Fuel Crisis Spreads Globally: Brace For Price Explosion | Colin Grabow

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has pushed several economies and countries to the brink.

The Philippines just declared a state of national energy emergency and has already rationing fuel.

India just initiated emergency deep water drilling to tap its offshore reserves and avoid

its supply collapse. Countries across Oceana, including Australia and New Zealand,

are weighing national energy emergencies as import routes freeze.

I'm on a quarter of a tank, been driving for about 500 kilometres and not a drop of diesel anywhere.

This is a service station that's run completely out of diesel and these trucks here

are all waiting. This is like this across South Australia and now Victoria.

New Zealand now even announced that nearly 150,000 families will soon receive a weekly cash

payment to help them afford gas. Meanwhile, gas prices in the US and Canada have also

soared with gas prices in the US climbing to $3.94 us of this morning, March 26th.

But thus far, the US has avoided a 1970-style oil shortage. One reason is that domestic

production provides a vital buffer as the US is now the world's largest producer of oil and gas.

The White House is also taking emergency steps to keep fuel prices from exploding.

One specific move was temporarily waiving the Jones Act, which is a 1920 maritime law that

requires all goods transported by water between US ports to be carried on ships built, owned,

and crewed by Americans. This strict requirement severely limits the number of available cargo

vessels and suspending the law temporarily allows foreign tankers to move oil between American ports.

As a result, domestic fuel can't be transported with fewer delays.

This emergency waiver also exposes a permanent friction point in the American economy.

These domestic shipping rules function as a hidden tax on everything from gasoline to groceries.

Follow and subscribe for more daily updates. Joining us now to explain how these policies drive

up your cost of living is Colin Grebo, Associate Director of the Kato Institute's Herbert A.

Steve will center for trade policy studies. And don't forget to subscribe to my briefs channel,

shorter 10-minute clips linked down below. Colin, good to see you. Welcome to the show.

David, thank you very much. We'll look forward to the conversation.

Look forward to it as well. Let me play for you a clip of Trump talking about affordability,

and we'll start there. Take a listen.

After gasoline skyrocketed over $5 a gallon in some places, $7, $8, and even $9 a gallon in the

Biden, our policies of broadcast prices weigh down. And now, $2.37 a gallon, but I was in a beautiful

place called Iowa two weeks ago, $1.85 a gallon for gasoline. Way down. All of it's come down.

We inherited a mess with high prices and high inflation, and we've turned it around and we've

made it great. And they don't mention, like I said before, they don't mention the word affordability

Kelly. They don't mention, I haven't heard the word in two weeks, because they can't get away

with the gate. It's all a con job with them. Air fairs, hotels, car payments, rent, sports

events, groceries, everything's down, everything's down, dairy, eggs, potatoes, and chicken. Core

inflation is now the lowest of any time in more than seven years.

Can you just evaluate what he said so far, and maybe just get your perspective on whether or

not any of that is true? And if prices have indeed come down for certain goods and gasoline,

in some cases, how much can we attribute that to a little known law called the Jones Act?

Yeah, so it's interesting to listen to the president's comments, talk about

rising affordability when, of course, the president has made a big priority, trying to increase

the price of goods through his tariff-led trade agenda. So tariffs, of course, are taxes paid

by Americans on imported goods. They raise the cost of things to Americans. This is totally

antithetical, I think, to an agenda of making things more affordable. So it was difficult for me

to square that with some of this rhetoric. I don't have a car, so I don't drive while I don't pay

attention to the price of gas, but I do go grocery shopping among other things, and is talk about

lower prices, do not comport with my own personal experience. I don't think it comports

through the experience of a lot of other Americans, and frankly, I don't think it comports with

the available data either. What can the government do to bring down prices? We mentioned

waving the Jones Act, we'll talk about in more detail in just a minute. But are there any other

initiatives that Congress can take to make affordability, I guess, more of a reality for mainstream

Americans? Yeah, I think that a lot of policy lever is available to both policymakers on the

federal and state level to increase affordability. Again, a great place to start with the tariffs.

The president has made that a priority to his, but ultimately Congress can override him. They

have the power to take away these tariffs and remove them. So I think it'd be very welcome if

they would act. That would be an immediate tax cut for Americans to provide welcome relief.

There's any number of rules and regulations that could be relaxed or dispensed with entirely.

It's interesting that within the past couple of weeks that we've, of course, have the Jones

Act waiver. We've also talked about the suspension. I think it's renewable fuel standard.

Other means of making gasoline more affordable. So policymakers know that there are laws in the

books that drive up the cost of living for Americans. And I think revisiting them, this is a very

app time to take a fresh look at some of the things the government does on both the federal and

state level that increases the cost of living for Americans. What happens when gas goes north of

where it is right now? So $5 a gallon for diesel, historic highs. At what point does the economy

break, Colin? Good question. I'm not an energy economist. Thankfully, our economy has become

less dependent on fossil fuels. And also we can, we're more efficient energy efficient. We can

get more economic growth for a unit of energy input. So that helps, but let's not make a mistake

at the end of the illusion that these don't have significant negative implications for our economy.

We need energy to move our economy quite literally. So rising costs of diesel, for example, wealth,

you know, so much of what we move around this country goes by truck. That is bad for trucking

companies for the cost of transportation. Of course, transportation costs reverberate throughout

our economy. So clearly, this is a negative. The only question is exactly the magnitude of how

bad it is. Well, the Fed has kept rates unchanged. What should be the correct policy going forward?

Not a central banker. Thank goodness. I don't pretend to have a good handle on what our interest rates

could be. I'll defer to the experts on that one. With the Fed battling the inflation side, rising

inflation concerns as well as higher unemployment, Congress has to take measures. New Zealand,

like I mentioned in the introduction, has taken the initiative to provide low-income families

up to 150,000 I've read with cash to fight higher gas prices. Is that something that the American

Congress should consider as well? Well, I would favor policies again that drive up, taking a

fresh look at policies that drive up the cost of living for Americans. I think just taking

taxpayer money and redistributing it is the easy button. The harder and more necessary

option is to revisit a lot of the laws that we have on the books that drive up costs that

introduce inefficiencies into our economy. But that's hard. So, of course, governments prefer to

spend other people's money rather than tackle those laws and the interest groups that support them.

Before we continue with the video, I'd like to bring to your attention something that's perhaps

even more valuable and important than your investment portfolio. And that's your personal data

and your privacy. Now, your personal information is more accessible than you may think. And that's

what today's sponsor, Delete Me, comes in. Data brokers and search websites gather and sell

details like your name, home address, phone number, and even family connections. Sometimes without

you even realizing it. Delete Me is a service I use to help me limit that exposure. Set up

takes only a few minutes. And after that, their team handles everything. They identify where your

information appears, confirm those listings and submit a removal requests to hundreds of data broker

websites. They also continue monitoring over time since this data can reappear. I've been

personally using it for over a year now and they've reviewed over 325 listings for my information.

The reports show exactly what was found and what was removed, which makes a process transparent.

If you want to check it out, go to jointdeleteam.com slash davidlin link in the description down below

or scan the QR code here to get started. Use my code davidlin for 20% off. Get started and protect

your privacy today. Well, the Supreme Court has ruled against and struck down the IEP tariffs.

But as you recall, President Trump actually doubled down and is now looking for workarounds.

So in short, are we expecting a wind down of tariffs going forward?

The tariffs will very much be a story for the months and probably years ahead.

As you mentioned, the Supreme Court struck down the IEP tariffs,

deeming that they were not within the president's authority to impose. However, the president

does have plenty of other authorities to impose tariffs. And these signaled a willingness and

desire to make use of them. So we can expect more tariffs imposed under, for example, section 301,

section 232. These are national security tariffs. Section 301 is designed to combat

unfair trade practices by other countries. So they will very much be looking for ways of

substituting the tariffs they had under the IEP with replacing them with tariffs imposed under

new authorities. The president remains very committed to a tariff led trade agenda. And I don't

see any sign that either he will divert from that or the Congress will do its job and reclaim

that authority and eliminate these tariffs. That leads us to talk about shipping. Earlier in the

month, you recall that you'll see we saw headlines like this. Trump waves, the Jones Act

shipping restrictions and latest bit to ease gas prices. The White House is temporarily lifting

key limits on the shipping of oil gas and other commodities through the United States.

It's effort to counter rising energy prices sparked by its war with Iran. Let's talk about this.

Why have headlines been made around the Jones Act? What is it? Give us a brief history

and then we can talk about its implications. Yes. So the Jones Act is section 27 of the Merchant

Marine Act of 1920, which essentially states that to move goods by water within the United States,

you have to use a vessel that is U.S. flagged and registered that is crude by Americans.

There's at least 75% owned by Americans and that is built here in the United States.

Now, the impact of this law is that it makes shipping incredibly more expensive than what you find

internationally where the Jones Act does not fly. So we're talking about energy here. Let's talk

about tankers. A product tanker used to move, say, jet fuel or motor gasoline, for example. To build

one in Asia right now, it costs around $50 million. The way this estimated price to build one here

in the United States, the complies with the Jones Act is at least $240 million. And that's just

the capital expense. Then you have the operating expenses. American flag ships have annual operating

expenses around $11.5 million. International flag ships less than $3 million. And there's not a lot

to choose from to serve the needs of the world's biggest economy. We have 54 tankers of which 43 are

product tankers to move fuel around. That's out of the global population of around $7,500. So you take

ships that are a few in number, expensive to build, expensive to operate. You're going to get very

costly shipping. But ultimately, how is this going to alleviate energy stress? Given that the U.S.

produces most of its energy. Yeah, go ahead. We produce energy. We have a lot of places in

this country that are dependent on water transportation for to receive their energy. For example, Florida

receives, they are not connected to pipelines. So they rely on shipping to ship in gas from the

Gulf Coast, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, obviously shipping dependent. Also, the Northeast, they are

pipeline constrained. The colonial pipeline terminates in New York Harbor. So that has to

take a lot of that. Speaking of why water up to New England. Also, California is not connected to

the rest of the country's pipeline network. So, you know, a few weeks ago, it was reported by Bloomberg

that one of California's top sources of fuel was the Bahamas. What was happening there? Well,

tankers were taking fuel components from the Gulf Coast to the Bahamas dropping off. They would

be mixed into a new product and taking into the Bahamas to California. All of that was to avoid

the Jones Act by having two international voyages instead of one domestic voyage where the Jones

Act applies. So it's reported that U.S. built tankers, this is from the Keto Institute. Actually,

it's reported that U.S. built tankers cost an average five times more than some foreign

built tankers. Now, if that's the case, isn't the Jones Act basically just a hidden tax?

I think that's an excellent way of framing it. I would look at it as a hidden tax on domestic

commerce, on Americans' abilities to trade and do business with one another. We live in a huge

country that spans thousands of miles and water transportation is an efficient means of moving

large quantities of goods over long distances. And unfortunately, we've made it so costly that we

really only use shipping for those instances, the situations where there is no alternative,

such as taking goods to islands like Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or taking goods to Alaska, or again,

as I mentioned earlier, to Florida where they have a lack of pipeline. So we've taken what should

be a very efficient means of transportation and can't take it off the table to a large extent.

Have you or your colleagues at the Keto Institute run numbers on how commerce would be

affected if the Jones Act were eliminated completely? Yeah, so getting good numbers on exactly

how much the country stands to benefit has never really been done, a truly comprehensive study.

But we can look at some examples out there. So, for example, there's a recent paper about

a few years ago which is just Puerto Rico by itself, estimated the gains or something on the order

of $1.4 billion just to there. Other studies have looked at, for example, Hawaii, $1.2 billion.

I think the last study, there's a study done a few years ago, looked at just fuel movements on

the East Coast and they estimated it gained to consumers, I don't believe, $770 million, something

like that. So we want to have a full comprehensive picture, but we have little pieces of evidence that

suggests that on a national scale, it would be quite significant. Well, let's take a look now at

another article that the Keto Institute published. This was a while ago. Candy coated cartel time to

kill the U.S. Sugar Program. You wrote this in 2018. So it's not exactly recent, but it's probably

ongoing. For decades, the federal government has been operating a program to control the production

and importation of sugar. One of the program's main purposes is to ensure minimum price

price levels for sugar that is typically significantly higher than those found on international

markets. Give us a summary of your findings and why this is significant.

Yes. So Americans pay higher prices for sugar than pretty much every other country in the world.

And this is thanks to the U.S. Sugar Program. There's a program that deliberately limits both

the amount of domestic production as well as limits the amount of sugar that can be imported

into the country. So when you restrict supply and you have consistent demands, you're all

push prices up. You have sugar prices tend to depend on the time of year, two to three times higher

than what you find in other countries. This is one big reason why if you go to your local grocery

store, you will see American Coke and you'll see Mexican Coke for sale. Why two different types of

Mexican Coke made in Mexico with access to internationally priced sugar, they actually use a sugar.

Where it's here in the United States, we rely on high fructose corn syrup, both because of the

sugar program as well as our subsidies to corn that make corn artificially cheap. But it's not

just soda. You know, think about any profit use of sugar as an input candy. They have to pay

more. So this is resulted, for example, in candy manufacturers moving to other countries,

including the Canada. Nobody is leaving the United States for Canada to go there for the cheap

wages. They're going there for the access to reasonably priced sugar. So this is another,

like the Jones Act, you have a relatively small number of people that profit from this.

Your average American has to pay more and it's just an ongoing story here in Washington. And that

is another example of a law that Congress should be serious about getting rid of if it wants to

increase affordability for Americans. Don't we have anti-trust laws against these types of

cartels exactly? Well, it's an interesting point that we do have laws that are supposed to

are raining cartels and predatory corporate behavior. And then we have these laws that frankly

enable this kind of behavior. I mean, the entire point of the sugar program is to make it more

expensive. We can extend this to shipping as well. I think about 15 or 20 years ago or so.

In Puerto Rico, the federal government convicted a group of shipping executives for colluding

on prices. The only way they could do that is because of the Jones Act keeps out 99% of the

world ships. So relatively small number, you can all get together and collude and coordinate.

So true anti-trust exemption would try to remove import barriers from both competition,

expose more of the U.S. economy to the international marketplace.

Okay, so what do you think should be done here if we were to implement or suggest policy

revisions? Yeah, so I get an ideal world. We both we repeal the U.S. sugar program. It's frankly

obscene that we have a program whose entire purpose is just to enrich certain subset of farmers

and the expense of the rest of the United States. This serves no national security interests,

no national interests of any kind. I think that's very straightforward on the Jones Act.

Ideally, we get rid of this law and expand shipping to international competition. I think maybe

a happy medium would be to bring the law in line with other forms of transportation such as aircraft

where foreign carriers cannot operate within the United States, but they can use foreign built aircraft

like Airbus, for example, and I think the industry benefits tremendously from that. The American

shipping companies could buy ships at one-fifth the price. I'm thinking we'd have cheaper shipping

and a lot more ships to better serve U.S. economy. Can you think of any protectionist measures

that actually benefit the American consumer and I'm not talking about defense? Sure.

Off the other hand, no, almost behind every tariff you encounter, there is some special interest

group that is pushing to maintain it. There's a backstory there. We can talk about sugar,

we can talk about shipping, we can add steel to the list. Of course, we have 50% tariffs on

steel imports. This is, I think, quite transparently to curry favor with the steel industry that is

located in the rust belt. These are swing states and presidential elections. They have a lot of

influence. This is not about protecting American consumers. It's about lying in the pockets of

well-connected special interests. Let's say we eliminate things at the Jones Act and then we

get rid of cartels. What is the immediate impact on the prices of goods in places like a Hawaii,

for example, where it's estimated that the Jones Act costs the average family from Hawaii

about $1,800 per year? Yes. I think this would be a big shot in the arms for affordability there.

It would put downward pressure on prices, more competition, bring in goods cheaper. It's not

just the goods you find on your shelf. This is also energy, Hawaii imports oil from all over the

world. One place they don't get oil from is the U.S. Gulf Coast because we've made it so expensive

because of the Jones Act. We can make energy cheaper there. You get things cheaper. That makes it

more appealing, more affordable for tourists to further boost their economy. Lots of wins there,

but let's not think this is a Hawaii problem or Puerto Rico problem. This is very much an American

problem. I think this would be a big boost to economic growth here in the United States. If we

could get the same efficient transportation we use for our imports and exports and apply that

nationally. We give you one back tooid I learned recently. According to a U.S. agricultural company,

it costs him as much to send fertilizer from Florida to New Orleans, which is about 500 nautical

miles as to send it down to Brazil, which is roughly 5,000 nautical miles. We could radically reduce

the cost of water transportation. I think it would be wonderful for this country and then get rid

of all the other protections laws we discussed, remove tariffs. That's a formula for growth.

The argument for protectionism, especially tariffs and things like the Jones Act, is to protect

local industries. In the case of Jones Act, presumably to protect shipbuilders in the U.S.

and for tariffs to protect manufacturing within the U.S. If we don't protect these industries

and the sector at large, we lose jobs and the economy suffers even more. Do you buy that argument?

I don't buy that. No, I don't not at all. Be up to take my word for it. Let's just look at the

evidence here. So we have the Jones Act, which again requires the use of U.S. built ships. The

theory being this ensures we have a robust modern shipbuilding industry. Well, according to the

most recent data in 2024, the United States account for 0.04% of global shipbuilding output.

Well, the last decade we account for something like two tenths of one percent. We are the world's

number two manufacturing country and we're somewhere between 15 to 20th place when it comes to

shipbuilding. It's really hard to make the case we've done any favors here. And it's also not a

surprise in an industry protected from competition not exposed to world class competition has become

woefully uncompetitive. That seems fairly axiomatic. Sorry, reject the idea that we're doing the many

favors. But if we want to just focus purely on jobs, what's good for the American worker? What's

good for American industry? I don't think we're the protections and works there either. Having

costly steel is not a formula for growth. How many industries out there use steel as an input?

Think about autos. Think about shipbuilding. You want to help them out? Let's have them have access

to internationally competitive inputs. Something like half of what Americans import are inputs used

in manufacturing. So we're taxing our industry and we're putting ourselves in the back foot in

terms of our ability to compete. Well, let's take the automobile sector as an example. So I'm

based in Canada and the government here recently in the last couple of months reduced tariffs on

Chinese EVs from 100% to 6.1%. Now 100% is still the tariff amount that the US has imposed in

Chinese cars. What would happen theoretically if the US does the exact same thing as Canada?

What happened to Ford GM and all the other American based companies?

Yeah, I think we have to think about these things as the short medium and long terms. The short

and short term is going to be a shock to the system. They're going to have to up their game.

There probably will be some pain for these industries. But I think that Americans are very competitive

and that they can rise to the occasion. We've seen this before with the US auto industry. I think

the competition from say Japanese imports back in the 70s and 80s ultimately made the US more

competitive industry. One thing that's also helped the US auto industry is NAFTA or the US MCA,

whatever you want to call it, integration with North American supply chains. The ability to work

with our Canadian and Mexican neighbors to competitively produce cars a bit of big boost. Let's learn

from that and let's look for ways to reduce their input costs and ways to make them more competitive.

Then also we have to think about Americans and what if we had access to cheaper EVs and all the

gains from that? That needs to factor into the equation as well. Let me just step away from

trade policies and legislation for just a minute and get your outlook on how inflation and perhaps

free trade is going to progress in the United States. What is your current sentiment? Are you

optimistic for economic growth in the US overall? I think the United States has been an economic

powerhouse for quite a while. I don't think the fundamental conditions have changed. They would

cause it to reverse course. Certainly there are challenges. One of these is trade policy. What

is the long-term outlook for trade policy? We've unfortunately dipped our toes into the

protectionist waters in recent years, if not just plunged right into them. I'm hoping that this

will be a learning experience for Americans that we backed away from free trade, decided to try

out protectionism. It's very difficult to make the case. This has worked out very well for us,

and I'm hoping that this will produce a renewed appreciation for the benefits of free trade

and the lowering of trade barriers. If we can learn that lesson and reverse course, then I think

I'm really optimistic about the country's future. What do you think has contributed to American

exceptionalism over the last 100 years, well more specifically 70 years since World War II?

I think one underappreciated factor behind American growth is that the United States is a

huge country and a huge economy, and we have free trade among our states. Many of our states

have GDPs and not all of them. They're equivalent to other foreign countries, significant foreign

countries. In the fact that we can trade amongst ourselves, as I think it's part of the formula

for growth we've seen, having relatively low levels of regulation. The fact that we are a country

while other countries, for example, have turned their back on fossil fuels, and the United States,

with the fracking boom, I think has been a huge tailwind for growth here. The fact that we've had

historically open position on immigration, our ability to attract talent from over the world has

been, again traditionally, a factor for success. Unfortunately, I think we've backed away from that,

turned our back a bit on the benefits of immigration and foreign talent. Again, I'm hoping that's

another lesson that we'll learn and we'll reverse course on having touched the stove on that and

found how hot it is. So yeah, I think US has benefited from a number of factors. I'm optimistic

those still remain in place and can serve as foundation for future growth. Does the United States still

need free trade and ultimately globalization moving forward? Let me play for you a clip of a

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik at the WEF earlier this year. Take a listen. You should

start at a much higher level. Okay. We are in Davos that the world economic for and the Trump

administration and myself. We are here to make a very clear point. Globalization has failed

the West and the United States of America. It's a failed policy. It is what the WEF has stood for,

which is export, offshore, far sure, find the cheapest labor in the world and the world is a

better place for it. The fact is it has left America behind. It has left the American workers behind.

And what we are here to say is that America first is a different model. One that we encourage

other countries to consider, which is that our workers come first. We can have policies that

impact our workers. Sovereignty is your borders. You're entitled to have borders. You shouldn't

offshore your medicine. You shouldn't offshore your semiconductor. You shouldn't offshore your entire

industrial base and have it be hollowed out beneath you. You should not be dependent for that,

which is fundamental to your sovereignty. Can you just evaluate his America first policy that he's

talking about and ultimately his court thesis that globalization has failed? Yeah, it's interesting

to me that Secretary Lutnik did not provide any facts or any numbers to back up any of his assertions.

I think there's a good reason for that. They simply don't work.

Pick your metric. Look at American personal income, household income, family income,

all turning up and have been for decades. He talks about manufacturing.

United States is a world's number two manufacturing country behind only China.

A country that has something like three to four times the population that we do.

If you look at American manufacturing output, it's at or near an all time high.

You look at industrial capacity. If you look at manufacturing value added, it's at an all time high.

My all kinds of metrics Americans are doing better than ever. I think globalization is part

of the explanations, part of the reason. I remember I recall that a couple of years ago,

the economist magazine had a cover story instead of America, the indie of the world.

This was before all the tariffs were imposed. We hear a lot of rhetoric but not a lot of facts

to support them about the evils of globalization. Well, there are certain countries.

I don't know if you want to name specific ones, but just in theory, are there certain countries

that a nation should not be trading with by a nation I mean specifically the US?

No, I don't think there's any country that we should not be trading with. There may be certain

products, certain goods that we don't want to engage in trade with. So for example,

it's probably not wise policy for the United States to purchase navy ships from China.

That makes sense to me. There are certain narrow restrictions that I think can be entertained

and pass a national security test. But I think trade as a free trade as a general principle

should be the default position. And in fact, I think there's good literature to suggest it's

also international security interests by reducing the chances of conflict. It's not a guarantee.

I think countries that trade together are less likely to go to war with one another.

So I think on a variety of perspectives. It serves them one last thing. Cuba. I mean, this is a

country we do not trade with. I think it's some very small agricultural trade. It's hard for me

to make the case that that has been a successful policy in either formulating change for Cuba,

improving the position of the Cuban people, achieving the number of foreign policy goals. So yes,

I think the trade should be the default position with perhaps some narrow exceptions here and

there. Well, we all had to study David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage in school.

Theory states probably speaking that nation's benefit with trade were from trade by trading with

each other if they specialize in certain goods. If a country is better at producing one good versus

the other, they should sell that good and buy something else that the other country is better

producing it. Is there a chance in the future in which technology allows the U.S. or any other

country to have an absolute advantage over all goods thereby eliminating the need for trade?

I'm very skeptical of that. Technology has been progressing and improving for generations.

And yet we haven't come to a place like that. It's difficult for me to imagine a scenario which

that no longer holds that we no longer specialize. And in fact, I suspect the globalization and

technology may increase specialization by decreasing barriers to trade and reducing transaction

costs. Okay. Excellent. Thank you so much, Colin. Tell us a little bit about your work and

where we can find your work. Yes. So I'm Colin Grabo over at the Cato Institute. I can be found

on X or Twitter at CP Grabo. And you can find all my work on the Cato's website as well.

All right. We'll put the links down below. So make sure to follow Colin and the Cato Institute.

Welcome to the show. Colin is good to have you. And I look forward to having you back on again.

Take care for now. All right, David. Enjoy the conversation. Take care as well.

Thank you for watching. Don't forget to like, subscribe.