Transcription
This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company. For more information and links to all our great podcasts, visit hartmandia.com.
Hi, uh, Seth Pom from Orange County, California. Uh, I thought the Empowered Investor event was amazing. Uh, this is actually my second time attending. Uh, last one was about 14-15 years ago. Uh, it's a great event, awesome speakers. They talk about everything from investing to property management to finding great teams, tax, legal, strategy, and uh, all types of like creative software solutions to help make investors successful investing out of state where the numbers make sense.
[Music]
Welcome to the Creating Wealth Show with Jason Hartman. You're about to learn a new slant on investing, some exciting techniques, and fresh new approaches to the world's most historically proven asset class that will enable you to create more wealth and freedom than you ever thought possible. Jason is a genuine self-made multi-millionaire who's actually been there and done it. He's a successful investor, lender, developer, and entrepreneur who's owned properties in 11 states, had hundreds of tenants, and been involved in thousands of real estate transactions. This program will help you follow in Jason's footsteps on the road to your financial independence day. You really can do it. And now, here's your host, Jason Hartman, with the complete solution for real estate investors.
back in 1995 and we quote, "I have a forboating of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide almost without noticing back into superstition and darkness. The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media; the 30-second sound bites now down to 10 seconds or less; lowest common denominator programming; credulous presentations on pseudocience and superstition; but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance." Roll that around for a while.
[Music]
Good day, empowered investors, and greetings from beautiful St. Thomas. We just got here today. I'm speaking on the Real Estate Guys cruise this week, and I have a big presentation coming up. Uh, I don't know, is it tomorrow or the next day? I lose track of time on these trips. Anyway, yes, you probably have noticed I've gained 5 lbs. It's easy to do on a cruise, but uh, we've got a great show for you today. So, we'll get to that in just a moment. I wanted to remind everybody to always join us for our monthly Wednesday, second Wednesday of the month, master classes. And you can do that; you can register by going to jasonheartman.com/wednesday.
And one other thing, just a kind of a business note here for those of you who are in my industry, you know, I just saw a presentation from a guy who's in the business. He obviously listens to the podcast because heck, his presentation sounded just like me, yours truly. Yes. If you're going to steal my ideas, have at it, but at least give me credit. Give proper attribution to the person that inspired that idea. And yes, of course, I do understand that every idea is built on many other ideas, but when you sound like a carbon copy of Jason Hartman, you know, at least give Jason Hartman credit. All right, so I just had to get that out of the way, but let's go ahead and get into the guest portion of our show today.
[Music]
It is my pleasure to welcome Edward Dow to the show. I've been wanting to interview him for quite a while. He is a founding partner at Finance Technologies—by the way, is that how you pronounce that?—Yeah. Yeah. It's it's spelled in a very interesting way—a global macro alternative investment firm. And he's also author of the book *Cause Unknown*, the epidemic of sudden deaths in 2021 and 2022. So really looking forward to diving into some of these topics with him today. We had a great conversation before we started. Edward, welcome. How you doing?
Great. Thanks for having me on.
Thanks for having me on today, Jason. It's good to have you. And you are coming to us from beautiful Maui, right?
Yep. Maui. I live on Maui. Not a bad place to watch the world chaos unfold.
Yeah, absolutely. It's a it's a pretty gorgeous place. Well, I wanted to ask you first about your book and then let's talk about some macro topics. You know, the epics of sudden deaths. You were talking before the show about these increases in mortality, all-cause mortality I guess, you know, just wanted you to to share your thesis and talk about the book a little bit.
Yeah. So, I wrote a book in 2022 and Bobby Kennedy wrote the forward. The afterward was written by Gavin Decker who wrote *The Gift of Fear*. And they approached me to write the book because I was starting to become well known for investigating all-cause mortality during the pandemic, especially once the vaccines rolled out. And we found something very interesting early days and we did a lot of research uh subsequent to the book that's on our website at financetechchnologies.com—spelled with the ph—and uh, the the essential thing that really started us down this path of—we're Wall Street guys. We follow trends, you know, we study trends and and inflection points. And we noticed that about 500,000 people died excessively in 2020. You can argue why that happened and they were mostly old. Then in 2021, uh, we noticed that 500,000 Americans died excessively as well. But there was a mix shift in Wall Street. We focus on mixes of uh revenues. So we analyze the mix shift of age. And so about 124,000 people between the age of uh 16 and 64 died in 2020. That rose to 234,000 in 2021. And that makes no sense. Okay? You know, we had a pandemic with the virus that's becoming less virulent over time. Each subsequent variant was less lethal. And we had a a supposed vaccine solution. So why would young people be dying excessively in 2021? Then we've there was data that wasn't even our own. It was the insurance companies have a report they put out annually. It's the Society of Actuaries that looks at—So that's life.
When you say insurance, that's life insurance, right?
Life insurance. And it's specifically group life insurance. Whole life is different than group life. Group life are policies that are given to employees at Fortune 500 companies and midsize companies for free.
Got it.
I don't know whether you've worked for a Fortune 500 company or midsize, but you get as one of your benefits. You get your health care plan on day one. You sign you pick your health care plan and then you also get group life, which means if you were to die, you get one or two times your base salary. And you name a beneficiary. If you're married, it's your wife or husband. And if you're not married, you know, maybe it's your mom or dad. And this it's kind of, you know, through my whole career, you never thought about it. And it's a great business for um life insurance companies because young people, especially working-age people are much healthier than the average Joe in the population by the very fact that you get to, you know, get up in the morning and go to work. And statistically, they die a lot less often in the whole general scheme of the population than everybody else. So, it's a great business. Well, in 2021, the millennial age group aged 25 through 44 saw their excess mortality in the group life business. Specifically, in this survey of all the life companies in the US, their excess mortality in Q1 and Q2 was running around 30%. Then it exploded to—
That's unbelievable.
30% got worse.
Well, no. And then in in the third quarter of 2021, it exploded to 80%.
80%. And what age group? What age group is this?
25 through 44. That's unbelievable. Now, it peaked in the third quarter of 2021. For the whole year, that age group, the age group 16-64 experienced 40% excess mortality. Now, what's interesting, what's interesting is the general US population experienced 32% excess mortality. The whole US. So if this is a healthier group, right?
Yes.
And they've done studies on this. Uh, typically speaking, in any given year, their group of people that they insured experience one-third the e the mortality of the general US population. But in that year, they experienced more excess mortality than the general population. So and then there was the spike in the third quarter of 2021. So you have to ask yourself what happened in the third quarter of 2021 to cause that temporal spike. For anybody with logical deductive reasoning, you could you could postulate it was mandates and the vaccine. You know, millennials, especially millennials, are vac they're not vaccine hesitant. They're just lazy. And so what did we know in 2021? We knew that the the COVID basically was not as deadly as was initially advertised and it took out mostly old people. So millennials didn't feel the need to get the vax until it was mandated and a gun was put to their head and that's why we saw that spike in the third quarter. Then the other uh smoking gun was disability data from the U uh the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. When I say disability, this is a survey. It's important people understand what the data is. It's a monthly survey and it asks questions, six questions and if you answer yes to one of the questions, you're labeled as disabled. So it's just a survey. So it's not it's not it's it's not as granular but it's it's a number. Prior to COVID, it was running 30 million and uh during COVID, it dropped a little bit, but then it started to accelerate in February of 2021 when the vaccines were rolled out, you know, so it's correlated to that and it it took off at such a rate of rapid rate of increase. You can look at any of the charts I put out on US disability data without any you don't even need to manipulate it. just the raw data. It looks like this chart like this and then it goes like this. It's just like looks like a a growth stock chart breaking up. So in 2021 the change the slope of the of the line took off. That was a four standard deviation event and it kept going. So between February of 2021 and September of 2022, we added 3 million disabled people to the survey. If you drill down into it, half of those were employed.
Very interesting.
Half of those three million were employed. And what's the thesis on the employed?
Well, they were the ones that were forced to get vaccinated. And the general—
That's exactly what I thought you were going to say.
Yeah. Right. Yeah. And then then that plateaued for a little bit, went sideways, then in June of 2023, it took off again. It went up another million. And then it went sideways again. And then in November of last year it went up again another million. So we're at about five million excess we call them excess. And so the rate of change while it slowed the growth of the disabled has slowed it hasn't come it's not correcting. So that was another problem. We we then corroborated that evidence with a look at the UK disability data. They have a they call the personal independent payment system and it's called PIP. They are even more granular because these are actual claims. So we analyze new claims and they started exploding in 2021 and they went up 80%. Uh into 2022 and then 23 our last data scrape uh it was up 60%. From the baseline and they have much better granularity than the US. You can go into little actual body systems and all sorts of things took off. Hematological issues, visual issues, cardiac issues, oncology issues, you name it, they all exploded. So that corroborated our work in the US with even more granularity. If you go to our website, you can go into these body systems and see it. One of the problems with studying this, I think, and you know, please weigh in on this, is the lag time between when someone gets the shot and the problems occur, the injury or the death, right? Do you have any thoughts about that lag time? I mean, is it pretty instant or is it a week, a month, a year? You know, what what about that? For example, are vaccine are excess deaths and vaccine injuries still occurring today long?
Well, so when you look when you look at it on a population level, the excess uh mortality, we saw about 1.2 million Americans perish excessively between 2021 and 2023. 1.2 million. Most of those were old. About 300,000 were in the 16 to 64 cohort. So 300,000 people in that age group died over between 21 and 23 excessively. So you have to ask yourself, okay, so what does—So when you when I say a 40% excess mortality for group life, it's statistically very meaningful. But on an actual population number, it's low because excess to people who aren't supposed to die does not create a big number. Old people die. So most of the excess deaths occurred in the old people even though their excess mortality statistically was lower. It's a ma it's a mapping. So when I say 40% sounds shocking and it is because you're not supposed to die, but the num the absolute numbers are low, right? So while people focus on the deaths, the problem is actually the disabilities and the injuries. Those are much larger. So the death rate we think from the vaccine was 0.3%. So very low, but statistically a disaster for a vaccine, a disaster. The real damage comes from the downstream effects, which as you move further away from the shot, it's harder to measure, but disabilities are a good indication of that. So the disabled outnumber the excess deaths by about 4x and then the injuries which are compromised immune systems which will develop death eventually is about 18% of those who took the vaccine. So those are huge numbers.
Okay. So and you know what almost seems like it well it's I I'm guessing this is not counted at all but I consider it a disability and that is infertility and miscarriages. Those issues are way up is my understanding. I don't even know if you can really measure infertility because, you know, it's probably not reported, right? Or people just think it's just the normal infertility problems, but what are your thoughts on those two?
Well, so you know, we've been asked to to analyze uh fertility and uh birth. The problem is birth rates are affected. It's very noisy data as oppo deaths are very steady data that like that's why life insurance is such a great business. It's a very, you know, the number of deaths are easily calculated in the general population. Um, and that's why you can get, you know, a baseline and and measure excess versus normal. In fertility, the data is a lot noisier because economic issues do affect fertility. So, we've been asked to say, have have the vaccines affected fertility? Fertility and births are down, but we can't say it's a trend unless it's persistent because the data, the historical data is more noisy. Does that make sense? Because there are fl there are more fluctuations in bursts from economic activity. So, I suspect fertility has been affected. We can't prove it statistically until we get more time behind us, but we want to be honest about the measurement. So, yeah, that's why we haven't come out and said anything. And quite frankly, as I was telling you earlier before the show, we're no longer doing research uh on this data because we did enough. We think we proved our case and you know, free, we did it for free and free doesn't work as a business model, right?
Completely understand that. But it's a great service to people that you did that free work. So, thank you for doing it.
I mean, what is countable and quantifiable though is the miscarriage. The infertility problem is hard to quantify. I get it. very noisy data as you'd like to say, but miscarriages, they're not very noisy. I don't know if you studied that at all.
No, we didn't look at that. And and I I I think Dr. James Thorp has looked into that and he has a lot to say about that. Uh because he's he's a uh that's his specialty. He said in his practice, he's seen horrific things.
Yeah, that's awful.
Okay. Well, hey, let's switch gears to the things that pay the bills and keep the lights on for you. And that is economics. And would you say that you study economics always from a demographic point of view? I was first introduced to that in the '90s by Harry Dent who's become the ultimate doomer. He's been on my show about a dozen times. I just emailed him yesterday asking what he thinks of uh you know the latest uh craziness in the world. But is that your main focus as a way to look at economics?
No. No. I mean I demographics are you can't make money from demographics because they evolve too slowly. You cannot trade demographics. Uh so we look at a bunch of other early cycle indicators that are secret sauce and um we look at things that have predictive value of where the economy is going. And so your audience knows we made a call in 2023, beginning in 23 that we were seeing a recession unfolding at the end of 23, beginning of 24. We were wrong. Our models are very predictive and they really haven't been as wrong as they were. So we asked ourselves the question, have the laws of fundamental economics changed or was there something different this time? And we figured out that the economy was floated with a new economic variable temporarily called illegal immigration. Because when you bring in 10 to 20 million people in a very short time frame and you use deficit spending, you can easily manipulate the economy for a time. And you know that's what happened. And look, this was it was an illegal operation that was done by our US government and it was done you washed we're finding out through the NGO system and we ran crisis level deficits for two years. We had 8% of GDP was the deficit. The last time we ran 8% deficits to GDP was during the great financial crisis. Now we don't have the we don't have the numbers but we think reasonable back of the envelope math to get someone from Central America through the Darian Gap. And if you saw any of Brett Weinstein's work, he went to the Darian Gap. I mean, that was a that was a welloiled machine run by NGOs to get people into Mexico, right? So that requires money. So the money money was spent to do that. That flows into the economy because a lot of those people were employees of these NGOs. Then you get them across the border. Then they get transportation into the interior of the US because they didn't walk to Minneapolis or Chicago or or New York. That's they had transport they had transportation and then they're set up with shelter and then they're set up with food and clothing. It doesn't matter whether it came directly from the US government in terms of fraudulent and social security numbers or an NGO because the NGOs's got the money from the US government. So huge economic stimulus.
Okay. Okay. So let's let's just before you move on that's great. You've outlined it and I agree with you. But let's quantify that. I mean, if the GDP of the country is, you know, say 29 trillion, give or take, is this a trillion dollars, how much is that stimulus?
Well, let's think about it. Is it reasonable to think each illegal alien all in and I'm not talking the money they received directly, but you know, the the the money that went around and get them somewhere because that was that was people got paid to help them.
Oh, sure. Yeah. There there's there's ancillary businesses that made money around this operation. Absolutely. the all-in the all-in cost of an illegal alien economically that stimulated the economy. Is it reasonable to assume 50,000 or 100,000? This is not a big number.
Yeah. And what did they get directly? So if there were 10 million, which is the official number of illegal uh of border encounters, that's 500 billion or a trillion. And if it's 20 million, it's it's two trillion or a trillion.
Yeah. And if you look at our deficits, we were running $2 trillion deficits. What was that? Some of it was government employees. The economy on the margin was floated in 23 and 24 by government spending. What do we know Trump's doing? He's reversing that trend. If you were supposed to have a recession in 23 24, we didn't. And then you your your growth was basically this operation on the margin was bringing in these people. They put pressure on all sorts of goods and services. that's going to have a reversal because that's what Trump was elected to do. The tide is going out.
Yeah. Now, Trump is going to have a recession. I've been saying it's really not his fault because he was elected to do this. And if we don't have a recession and the government spending increases and we don't see any real movement on the—
Deportation, front and whatnot, then I would say Trump betrayed his election promises. So if they try to avoid a recession, which, mind you, I think would require trillions of dollars of government spending, then you're—we're betrayed. But so far, it doesn't look like he's betraying the American people. Looks like he's stopped the flow at the border. And Doge is cutting off a lot of this funny money.
And the fiscal year goes from September to September, right? Biden, in for the 2025 budget year, had four months because he had a lot of January. He increased government spending the last four months 13% year-over-year from the prior quarter. The budget growth is seven. So that implies the rest of the year is flat government spend. So the second derivative on government spending is going the wrong way, just going the wrong way. And that that'll have an impact on the economy.
I like what Trump is doing. I think it's the right thing to do. He's keeping his promises. Okay. Most of the stuff I—I like what he's doing. Okay. So, you know, anybody can disagree with me on that, but, you know, what he's doing is not going to be without like some pretty big bumps in the road. You know, the tariff policy, the illegals, etc. You know, that—that's a big hit to the economy, right? There's no question that there's an adjustment period that'll take one and a half to two years for—and these are some pretty big pills to swallow. Okay.
What does Trump need to have happen or do that he can control that solves his problem that offsets the problems caused by tariffs and deportations or—or even stemming the flow? You said government spending, but I sort of wonder if he just can override Powell somehow. If he can get rates down, it seems like that could offset the, you know, I'm going to call it damage that is being done by the other things.
Well, rates coming down will eventually help the economy. But if you look at the last two recessions, the big ones, not Co was a—a forced recession. We turned off the economy. Let's look at the rest of the US—of the entire planet. Yeah. Let's look—let's look at the dot-com and the great financial crisis. Interest rates peaked and started coming down before the economy went into recession. So after a period of economic growth and then raising of interest rates—of plateauing, once interest rates start coming down, that's when the recession really kicks off. So rates will help, but the—it's already baked into the cake. There will be no way to avoid this. And if he tries to avoid it, he's only kicking the can down the road.
I think what he can do and he should do is deregulate as much of the government as he can because deregulation is, you know, under the Obama years—and he did some deregulation in this first term—we need to like just deregulate and cut the red tape. That is—that adds a tremendous amount of cost—and, you know, 30% of a home's cost is regulation, right? I mean that would be great if you could get rid of that, you know, so you can just build things, but you can't get rid of it all. You know, you can only get rid of maybe half of it, right? Half of the regulation, you know, you need some regulations. You're still going to have some, right? But a lot of it's excessively ridiculous.
As you know, if—if you're trying to start a small business, it's almost impossible. Yeah. To start a small business and actually be successful, you have to like ignore the regulations to get revenue first, then backfill and pay all the permitting. Some of the most successful businessmen on Maui just started their business and then after they got revenues then started paying all the nonsense that they had. You can't start a business these days in—in Hawaii at least because the upfront costs are—are too high, you know, for all the permitting and the nonsense. So, you almost have to be like break the law to get it going and then pay it later. Business now, compliance later.
Yeah. Yeah. He has to institute his 2017 tax cuts, reinstitute them. I saw Bessant wants to incentivize bringing manufacturing to the US so you can depreciate the whole plant in the first year. So they're going to do things to bring economic activity to the US. The problem is it doesn't happen overnight. You know, you don't break ground on a factory and hire a bunch of people. It takes time for sure. It takes time. So our thesis is there's going to be some pain but not a systemic crisis. We're not going to go like great financial crisis. If we do, we'll—we'll call it out in real time. Deep recession then—then a quick recovery. So if everything goes well, this is like the Ronald Reagan, you know, recession of uh 81 82 and then—and then a boom because Ronald Reagan inherited a—a disaster as well.
Oh yeah. No question about it. Yeah. Okay. What else do you want people to know? You know, just wrapping things up, you know, any—anything else you want—you want to share?
Yeah, let's talk about the tariffs. I think that's a topic that a lot of people don't understand. When he did the April 2nd Liberation Day tariffs, there was a lot of nashing of teeth, a lot of hyperbole, a lot of people angry. We sat still, we read the executive order in our report that we—that's for sale in January. We outlined trade negotiations are coming and we looked at the balance of payments between the nations and what we determined he was trying to do was start with the end goal: zero trade imbalance between countries, which is unrealistic, but that's what he was targeting—and the idea was we thought at the time he just wants to bring people to the table. All the criticism we heard was, "Oh, you have to like talk to each country. There's nuance." That would take months. I mean, you know, you gotta like go into—you got to go into the trade laws on the books and get into the nitty-gritty detail. He doesn't have time for that. So, what he's doing is he's tearing up the whole book, bringing people to the table. And you saw that immediately he suspended the tariffs for 90 days. And the idea is just to bring people to the table. And we said this is a dynamic process. Tariffs are an exogenous event that can be turned on and off with a light switch. And that's what we're seeing. So tariffs in general are deflationary because their price tax hikes and microeconomics would suggest the price increase is less than the quantity demanded. So it's a revenue hit to companies depending on the price elasticity of the item. So it's deflationary and the Fed should be accommodating and should be cutting rates now, but they're not going to because they're being political.
Is your view on tariffs being deflationary considered contrarian? Because I know a lot of economists who would say they're inflationary. I mean, I get the idea—the idea that I think you're making that is, you know, you tax something, you get less of it. Tariffs are a tax, right? So, you—you suppress the activity if you tax it. You—you got to look at the whole—the whole pie. You know, Mexican beer will go up. Well, if you—if you're, you know, indifferent to that, you'll buy local beer, you know. So, substitution—substitution. So in total they decrease revenues—like the total pie across nations—it's deflationary—and this is not completely contrarian. Dr. Lacy Hunt, who is a friend of mine, agrees with us 100%. He thinks tariffs are—are deflationary on the margin and they cause a shock to the system and when quantity demanded is reduced that reduces the money supply. You need to—you know—loosen the money supply—not—not increase it—but loosen it. And the Fed's not doing that.
What are your thoughts on—on the Fed? Are we going to see some rate cuts this year? I mean, Powell seems to be just holding out. I—I can't believe how tough he's being on, you know, he—he seems to go too long. I think Powell just goes too long on everything. You know, he kept saying transitory—transitory with the inflation problem and the supply chains for way too long. I think he should have hiked rates sooner and more softly, but he didn't. You know, the transitory was long gone in my opinion and Powell was still believing it, right? And now it seems like he's just waiting too long to cut. Your thoughts?
Well, the Fed is always behind the eight-ball. The Fed always is—uh—slow to raise, slow to lower, and I think it's just—it's a repeat of the same cycle we've always seen. The hard data will surprise to the downside and that's when they'll react. But, you know, they should already see indications. If—if the economy was floated by government spending and government spending is on the second derivative going the wrong way, you would hope they would be anticipatory, but they never are. So, we suspect if we're right on our call of a deep recession and we're also looking for inflation CPI to print a sub 2% number in the next 6 to 12 months, we think the Fed will follow and they'll probably lower 100–200 basis points from where we are now. The yield curve will normalize and indicate that that monetary policy that they do in the middle of the recession will have a good impact 18 months out. So, you know, the yield curve was inverted forever and it's starting to uninvert. And once it uninverts, that's actually the recessionary signal, but it's also predictive of the economy getting better on the other side. So, look, recessions are not something to fear. If asset prices come down, it's—it's—it's good for those who are saving money, bad for those who are overlevered. Prices coming down is not necessarily a bad thing. It's bad for those who are overlevered to the asset.
Yeah. Interesting. What else do you want people to know? Just wrap it up with some final thoughts for us.
You know, look, I'm—I'm a big proponent of removing the mRNA shot from the—uh—vaccine schedule because it's the most deadly vaccine we've ever seen. In VAERS alone, there's 19,000 deaths recorded from the mRNA vaccines. If you just use an under-reporting factor of 30, about 600,000 people have died from the vaccine on that calculation alone. Not my numbers, just traditional VAERS numbers. Uh, it should be pulled, and this current administration is doing a lot of great things on the health front, but they seem to not want to talk about the mRNA vaccine, and I'm wondering why—well, it's probably a follow-the-money issue, you know, and the pharma companies are incredibly powerful, but, you know, RFK—he said he was going to get busy on that stuff—he did announce something just last week, I think it was—on vaccine testing—and I—I think you've just got to create liability for vaccine manufacturers. They should not be immune.
You know, look, one of the biggest disasters you and I can agree on was the '86 vaccine injury or—uh—I forget what they call the act, but it was where they gave immunity to vaccine manufacturers. Yeah. So, if you have no incentive to worry about the safety of your product, guess what? You're going to sell it, and you don't care.
Yeah. Right. Exactly. Exactly. And right about the time that vaccine immunity happened, and I don't mean from the vaccine, I mean legal immunity from before—for the manufacturer—that was when the number of vaccines on the vaccine schedule, the childhood schedule, just skyrocketed right after that. You know, the two are just totally connected.
Yeah. Look, I'm 58. I was born in '67. I didn't get that many vaccines compared to my millennial friends that were jabbed—jabbed out the eyeballs. And you know, look, RFK has talked about this. When I was growing up, people didn't have all these allergies to stuff.
Yeah, I know. And now all of a sudden, all my millennial friends can't eat peanuts. They get eczema. They're a mess compared to, you know, 58-year-old me. It's—it's pretty interesting.
Yeah, I—I know. I know. It's—it's awful. It's, you know, no one used to be allergic to peanuts. I never heard of that until I became, you know, well into my adulthood. I mean, I never heard of such a thing. I first heard it on an airline flight, you know, I—I never knew what that was. So, yeah, absolutely.
Well, uh, hey, uh, give out your website, Edward, and tell people where they can find out more and, you know, read some of your stuff.
Yeah. So, uh, our website is financetechnologies.com—spelled with a ph. We're currently selling an economic report. That's about a 100 pages. You also get an executive presentation and a video of Carlos and I talking about the presentation that's available for sale on our website. We also have free vaccine research, thousands of hours of trends and—and alarming statistics regarding, you know, excess cardiac issues, cancer issues, especially amongst the young—excess deaths. Uh, we do analysis of different countries. We have also a free resource page where we put out a lot of economic stuff for free. It's also on our website. I'm also on Twitter—or X—@EdwardDow and Getter—@EdwardDow. I post more on X, so follow me on X.
Good stuff. Edward Dow, thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you so much, Jason.
Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so that you don't miss any episodes. Be sure to check out the show's specific website and our general website, hartmandia.com, for appropriate disclaimers and terms of service. Remember that guest opinions are their own. And if you require specific legal or tax advice, or advice in any other specialized area, please consult an appropriate professional. And we also very much appreciate you reviewing the show. Please go to iTunes or Stitcher Radio or whatever platform you're using and write a review for the show. We would very much appreciate that. And be sure to make it official and subscribe so you do not miss any episodes. We look forward to seeing you on the next episode.