joke,

Doom zoom presentation to our pro tier called geopolitics and war sleepwalking into the abyss that China is the new arsenal of democracy because all of the Western militaries have outsourced key supply chains to the CCP. And so their their tactics are very clear. And in a chip shot, we talked about how they were going to win in the semiconductor space.

And anybody who doubts that, I think, is just naive about what's going on in that sector. And then the follow up piece where we talked about the greater fools, we described what I believe this report in Canada is very similar to. There's no shortage of people in the West who should know better.

who accept cash contributions, find themselves in honey traps, pick your favorite blackmail technique of the CCP. And in such circumstances, people in such positions tend to make incorrect decisions. And we opened that piece telling the really amazing story of Charlie Lieber, who is quite literally, again, I'm a PC scientist and I know the research area relatively well. He was literally the most talented chemist of our generation. In fact,

in the 2000s, you know, from 2000 to 2010. He was the most prolific chemist in the world by publication quality and citations. And he was the chair of the chemistry department at Harvard University. And just as COVID was unfolding, he was arrested and charged with basically taking money from the CCP, hiding it from

the US Defense Department, who was also funding his research and lying about it on his income tax filings. And if they could, he was in China and he was accepting bricks of $100 bills. Like if you're taking bricks of $100 bills and shoveling them in your luggage and not declaring them when you come across the border, like you have to look in the mirror. Like how did you get to this point? Like I,

Somebody giving me a brick of $100 bills while I'm in a foreign country, like if the red light alarm isn't glowing. So the point of that piece is we see it over and over again. It happened in Canada. I believe there's a huge scandal. And by the way, the classic technique of the Chinese is to accuse people.

those who are pointing out these things as being racist or anti-Chinese or xenophobic or pick your favorite insult. That is meant to shut down debate and to keep critics from being quiet. We have the whole money laundering scandal into British Columbia that nobody's allowed to talk about because we're

We're all so progressive and enlightened. I think this is a huge scandal. And I will close my comments on this particular part by saying that I'm very interested in the behavior of the Canadian intelligence services, by the way, which is pretty unique in the sense that they've been ringing the alarm bell as opposed to covering up for the administration. I don't quite understand why their behavior is so different than, say, the government.

intelligence services in the UK and in the US but if their primary motivation is patriotism then good for them

Well, and we certainly saw that racist card played. I mean, now we know much more. But going back in February of 2020, this is when we hadn't locked down yet. That was coming up in March, you know, from COVID. But there was talk about, of course, the origins being in Wuhan. And we had the prime minister and the national health, whatever, I forget her official title, Theresa Tom, litigate.

literally saying, well, only racists are suggesting that, you know, some link to the virology lab in, in Wuhan. Of course, now we know where there's a link to the virology lab, our top secret one in Winnipeg, you know, but, but just to,

touched a nerve with me because, of course, exactly right. They would call everyone a racist. Same thing with Huawei, by the way. And I know you've written about Huawei and the chip industry. Well, we had it here, a big scandal with Huawei. And again, that was the defense. You have to be a racist. And yet all of those things seem to come true in the end, you know, that the information comes out. You mentioned, of course, the fentanyl trade. Sam Cooper did brilliant work with willful blindness on that.

But boy, he suffered for bringing that forward. You know, when you guys arrested, when the Canadian authorities arrested the CFO, you know. Yeah, Ming-Wan Wu. Yes, this, of course, became an international scandal and China responded by arresting those two Canadian gentlemen, as I recall.

I think one of the key aspects of the Bloomberg success story is that we would never, ever press send on a publication if we didn't authentically believe everything that we've written at the time that we press that. That doesn't mean we still believe those things. We make mistakes. We learn. We evolve like everybody else. But the public has lost the trust in the sort of standard mainstream media that they're not actually saying what they believe or know to be true.

Yeah, and it's interesting because that's been the explosion of independent media. I'm going to talk coming up with the people here. Great service is called Black Locks. Black Locks reporter who gets the inside scoop on government stuff. And why have we turned to people like Doomberg?

Why have we turned to Black Locks, other independent sources like Sam Cooper or Terry Glavin, whatever it is? It's because we have lost trust in the mainstream and we want the real goods. And as I say right up front, I think that's why Bloomberg has exploded in popularity. And one of the things that, again, you mentioned,

wrote about, but it's now becoming better known is how many, in this case, it was US colleges and university were dealing directly with the Communist Party of China and their businesses. Yeah. And to be fair, the Wall Street Journal did break that story. And we covered it as part of the greater context.

But I think, look, as long as you show your homework and you're humble enough to admit when you're wrong, we have a mistake philosophy, by the way, which is they should be rare, admitted to, corrected, and learned from. And we follow that with strict adherence during all aspects of running our business. I do believe that the explosion in popularity, quote unquote, of alternative media voices is testimony to the fact that most people see through what's actually going on.

And it gives me great hope. And if you just look at the growth of Substack, which is a platform that we're on and we're investors in, by the way, I should disclose, we participated in the author-led investor round of Substack. Substack has a very strong free speech policy. We'll see how long they can persist in that given the pressures of the

internet censorship overlords and their ever-changing definition of mis- and disinformation. That which has been misinformation is suddenly true. Not always, of course. There is legitimate external disinformation, legitimate toxicity, harmful content. Nobody disagrees that such things don't occur.

I think the disagreement is what should be done about it. But one of the things that I wanted to mention early on when you were talking about Dumberg is we are big, big believers in civilized discourse. And I think that is actually a key part of the brand. We will take all critiques. We will debate anybody anywhere on any topic. If somebody convinces us that we were wrong, we will change our views, but we won't interact with or tolerate trolls. And I think you'll never see a swear word in a Dumberg piece.

Civility is an admirable attribute of society that we should all aspire to achieve. And the best way to achieve anything is to lead by example. And so we are always polite. We go on any podcast that will have us.

And we are not afraid to defend our views because in the circumstances where we're incorrect, then that's just a learning opportunity. And so we need to get back to that. You know, I was perusing some old footage of the CBC for a piece that we've been thinking about writing about Pierre Trudeau and the difference between Pierre and Justin. And we're not really a political periodical, but occasionally we like to go down some rabbit holes. And you just look at the way in which, you know, parliamentary question period used to be

Compared to the soundbite gotcha journalism of today. I think the people are hungry for a return to meaningful debate where all opinions are welcome. Not all are believed.

And the most important thing is we just show our homework. Like every Doobrook piece is replete with 20 or 30 links to how it is that we came to these conclusions. And the comment section, which is closed to paying subscribers only, which has been a great decision, is just a wealth of information. Hey, you got this wrong or have you thought about this? You should look at that. And we've built this network effect where experts give us ideas and validate our pieces before we publish them. And that just adds to our credibility.

Everything you've said there, though, is the antithesis of how we're operating in politics. I mean, we're not operating with respect, you know, and certainly we're not operating by entertaining alternative views, whether, you know, and I think COVID was an extreme of that. Or maybe it wasn't an extreme, but it was a typical where we didn't want to hear from other experts that challenged the government narrative. But what a dangerous way of approaching things. I mean, that's the most anti-scientific way I think you could possibly come up with.

you know, the, the push towards censorship, another, uh, you know, hallmark of that. It's just interesting to hear you describe how you're approaching it. And that is the antithesis of how we're approaching politics today. And I would lean very heavily in favor of following what model you guys are putting out there. And I'd like to think we try to on money talks ourselves, but just interesting to hear that juxtaposition with, with politics today. Uh, I,

I won't go further on that, but there's so much more to follow here. I want to just quickly, I'll leave the China thing in a second, but I want to get to the business side because they have a very specific sort of formula of influencing business. I want you to sort of reiterate that again so we can be more aware of it. So we told the story in Chipshot.

And we started the piece by saying, stop us if you've heard this before. So typically what happens is the West has a big technological advantage over an area that China wants to get into. And suddenly, at global conferences,

companies from China that you've never heard of start attending these conferences and the attendees are very inquisitive and they take pictures of posters and they ask all kinds of questions of people. And then what happens next is they entice typically the sort of bottom quartile of the market who is looking to grow and maybe struggling to come into China. And in so doing, they mandate that they form joint ventures with state-owned enterprises. And as a part of that joint venture formation process,

Key technology has sort of escaped from the West and finds its way into China. And then a fear of missing out happens and all of the other major players in the industry see this mirage of growth in China. And they have quarterly pressures and mark to market accounting and all the other things that are wrong with the sort of modern technology.

free market capitalistic system, which has, of course, many, many positive attributes. But one of the flaws is this short-term mindset. And the market can break down on things, for example, that are in the national interest, especially for multinational corporations whose national interest is really definitive in this regard. And then you see all these other joint ventures showing up. And then suddenly, out of nowhere, a fully state-owned enterprise appears on the scene

with all of the internal trade secrets of all of the Western companies, the best of the best culled into one spectacular product. And this product is amazing in its positive attributes and even more stunning in how cheaply they can produce it and basically in infinite supply. And so then this new company rolls up the domestic market

you know, works out all the kinks and then they start exporting overseas. And I lived this directly in the, in the solar industry, polysilicon in particular and ignits and, and, and wafer formation and cell mounting. They decided they wanted to own the solar industry and they just did like they stole all the IP and,

They cut every environmental corner they could. And they put the Western companies out of business. And it works. And this whole concept that there was some S-curve of innovation that drove the price of solar down is just nonsense. Nobody who actually worked in the industry would say that. China flooded the market with artificially cheap supply in order to drive everybody out of business, and they succeeded.

And isn't that what we're thinking about with EVs at this point? Yeah, I mean, no wonder there's a big concern. And hey, look, like BYD just put out a $9,800 car, US, a little more expensive if you're in Canada. Yeah. So they put out a $10,000 EV that goes 200 miles. Now,

The US and Germany can throw up trade barriers and Japan can throw up trade barriers. But GM and Toyota and Audi or Volkswagen, they're all capitalized to compete globally. And I can tell you the 7 billion people not in the G7 will happily take this dirt cheap, amazing product that is more reliable from BYD than to pay four times as much for a car from Tesla. And I've seen this pattern so many times, which is why we wrote about it.

Because nobody in the industry wants to say it because they're afraid of getting kicked out of the market. China will retaliate. And so we have no such, I suppose, who knows what they could do to us, but I'm sure we're not even on their radar. Hopefully, knock on wood.

I'll come back to what you're saying a moment ago about the chip industry, too. If I'm in Taiwan, I'm worried because that's got to be one of the big deterrences. Of course, they're the chip makers of the world. If China catches up on that and they don't need any input from Taiwan, I worry geopolitically. Of course, that was the point of writing that piece. Once this barrier has been removed...

China is not looking to dominate the global semiconductor industry in the way that they are solar and EVs and other. This is much more serious to the Chinese. They are looking to become self-sufficient because once they become self-sufficient, this gives them maximum military flexibility. And in fact, if they are self-sufficient and they take out the Taiwanese semiconductors, what's the West going to do?

It's a very, very dangerous situation. And we see this pattern playing and we rang that bell in that piece because like, and still people in the West are so naive about it. Like, oh, they're still behind us. No, they're not. That's just what they're allowing you to see. The horse is out of the barn. Like, let's get ready for when the door is going to get slammed shut.

let me change gears here because right now there's the European union election, you know, for the European parliament. Uh, I guess it runs right through till Sunday. Uh, just fascinating that you've just written about this though. Uh, and I love it because this is obviously another pertinent subject, whether in the U S but, or Canada, especially because we like to follow that European model. Uh,

And I look at the energy policy, and you've written a great piece that talks about, hey, is this going to be the actual energy policy? Is it going to be the undoing of the EU? And maybe you could elaborate a bit on that. So the core of that piece is the, I think, undeniable observation that the green energy transition, quote unquote, is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. And what does that mean? Well, if you disconnect from fossil fuels and nuclear energy, it is fundamentally

Very difficult to deny that this necessarily means that the population will experience a substantial drop in its standard of living. Democracies are popularity contests, and nobody wants to voluntarily live a poor life.

And so the green energy transition, when executed, as the architects of that transition ultimately intended to be executed, never mind their polishing of the propaganda around what they think is going on. Deep down, they know what this means. It means less wealth for fewer people, fewer people on the planet in some cases. None of that is popular with people. And democracy is one vote per person. And ultimately, elections are popularity contests. And so taken to the extreme, which it inevitably must,

the proponents of the green energy transition, who genuinely, some of them at least, believe that the world is legitimately going to end if they don't succeed, and that justifies all manner of means, considering the end they're trying to avoid, they very quickly slip into totalitarian instincts. And we see that in the EU, and we'll see how Prime Minister Trudeau handles what looks like to be an election wipeout, if he ever has the courage to call one. This is a very dangerous time.

um, the, the elite in Brussels think they know better and the population in the EU, the population of Germany, the population in Slovakia, the population in Serbia, the population in Hungary, um, European countries, not all of them are in the EU, of course, but, um,

There's a partitioning between sort of the left and the right that is leading to political violence. We just had an attempted assassination of a European head of state for the first time in two decades.

Europe is a powder keg and the elections are happening. Who knows how they'll turn out? We've seen two stabbings in Germany of what the media would call far right politicians of the AFD. This is not positive. This is not healthy, civilized discourse like we talked about earlier. That's missing. There's we know better and you should shut up and take our policies mindset amongst the Trudeaus of the world.

which was on full display during the COVID lockdowns, has been covered widely. So our view is something has to give. And one of the things that might give is the nature of the European Union itself. And we might see a partitioning of countries who care about what their population wants and those whose leaders don't.

And that could get ugly pretty quickly. Now, we don't want that. That is not our base case. But it's a risk on the board that people need to be aware of. Let me add just, and I know time's short, so I'm going to finish this one thing. One of the things that I've really enjoyed in Doomburg is the technical and practical understanding of what that whole energy situation really required. But you've just recently written about, you know, if you want to do this stuff,

you realize how many kilometers of cable you have to add, you know, the transmission, all of those kinds of things. And I think, again, that still isn't very prominent. It's more so maybe, you know, than it was a year ago, but that's still not near as prominent as proponents should make it because if they think this is the way to go, they got a lot of questions to answer.

Well, one of the things that we've observed is that the copper market never really bought the hype. So if we were truly going to outlaw internal combustion engines and force everybody onto electric vehicles and electrify everything, heat pumps instead of furnaces, pick your favorite propaganda du jour from the progressive environmental left,

Copper would not be trading where it is. And many people have wondered what that means. And we've interpreted it as saying, you could either believe Tesla's market cap or the price of copper. And one of those two is more susceptible to sort of market hysteria than the other. The copper market is sleepy. Almost no retail trades it. The price of copper in the last five years

tells us that nobody actually believed this would come to pass. And there's just no way copper would be trading where it is if we were truly going to go down this path and the market believed it. And so one of those two things isn't right. I'd argue one of those two things isn't still right, still isn't right. And they're not like tradable insights, they're just observations. Like we believe that when the market is

not in sync with the narrative, the market is A, probably right, and B, trying to teach you something. And the price of copper never moved. You look at the 10-year chart of the price of copper, and you point out where the green energy transition was believed by the market. It's not there. And by the way, then go ahead and adjust that chart for inflation. Mm-hmm.

The inflation-adjusted price of oil today is $23. People don't realize that. But based on 1980s money, which is what Bloomberg uses for its inflation-adjustment indices, which if you use the Bloomberg terminal, then that's sort of how you measure these things. But in 40-year-old money, the price of oil is the same price as it was when Reagan was president. And in 40-year-old money, the price of copper is pretty dirt cheap.

And given the fact that we have no real major new mines coming online and no major discoveries of high-grade copper like we used to find a century ago, the market just doesn't believe it. And I think Toyota is sort of the ultimate proof point where their hybrid strategy is now suddenly they're thriving in this market as we've come to realize that perhaps

80 kilowatt hour batteries that only abate one driver's gasoline use, not their carbon emissions to be clear because electricity is still predominantly coming from fossil fuels today. This was never going to be the panacea that saves the planet.

I'll make sure that the members of the Liberal cabinet federally hear that. By the way, that is a fascinating way of observing it. And that's, I think, typical of how Doonberg approaches a variety of subjects. In this case, I think that gives a great illustration of looking at it from just a little bit different lens than we're hearing more often. And that's why I enjoy it. I'm a subscriber. I enjoy it. I go to Substack. You just go to Substack and

and type in Doomburg, you'll get the information there. But Doomburg, let me just say thanks so much for finding time. You know, it's always a pleasure for us. Same here, Mike, and looking forward to the next appearance. Great stuff. Thank you.

Time now for the quote of the week. Now, we're continuing on this theme, but this is from the Auditor General of Canada's report on professional services. It was released this week along with, you know, the security report, all of that stuff. So it got a little overshadowed. And this is despite the massive growth in the public sector. The federal government is now spending a record amount on outside consultants. This part of the report focuses on the federal government's favorite consultant, the global giant,

McKinsey and Company, which between 2011 and 2023, 10 federal departments and agencies, 10 crown corporations gave out 97 contracts to McKinsey and Company. $200 million was spent

Now, here's the killer though. $200 million was spent, but contracts were not put out for competitive bid. Plus, the departments failed to show in quotes why a contract was necessary even. No clear statement of what the contract would deliver or confirmation that the government received all the expected deliverables. Oh, isn't that great? That's how your tax dollars are spent. And that brings me to the quote.

Overall, across the 97 contracts awarded McKinsey & Company, we found frequent disregard for procurement policies and guidance, and that contracting practices often did not demonstrate value for money. End of quote. And that's the Auditor General talking about our tax dollars. And I invite you to think about that.

They did not find or demonstrate value for money. I especially want those, though, digress for a sec, who support the increase in the capital gains tax, a tax that actually discourages desperately needed capital investment, the lifeblood of productivity and our standard of living. But they want other Canadians to pay more, despite a high probability that the money's going to be wasted.

inefficiently spent. I mean, you've got Arrive Can, we've got lots of examples, the $6,000 per night hotel room, useless government travel, circus tickets even. Yet they can't understand why some Canadians say no to increased taxation. Unbelievable to me.

I'm certainly in that camp that says the media could play an incredible role in whatever way you want. I mean, informed public, of course, is key, but raising the level of integrity in our debate, all of those things. I find it fascinating, though, that how much of that quality media has migrated into independent media.

I'm thinking of people like we have Terry Glavin on the show with The Real Story. We've had Sam Cooper on the show. Brilliant work when it comes to Chinese interference, the Bureau. And of course, my favorite is Black Locks Reporter,

Why? Because they break so many stories, bring so many stories to our attention that literally isn't being covered in the mainstream media. But I think key to understanding how Ottawa works, where our tax dollars are going, for goodness sakes, and so many other subjects, Tom Korski is the managing editor of

of Black Locks reporter. Tom, first of all, great to have you on. And again, let me just give you a huge pat on the back. I'm very keen on quality media, and I go to Black Locks for so much of it. This is going to be the nicest conversation I have all week. Thank you very much, Michael. I appreciate it. Well, it's a huge and important role, though, that as I say, so many different things, whether, you know, the coverage, I know these are hot button topics right now, but of

things like ArriveCam. Thank goodness you're there reporting on that for ages. You're not new to that story or many, many others. I'm not doing it justice at this moment, but yeah, I think it's key. And that's why I was very concerned when we got a new court ruling about what I would call, again, from a layman's point of view, I pay for my Black Locks subscription.

And it's very clear to me that that is paying for the work your team does, the original research your team does, the sitting for hours upon hours in committee meetings, going through parliamentary notes, all of those things that take a lot of time and energy. And of course, we pay to support that. So I was shocked to see this judge say, no, I could share that indiscriminately. I just, to me, someone who believes in, you know, that people...

should be repaid for their quality work. I just found that flabbergasting. Now, that's an oversimplification. So I'd ask you to elaborate on that, please.

I don't think it is an oversimplification, Michael. I mean, the judge said shoplifting is okay. Let's just be frank. It's just electronic shoplifting. So he tried to dress it up a little bit. It's an interesting story. But this is, we think, a very far-reaching court ruling that affects many, many people in obviously the digital economy, which is the economy now.

And we think it's a G7 first. I don't know of another G7 country that has said you can share a password nine times without payment or permission. Now, that's a judge said that, but he was upholding an argument from the Department of Justice. The defendant in the case was the government of Canada.

And that's exactly what he said. His judgment, I read from the federal judge's ruling. He said the simple act of reading by officials with an immediate interest in articles for business-related reasons is fine. He said this is, you can share your password nine times, that's how many times there was in this case.

if you want it just for business purposes. So now we're contracted, for instance, by a contractor who says, "Well, can I share my password to the National Building Code, which is very expensive?" And we'd say, "Well, the judge just said, 'Yes, you can.' That sounds like business-related reasons." It is wide open. It is jokers wild on passwords now.

And I appreciate that description. I see it as a tactic. And again, obviously, as I said up front, I'm concerned about the quality of the media. We're getting it delivered by people who are independent, who rely on people paid subscriptions for their livelihood and to finance all the research that's required to come up with that background, et cetera. And I just see it's a huge attack on independent media. My opinion is,

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, Michael. I happen to agree with you because it's part of the entire package of initiatives by the usual suspects. The Department of Justice, one of the biggest law firms in the country. They have 600 lawyers. For the biggest corporation in Canada, it's called the Government of Canada. What have they done? Well, they've come in with very lavish subsidies.

by application or publishers they like. You have to be approved.

And, well, what's the benefit? You win the lottery. Almost $30,000, $29,750. Let's call it a $30,000 subsidy per newsroom employee by payroll rebate per year. You find me a small business in Canada that couldn't use a $30,000 annual rebate per employee, but only if you are approved publicly.

publishing by cabinet. 15% subscription tax credits. They get six-figure media monitoring payments. In my opinion, that's straight-up payola. And we found in one case there has been cash for coverage payments by federal agencies to their favorite television network, the CBC. But if you're independent, and we are, and you don't apply for subsidies because you don't want their money,

It can't be independent of government influence and reliant on government subsidies at the same time. Very simple ethic in our shop. If you don't play ball, we can see, and in this case with the judge, it happened to be the Parks Canada agency, but there's 14 other plaintiffs, Michael. They've shared passwords literally hundreds of times.

to access literally thousands of works for nothing. That only has one meaning in our business. That means if you play ball, you get all the carrots. And if you don't play ball, you will get the stick. It's that raw.

And it should be. It just and it is, by the way, I think it is a massive concern, but I would like to emphasize it should be a bigger concern. You know, and obviously the CBC is not popular in the country and I can give a myriad of reasons. I mean, it's not like they haven't supplied the public with reasons, you know, 1.4 percent.

billion dollars in tax dollars. But now that CBC model extends, as you elaborate there, to other aspects of the mainstream media. And, you know, you look at, Tom, you look at the poll results and there's two groups near the bottom. It's politicians and journalists. And I think this does taint journalists. And yeah, it's very difficult. But the other side of this I want to bring forward, though, is

How could, you know, a smaller publication like Black Locks, at least there's not a lot of you in there. You've done very well because people do support the quality there. But, you know, how do you afford to take on the government? I mean, they have literally endless amounts of money to make sure you can't go forward legally.

Well, in this case, you know, it was point of pride. It cost us half a million dollars. We've been going in and out of courts or court hearings for eight years on this to get a judge saying that you can share passwords nine times. And now we're supposed to litigate in the court of appeal the definition of the word password. The judge in this case actually said, I'm not making this up.

He actually said it wasn't obvious what password meant. He said there's no evidence on the definition of password. You know, I was saying to counsel, well, how about the Bible? Why don't we just submit the Bible where it talks about you can't enter the walled city, you can't pass into the city if you don't know the secret word. Password. How am I doing on password definitions? What they've done is...

The government has interfered in newsrooms in our country to an unprecedented degree in peacetime. That's not an exaggeration for the sake of effect. On their best day, Michael, my two cents, they're just incompetent. I mean, they can't even run the post office or the passport office. Come on. This is beyond them. But there's also inherent conflict there.

The government seeks re-election every four years. You are unbelievably naive if you do not think they expect quid pro quo from a paid press. I can give you an example of the corrupting influence of subsidies. I'll keep it short. There was a fall economic statement last November by Finance Minister Freeland. And in that budget update,

She doubled the payroll rebates to $30,000 a year, a cost to taxpayers of $120 million.

Now that was detailed in a budget lockup. All the reporters were in this five-hour lockup all day long. You'll never guess how many of them ran out of that lockup to call that story into their city desk. You're not going to believe this, boss. They just doubled the rebates to $120 million a year as a taxpayer charge.

Nobody. They didn't even have to be told to play ball. That's the corrupting influence of subsidies in our business. It's absolutely dreadful.

That is an excellent example, though. You know, first of all, obviously, taxpayers are very concerned how their money spent. That's why we have an auditor general. We have the Parliamentary Budget Office. But it's clear. I mean, you don't have to guess. Do people care how the money spent? Look at the explosive response you guys got to the ArriveCamp scandal and how that all evolved. I mean, many, many other examples. Unfortunately, many, many other examples.

So there's, I mean, absolutely no excuse. Taxpayers want to know where their money's going. And as you say, a major expense paid for by individual taxpayers, and it doesn't get reported. No, that's not acceptable.

And yet, you know, they polled on it. We don't have to guess what the public thinks. I agree with your intuition. The Privy Council office, that's the very top of the federal bureaucracy, does in-house polling all the time. It's very expensive. They spend $800,000 to $1 million a year on continuous focus groups, Vancouver all the way to St. John's.

constant focus groups the only polls we read because their internal polling that provides the only data that cabinet reads and it's very often a precursor of what is coming down the pipe

And they polled Canadians, everyday Canadians. What do you think about media? Isn't it just so sad about what's happening to the newspapers? Wouldn't you feel terrible if the newspapers folded? Wouldn't you like to keep up subsidies? You know what people said? I could care less. I get my information online. I could care less what happens to the legacy press. There is more, thanks to the internet.

there is more primary research information available you don't need the filter of the reporters who set in a walk-up beat like stenographers within the issue being told what to write by the minister of finance canadians have no interest in this which tells you there's a political interest a very small number of people are interested michael and it's called the cabinet

uh it's an unbelievable story and as you say this isn't isolated there's been an attack on on the independent media you know different bills that kind of thing uh you know that have come through the list is too long but the latest as i say in this regard i find outrageous as i say uh the expense i mean the whole goal is that you guys backlog has led this

This, you know, defense of the independent media and the attack against just this free password sharing. And yeah, it's just it's onerous. It should be a huge, a huge concern for Canadians. And I'm going to add one more thing, though, I was going to mention, but so.

I recommend that people subscribe to Black Locks. And I want people who've listened to this show for years and years to think about how infrequently I ever recommend anything that way. But I will with Black Locks because I don't think you can find out what's going. I agree there's some good stuff on the internet, but you've got to find out what's going on, minding the business of Ottawa. And I'll tell you this, we'll tell you the details in a second, but we will pay for your subscription. We're going to award one subscription today to

to Blacklocks that will pay for it, Money Talks, because as I say, first of all, the challenge is just huge for you. And my thanks and my congratulations to you, Tom, and the Blacklocks team for all that you're doing, including on this file. So thank you. Michael, I'm overwhelmed by the generosity. This is really very gracious. We think it's worth it. And I can't tell you how exciting it is to know that you think it is too. I think this is just fantastic. Thank you. Well, great stuff. Thanks for being with us.

Just before I get to Michael Levy, I want to tell you how you can win that subscription to Black Locks Reporter. Well, it couldn't be easier than this. If you go to mikesmoneytalks.ca, you'll see it right there. Win a subscription to Black Locks. All you have to do is click there. Well, and just about everything else is done for you. We'll make a draw. We'll tell you who the winner is next week.

Of course, the big news this week was we have had the Bank of Canada lowering interest rates. Thank goodness, though, so we don't have to keep talking about when will they lower, at least on that score. Mike Levy joins me now. Michael, yeah, that's my relief, by the way, is I just don't have to keep talking when are they going to. Now we talk about when are they going to do the next one.

And that I think is the tantamount point to dwell on today. Mike is, when are they going to do the next one? Look in March, 2020, it was a quarter of 1%. That was the bank of Canada rate, September, 2023. It was 5%. So that was a really fast uphill run. Yeah. And, and then, uh,

on Wednesday of this week, back down to four and three quarter percent. So we've had nine hikes since March 2020 in three and a half years, a reduction of one quarter of one percent Wednesday. And now I think the important question is, where do we go from here and when? Yeah, absolutely. But I think he also was clear on that. He said, I'm going to watch month to month, you know, and I think he I think the big thing was his change in tone, you know, about what interest rates were doing.

Absolutely. And I was just thinking about that earlier this morning. One rate cut will not make a difference. You and I talked about this. People aren't going to go out and buy a car, buy a house. They're not going to go and be impacted by a one quarter of 1%. But there's a psychological lift, Mike, to the feeling out there. And he, the governor, made sure that we got that psychological lift that he was trying to portray.

Yeah, I'll talk to Ozzy about this coming up in the show, you know, about, you know, impact on mortgages, impact on the real estate market. But as you say, I mean, there's barely any savings at this point. It'll be interesting, though, Mike, whether if people sit there now and anticipate lower rates, more rate cuts coming, you know, over a relatively short period of time, say by the end of the year, that actually may discourage people from at least getting in the market and

you know, because they want to wait for the lower interest rate. I don't disagree at all. But where the bank wants to be is in front of that coming renewal wall. They say in 2025, when people renew, they have to get rates down if markets dictate before that, because that will have a huge impact if rates haven't fallen significantly enough to impact people when they renew.

Let me go just one more here. I sort of surprised, or, you know, I don't know. I mean, one of the things you and I at least have been talking about is if we lower rates and the U.S. doesn't, what does that mean for the Canadian dollar? Now, I wasn't expecting anything this rate decline because it gets anticipated in advance. You know, they thought, you know, there was a big percentage that we were going to get a cut. We know the U.S. wasn't going to get a cut. But it was interesting. He seemed...

oblivious or that's a wrong word, but he didn't care about the impact of on the Canadian dollar if that scenario plays out. And you are absolutely right because

The Bank of Canada, and I think he made that clear, and I think David Rosenberg also in his analysis made very clear the Bank of Canada doesn't have a mandate that includes what's happening south of the border. It has to carry out a domestic policy, just what we're talking about based purely on what's appropriate for Canada. And just to go one step further, inflation

And what I hear from them seems to be completely off the table. They're not saying if inflation does this, if inflation does that. I think that they think in the path that they're taking, that inflation might just be this worry about inflation or another hike in inflation. I don't think that's going to happen from what I read. And I don't think it's going to impact the bank.

Well, I'll just finish with this. I don't see any reason for the Canadian dollar to get stronger. We've got weaker oil prices there. You know, hints at production cuts, the production cuts out of OPCADs aren't going to continue. So I'm looking for a lower price.

you know, uh, you know, somewhat lower in oil. That'll bring the Canadian dollar down. Uh, productivity problems are still out there in spades. That's bringing the Canadian dollar down. And as you just alluded to, the bank of Canada doesn't look ready to protect it in any way. So I'm looking for a lower dollar. Well, Mike, just to finish up, I read the comments of about six or seven economists, bank economists or economists with really, uh,

higher-end financial companies, institutions. Generally, the outlook is for four rate cuts this year, and who knows if we're going to get them, but that's the consensus right now is four this year. Well, we'll be here to chronicle it, Mike. You go out and have a terrific week. You too, Mike. Thanks.

Time now for the shocking stat of the week. Now, I assure you, it was not my intent to focus on government operations. But come on, this one is ridiculous. Think about this. There are 182 people working at the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada.

They have a budget of $137 million, 182 people working their budget, $37 million. Now, this is their mandate, in quotes, protect the rights and interests of consumers of financial products. Well, that's pretty straightforward. And since 2019, well, the agency has received 27,323 complaints from Canadians.

So far, so good. Not. Access to information records show the agency did not answer even one of the 27,323 consumer complaints. They didn't answer one of them. Instead, Canadians who contacted the agency for help were given a form letter suggesting they talked to their banker.

And by the way, this is the kind of stuff you get at Black Locks Reporter. I didn't see this anywhere else, but if you go to Black Locks, you find items like this. That's why I recommend it. But I want you to think of this shocking stat. You got 182 people working at the Financial Consumer Agency. They got over 27,000 complaints. They got a budget of $37 million, and they did not follow up on a single one.

The Western Canada Monthly Income Fund is starting pre-sales on its new project called Portal. This waterfront development in Maple Ridge is expected to sell out quickly. The fund is making limited amounts of investment available. If you're looking for a secure investment in real estate and relatively quick turnaround, what would be better than using your RRSP and TFSA to help build much-needed homes for Canadians? It's common sense investing. The

Established in 2018, the fund pays a monthly fixed target interest plus a generous participating profit share. Request your investor package today at easy-invest.ca. That's easy-invest.ca. Conditions apply. Past results are no guarantee for future results. Check the website for details.

Talking earlier in the show, of course, with Michael Levy about the interest rate change and some of the ramifications of that. But I want to bring in Ozzy Jurek and get to it. You know, on the real estate side, of course, is what's a huge concern, whether people are trying to get into the market or whether people are renewing and watching that renewal process. So, Ozzy, I guess it's the first bit of good news. We finally had our first quarter point.

And of course, then that begs, we're just going to be nonstop talking about what the next one is. But we only reach for relief from that duty to talk about when are they going to cut?

Well, that's right. And we have all kinds of pundits out there saying there'll be two more cuts this year. And then, of course, we talked a couple of weeks ago to one of our major banks saying a full 2% lower by next year. And all of it makes sense when you consider that the office of financial institution, as well as our central bank, are getting ready for

and announcing really lower rates by changing the rules. The mortgage rate is now tied to the income of a buyer, how much he can borrow, and that makes a huge difference when we have lower rates. And the reserve requirements for the banks have increased and all these wonderful things. Well, right now, the person that has a mortgage come and go is still in the middle of deciding, should I go variable or should I go fixed?

Yeah, just throw at us. I don't want to throw this out of the blue at you, but let's talk about that very quickly, though, the difference in rates. But I noticed, for example, on a five-year fixed, I can find a few under 5% now.

Yeah, well, but how much do you save? The variable is really the one that the bank changes. You know, the fixed rate is really tied to the bond market. So that's what we'll have to watch. But so if I have a variable mortgage, I save about $14 for $100,000. So the average mortgage is $500,000. I will save some $70 a month. And if I have a home equity loan, as much as $21 per $100,000.

But on a fixed rate, hey, you're still waiting for the bond market. We now have come down to about March lows. Will we go down to January lows? And if that's the case, then you get the best rate. But Mike, whatever decision people make, go and shop.

between the banks of what they're offering right now, they're all reducing their prime rate by a quarter percent. So they usually offer you maybe a half a percent below that. But the difference between the highest and the lowest is three quarter or one percent right now, just by shopping as to what banks are offering. So if your favorite bank offers you a seven, three quarter, one percent higher rate, don't go there, right? Change. Shopping is very important.

The fixed rate or not is an individual thing. I think the government is desperately trying to get the rates down because of all the annuals we have coming up in 2025 and 26. So as I wrote in my newsletter, I think the bet is for lower rates. So you might want to go variable or at least go short term fixed if that's the better rate. But you mix the call, you mix the money.

Well, the other thing, we talked about the strength of the Alberta market, especially Calgary and Edmonton, but everywhere else it was weak. And boy, there's nothing in what we saw at a greater Toronto area or Vancouver's housing market that, you know, would suggest we don't need lower rates. We do need lower rates is what I'm saying. We do need lower rates. I mean, those things have come to a halt.

Well, that's right. In Toronto, we're 20% lower in sales. And it means 7,000 sales this May, but last year it was 9,000. And then two years ago, it was 11,000. So huge decline in sales. And when you take a look at Vancouver, we got 20% below the 10-year average for May. So 20%. And what it means, Mike, is we sold 840 single-family homes. That's 20% below last year. But we sold 1,432.

homes in 2021. It's huge. It's still 50% less than that. Same in the Fraser Valley. We're down for, we're now 599, but we were 1,300. So the buyer is still spooked, but I think now comes the psychology into place. Will this mean that we are now actually going out there? Because for the buyer, actually, it's a good thing. We have up 48% in active listings in the condo sector.

lots more choice and it's still up about 30% in single family homes, more for sale than last year at this time. So,

You know, it's really funny. There's always a lot of variables moving around. So if they lower rates, that helps people get in the market. But do you think that also sort of suspends any real, you know, if you don't lower rates and the sales continue like that, you're going to get some price adjustments. But if people start anticipating we're not going to lower rates or more rate reductions are coming, maybe the price doesn't adjust as much.

Well, and that's hitting the nail on the head. It's a psychology at place. What is it people still want to buy? But, you know, we're putting them in almost an impossible situation because everything is going up in price. When the government says inflation 2.7%, I make a few speeches, Mike, everybody, one guy stood up and he says, my income is lower, but my costs are higher. Everything I buy is more. So they have this fear of the inflation maybe coming back.

will that mean higher rates and so on and nobody really has the answer. I would say that if I want to look and buy a house, it's still going to be good for you, but shop. You don't have to run around now with multiple offers and you don't have to be scared and the realtor has time to write it and owners will be happy to see you write an offer. So don't be scared. On the other hand, in terms of mortgages,

You have to look at your own income and unfortunately make that tough decision yourself. Well, I've got a feeling the Bank of Canada is watching exactly this. They said from now on we're going month to month. I've got a feeling their fear is they don't want to rekindle the real estate market in some sort of frenzy-like way.

So I think these are incredibly important stats as we move forward. We'll be chronicling them. Of course, you'll be doing it on Oz buzz, but I think this is really one of the main variables. I mean, they're going to look at employment and other things, but I think their fear is that they're going to rekindle inflation and housing is where they're going to first look. But, you know, with the listings up like this, uh,

At least there's a way to absorb any new demand that may come from this specifically. But as I say, Ozzy, you'll be covering it every week on OzBuzz. People can get a free copy. You just have to give Ozzy to let them know where you can send it. So go to OzBuzz.ca. In the meantime, Ozzy, go out and have a terrific week.

Well, thank you, Mike. And I just remember we have the big golf tournament next week and I've been practicing. I've been out there and I'd be happy to tell you I was out yesterday and I'm hitting fewer spectators. I'm getting there. And the other thing, Mike, you know, I know that it's,

it's a tough world and it's so hard to meet new people, but boy, try pick up the wrong golf ball. Well, I was going to say, talk about a win-win. Uh, you're hitting fewer spectators. Good for your golf game. Good for them. Win-win with Aussie Jurek. And you're right. Special Olympics, all golf tournament. One of the highlights of that every year. Love to see the support we get from businesses, but also of course, Aussie is, uh,

been a longtime supporter, but I always enjoy watching me hit the ball. I just feel better about myself then. Ozzy, have a great week. We'll see you at the tournament. And see you all.

Let's go live to the trading desk now. Hey, Vic, on Friday, we got some employment numbers, and I thought it was sort of reinforced as at least my theme that there's a huge discrepancy between Canada and the U.S. when it comes to economic strength, which then gets reflected in their interest rate observations or forecasts. Yeah, sure. We had the monthly reports for both Canada and the United States on Friday. The Canadian ones were actually about as expected, although Stats Canada has been all over the map.

But the American numbers were just way stronger. That's the headline number, I should stress. Way stronger than the market had been expecting. And the market's expectations weren't out of line. We had other employment data this week, sort of second tier stuff, as it were, that really pointed toward, you know, the employment picture is softening. But the non-farm payroll report was much stronger than expected. So cut to the chase. The result was...

The interest rates went higher. The U.S. dollar went a lot higher. And it's like the chances of the Fed cutting rates. They're certainly not going to cut them next week when they meet. They might cut them in September. And who knows, we might even get one more cut by the end of the year. So we've oscillated back and forth between higher for longer and no, it's not. And right now the market believes higher for longer.

Forgive me, I'm just going to fire some stuff at you. The gold action sure grabbed me on Friday when you look at that big decline, and I know you've been following that. Yeah, gold, we've talked about this. It's been all about China. First of all, over the past year or two, central bank buying has been the bedrock that the bullish case has been built on. We used to have a correlation between

A strong U.S. dollar and rising interest rates was toxic for gold. Because of the buying by the central banks, it's like that didn't matter anymore. So Thursday night, that's overnight West Coast time, the People's Republic, Bank of China, whatever, said they're going to put a halt to the buying of gold for their reserves that they've been doing for the past 18 months or so. That caused, when I turned on my machine first thing, a

Friday morning, gold was already down about $60. We're about $150 below the highs that we made in the middle of May.

But certainly the news being the Chinese central bank coming out and said, you know, as you said, they're going to halt their buying of gold for reserve. So that's going to be an interesting story as it sort of plays out. I'm going to come back to the stock market now because it's a theme that you've been talking about is, you know, you look at the market, you can look at the movements, especially in the States, but then you better look at NVIDIA because you may be just talking about NVIDIA under the guise of stock markets.

Well, the leading indices, the NASDAQ and the S&P, certainly making new highs this week again. But it really is all about NVIDIA. I mean, NVIDIA is up 50% from where it was the beginning of May. It's up 30% since the last quarterly report on May the 22nd. And it's up 150% from the beginning of the year.

It's now worth more than $3 trillion. It's worth more than Apple. It is responsible for about 40% of the increase we've had in the S&P this year. And after the close on Friday, they do a 10-for-1 stock split. So, you know, if history is any guide, that ought to put a bid in the market first thing Monday morning.

It is incredible. I mean, it's one of those stories that people will talk about years later, you know, when you look back on that and you think, my gosh, responsible for 40% of the move. You know, that's if you're not crying because you didn't own NVIDIA and enjoy the 50% move since just May 1st.

Let me go to this one, you know, come back for a second to OPIC and oil. Because oil, and Joseph Schachter was on with us, and he was looking for oil down in that $72 range, and he certainly got that. He's still bullish long term, but I'm just saying the oil market certainly has been on the weak side anyways, and this week was certainly an example.

Sure. I guess it was after the show last week. That was Saturday. So Sunday, OPEC had a meeting and they decided that some of the production cutbacks that they put in place over the last year or so were going to be phased out.

What that means when you put it down on a napkin is that its supply is going to be increasing. Well, while at the same time, it seems Chinese demand is weakening. So the oil market's been kind of trending lower for a few months. And we did drop four or five dollars after the OPEC meeting and bounce back a bit here at the end of the week. But yeah, the negative trend in the WTI price of the last couple of months remains intact.

I'm going to finish with this because I like to give myself a headache because we're going to start with the Trump Biden debate. I mean, gosh, it's now it's on the radar. You know, people are talking about it, you know, June 27th. I expect the level of BS to rise dramatically after that as they look at the November election.

Well, clearly, everything is politicized these days. And the first televised debate between Biden and Trump is only three weeks away on the 27th of June.

So you got to expect between I mean, that's going to be a big deal. You know, there's going to be money made, money lost on, you know, how that is interpreted. And as we go toward the election, it's going to get more and more dramatic. Now, put yourself in the shoes of a foreigner who's got money invested in America.

And let's say you put your money in America 10 years ago. Well, it's just done nothing but go up. So you might be thinking, you know, maybe we should bring some of that money home, especially if you're Japanese or just any foreigner. The American market has so outperformed the rest of the world. Maybe people want to take profits. We're talking about, I shouldn't say we, but some of Trump's advisors are saying we want the U.S. dollar down.

As Martin Muirbill has been saying for years, the Asian currencies are grossly undervalued against the U.S. dollar in a mercantilist way so that they can export into America. Trump says, well, cut that bullshit out. We don't want that anymore. So if you're a foreigner and they're going to cheapen the value of the U.S. dollar if Trump gets in, maybe you ought to get your money out before they do that.

And certainly we've got precedent for that. I mean, there's so many examples of that going back. You know, once the signal was that the U.S. dollar was going weaker, you know, you mentioned Japan. I remember that and I think it was off the top of my head in 87. But again,

Again, money started to retreat. So that's a great point to finish on is that people understand that's why it's significant from an investor's point of view. And there's going to be a lot more to come. But in the meantime, Vic, I invite people to go to victoradair.ca, victoradair.ca and check out the charts, check out the analysis. And Vic, you go out and have a great weekend. Thanks, mate. Time now for this week's Goofy Award.

Now, before I get to that goofy, you know, I have to give an immediate honorable mention to what may turn out to be the silliest comment of the year. And for that, I'll go to Liberal MP Jennifer O'Connor, who in response to demands by the opposition party for naming the MPs who the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians stated were basically, well, cooperating with foreign governments, some on the take, principally in China and India.

I mean, the report confirms several previous CSIS warnings about Chinese interference in the 2019-21 election, confirms the good work of Sam Cooper at the Bureau, Terry Glavin and others who chronicled the deep infiltration into Canadian business, politics and society, along with the findings of the independent inquiry of Justice Hogue. But the opposition MPs wanted them to name names. And in response to that, she stood up and went, oh, boo hoo, get over it.

I don't think that was really... I mean, are we supposed to get over the bribery, intellectual property theft, get over Communist Party spying, influence peddling? I mean, the list is a long one. I think that was ill-advised. But by the way...

I don't think they should be naming the names. I think that's something for the judicial system to do, the RCMP, because once you name the name, come on, the person's career is over, reputation ruined, and they don't get a chance to immediately respond. So that's something we should debate, but I still believe in due process. But hey, that brings me to the Goofy Award of the Week.

This past Thursday was D-Day, the 80-year anniversary of the Allied troops landing on Normandy coast, 14,000 Canadians landing on Juneau Beach. I think in what was described many, many times as the beginning of the end of the war in Europe, the unfathomable heroism fighting Hitler and the Nazis.

340 Canadians died on Juneau Beach, but there was other. There was 19 fatal casualties of the 1st Canadian Paratroop Battalion and a further 10 Canadian paratroopers. I think there's 574 wounded, 131 captured on June 6th, 2024. I mean, who and what were they fighting for? They were fighting against Hitler, of course. The authoritarian Nazi regime, their infamous vilification of Jews.

their attempt to eradicate from the face of the earth, eradicate the Jewish population from the face of the earth. Of course, suspending individual freedoms like free speech. This is what our soldiers died for during World War II. Lest we forget is the powerful phrase authored by Rudyard Kipling to commemorate the sacrifice of our soldiers.

who fought for our freedoms only now to see the streets of Canada, our universities, our public sector unions reviving the chants of "Kill the Jews" with a nod of approval of some elected MPs and MLAs with no pushback whatsoever from our political leaders. And now those same leaders go to Normandy, go to the Normandy coast to salute our fallen, wounded and captured soldiers from World War II.

Maybe I'm just one of only a few handful of Canadians who find that a little bit too much to stomach, the hypocrisy. But I know, as a Liberal Member of Parliament for Pickering, Uxbridge said, boo-hoo, Mike, get over it.

Well, that's all the time we have this week. And I just want to remind you, I've got a nice note about this, is people watching Money Talks on YouTube. You just sign in Michael Campbell's Money Talks on YouTube, get all sorts of content. But I appreciate when people do recommend Money Talks to their friends or other people they know. And again, you can do that on YouTube or you can do it at Money Talks Tweets or Mike's Money Talks

dot CA, all of that stuff and join us. But as I say, I want to just say, I really do appreciate you listening and appreciate when people recommend Money Talks. Have a great week.