The Javier Milei phenomenon

“Long live freedom, damn it!” Javier Milei uttered these words immediately after the results of the presidential election were announced. He won more than 55% of the vote, defeating Sergio Massé, the left-wing Minister of Economy, who conceded defeat that same evening. Buenos Aires took to the streets. People danced, shouted and celebrated in the squares. And with good reason. At that point, inflation was out of control and stood at over 200%.

For decades, the country had been mired in marasmus and recurring crises. Amidst this chaos, Javier Milei offered things that no one had dared to say so loudly before. The problem is not the new crises. The problem lies with the state. Milei diagnosed the disease and sought a radical cure. He symbolically waved a chainsaw and hinted at merciless cuts. Reduce the state to a minimum. Cut government spending. Liquidate the central bank. And replace the peso with the American dollar, which would probably be the most controversial measure.

Javier Milei may be a revolutionary, but above all he is an economist. For more than 15 years, he taught microeconomics, macroeconomics, monetary theory, finance and even mathematics at universities. He has published more than 50 scientific articles, written several books and worked as an economist at London-based HSBC, one of the world’s largest banks. Over time, he was invited to appear in the media. First as an expert. Then as a phenomenon. On television, he spoke about the economy without mercy and without beating around the bush. He explained, accused, hammered home his points. For this, the Argentinians loved him. His popularity grew very quickly.

He became a threat to the Peronist elite. They called him “crazy,” “fascist,” and even “the new Hitler.” When he announced his participation in the presidential elections, he was offered a bribe of $300,000 to leave politics. He refused.

When Javier Milei took office, the country was already on the brink of collapse. In just one month, December, inflation reached almost 30%, and every second child lived in poverty. The scale of the crisis was so absurd that the monthly rent for an apartment was cheaper than a pair of shoes due to years of government interference in housing policy. Milei knew very well that he had no time to lose. He did not wait the proverbial 100 days. He did not wait a month. He acted immediately, and the first results of his decisions were already evident after ten days of his presidency. That was when a “decree of necessity and urgency” was announced, i.e. a powerful reform package comprising a total of 366 changes contained in a single document. Doesn’t that remind you of Trump?

This list included decisions of great significance: the devaluation of the peso by 54%, the reduction of the number of ministries from 18 to 8, and the dismissal of more than 40,000 public sector employees. The government has frozen hundreds of infrastructure projects and abolished subsidies for electricity, transport and public services. Although not all the results of these changes are immediately apparent, the most important effects have become noticeable. Above all, the fact that the country has achieved a budget surplus for the first time in a decade and inflation has fallen from 211% to 118%. The poverty rate has also fallen. UNICEF reports that since the president took office, nearly 2 million children have been lifted out of poverty. This is particularly important because, despite cutting health, education and science spending, Milei has maintained important social programmes, even though she has changed the rules.

Unfortunately, there are also changes that are worrying, precisely because of Trump, who recently interfered in the midterm elections in Argentina, which could decide Milei’s future success: he ordered Finance Minister Scott Bessent to start buying Argentine pesos in order to maintain their value on the markets. He then proposed a so-called swap line, an agreement that guarantees Argentina currency liquidity worth around $40 billion. In practice, this meant stabilising the peso at the most critical moment. Interestingly, this decision even drew criticism from Donald Trump’s camp. From a purely economic point of view, it was difficult to justify. Argentina’s economy is not closely linked to the US economy. In addition, Javier Milei abolished export tariffs in return, which led to massive purchases of Argentine soybeans by China. This was at the expense of US farmers, and this move directly affected US interests.

So why did Trump decide to take this step? For two reasons. The first is an ideal argument that sells very well in the media. Javier Milei openly advocates economic freedom, limiting the role of the state and the free market. All these values are close to Donald Trump’s heart. In South America, which has shifted almost entirely to the left in recent years, with Brazil, Chile and Colombia being governed by left-wing parties, Milei’s Argentina is becoming a political exception. It is the last bastion of the right and the free market in the region. But there is also a second aspect, much less romantic but much more realistic. Milei’s support is an investment in the future influence of the United States in South America and provides access to resources. Argentina has a vast territory, natural wealth and mining potential. It is as always in Washington’s politics: creating dependency through debt that can be repaid in the future, for example through concessions for US companies in the form of mining concessions, research permits, investment and capital expansion.

Trump threatened to withdraw his support if Milei performed poorly in the midterm elections. But despite radical cuts in government spending and reforms affecting millions of Argentinians, Milei’s party – La Libertad Avanza – received a whopping 41% of the vote. It wasn’t just a number. It was a signal: despite the costs, society still believes in his vision. Before the vote, Milei’s party had only seven seats in the Senate. After the election, that number nearly doubled to 13. From a legislative standpoint, this meant one thing: the real ability to continue reforms.

Argentina went bankrupt nine times. Nine times, the state was unable to repay its debts. Each time, the story began in the same way. Good intentions, generous policies, government spending and money. And it always ended in inflation, capital flight and poverty. Javier Milei’s victory did not come out of nowhere. It was a natural reaction to the cancer that has been plaguing Argentina for decades. That cancer was hyperinflation, political lies, empty cash machines, closed factories and a currency that no one wanted. However, Argentina’s history teaches us something very important. Crises do not come out of nowhere. They are the result of decisions that seem practical in the short term but prove disastrous in the long run. Inflation does not start with a printing press at the central bank. It starts with political approval to live beyond one’s means.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Gone are the days when the world watched, with bated breath, the many talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on reduction and control of nuclear arms development. Gone are the headlines announcing the beginning, continuation and completion of the SALT or START talks. The world has changed.

Now it is the United States – as before – Russia – a replacement for the Soviet Union – and… China! When the SALT and START talks were conducted, no one paid any attention to the Middle Kingdom. Now China is a power to reckon with, not merely economically but also militarily. China is estimated to have some 350 strategic missile launching pads as opposed to some 480 American. That’s hard on America’s heels. Now what negotiations on nuclear arms control and arms limitation can be conducted between the United States and the Russian Federation without taking into the equation the Middle Kingdom?

The problem is that Moscow says it has nothing to do with China: China is not Russia’s military ally, though Washington perceives it as such. Contrarily, Russia views France and the United Kingdom as America’s closest allies, and rightly so: all the three countries belong to NATO. Hence, Russia’s demand that both France and Great Britain be included in the talks is legitimate.

On the other hand, Washington is legitimately concerned about China: under the current circumstances Beijing can certainly be viewed as Russia’s ally rather than that of America. (Just to think of it: China’s might have been created by the United States of which we’ll make a reminder later in the text.) Neither does the Middle Kingdom want to be included in the trilateral talks with the Russian Federation: why should it? It is an independent power – superpower – and it can act at the negotiating table on its own. So much so that Beijing has something to win from Washington: ok, the Chinese may say, we could reduce our military development if you lift the sanctions on China and the countries that wish to trade with the Middle Kingdom. How about that? Nuclear might is always a fine bargaining chip, is it not?

It is even true of tiny North Korea as well: not that North Korea is so powerful as to be considered for joint talks. No. But Korean nuclear potential is a sufficient deterrent even for such a superpower as the United States. And there is something more to the nuclear potential: it is the determination of the Korean leadership to actually use the missiles if push comes to shove. It is not Venezuela, whose president can be adducted in broad daylight without the perpetrator of the abduction fearing any retaliation, but we are digressing.

The balance of forces has changed since the year in which the Soviet Union disintegrated. For maybe as many as two decades the United States dominated the globe and felt so self-assured that Washington began to dictate to the whole globe. This, however, has changed. Russia has reasserted herself while China has risen to the status of a(n almost) superpower.

Which by the way is good for humanity. One superpower with no rival to fear would soon become corrupted and degenerated. All the other countries would have felt intimidated with no alternative anywhere in sight. Fortunately, a world emerges where there are three or maybe four (if we include India) big players, which allows for the smaller entities to have a political alternative, and which keeps each superpower in check.

A new arrangement needs to be made – no one power wants the prospect of a nuclear shootout. Talks are not going to be easy, because it is now three big entities, not two.

Political persistent rumour has it that Adolf Hitler was the creation of the Western elites who wished to rebuild Germany and direct its power against the Bolshevik Soviet Union. That is why London and Paris did not react when Germany began to arm itself, when Germany incorporated Austria and annexed Czechia; that explains why they did not react when Poland was attacked. The Western elites wanted Germany to expand, grow stronger, and come into physical contact with the Soviet Union. Now Adolf Hitler – assuming he was the darling of the Western elites – stopped playing by their script and turned against them when he attacked Denmark and Norway, the Low Countries and eventually France. It came as a shock: he was supposed to attack the Soviet Union!

Isn’t history repeating itself? The Middle Kingdom was supported by the United States for the express purpose to turn it against the Soviet Union. Washington would have rubbed its hands in glee if Beijing and Moscow started a real hot war! Decades have passed and – due to clumsy American policy-making – Moscow was pushed into Beijing’s embrace while Beijing was pushed in Moscow’s. Now they are – though not formally – economic and military allies. But again, the Kremlin may repeat: we have nothing to do with it. Had not Washington acted the way it did, there would have been no war in Ukraine, no sanctions on Russia and China, and consequently no Russo-Chinese cooperation.

The three gunslingers have a hard nut to crack. Certainly, none wants a nuclear exchange, yet each wants to get the upper hand. They are observing each other attentively, not knowing in which direction to level their guns. It reminds one of the cultic cemetery scene from the 1966 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly classic movie. Do you recall it? Good Blondie (Clint Eastwood), bad Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), and ugly Tuco (Eli Wallach) are facing each other – graves and crosses around them, their hands over their holsters, their eyes darting from face to face, their minds calculating. That’s the United States, that’s the Russian Federation, and that’s the People’s Republic of China facing each other (who is the good, the bad or the ugly is a matter of your political persuasion). In the graveyard scene only one emerges victorious. How will things play out in political reality at beginning of the 21 century?

Davos 2026

After the notorious Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, resigned following allegations of financial and ethical misconduct, the forum took on a new dynamic. Whereas speeches used to be an expression of blind faith in mainstream ideology such as globalisation, green transition, climate change, sustainable development, human and LGBT rights, today they feel like a breath of fresh air. Take, for example, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who said:

“We are in Davos at the World Economic Forum 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 W has stood for which is export offshore farshore 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 semiconductors. 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 on any other nation. And if you’re going to be dependent on someone, it darn well better be your best allies. Okay? And so that is a different way of thinking. It is completely different than the WEF” (Video)

Oh dear! It’s a good thing Klaus Schwab can’t hear that, otherwise he’d have a heart attack.

Canadian Prime Minister Carney also pointed out in Davos that “the existing world order is collapsing.” He also highlighted the plight of small and medium-sized countries, which now have to cope with pressure from the largest ones. The Canadian Prime Minister said that these states should join forces so as “not to be crushed by the rivalry of the superpowers.” It seems that these words refer most to the countries of the European Union, which in recent months have pursued a different policy as a group from what Donald Trump is trying to do.

Due to the many controversial actions of the US president, we are gradually reaching a situation where simply showing resistance to him is enough to gain popularity. Previously, Justin Trudeau’s popularity grew because of such a conflict (it was Trump’s fault, not Trudeau’s merit), and now Carney also received a lot of praise after his speech, although as a former banker, he is more reminiscent of Macron in terms of credibility.

Among other important statements from Davos, the following are also worth mentioning:

[1] Larry Fink (CEO of Blackrock) stated that tokenising assets is the only sensible decision and that next-generation financial markets should already be based on tokenised shares or bonds.

This proves that the elites have not given up the fight against cash.

[2] Christine Lagarde (head of the ECB) drew attention to the problem of wealth inequality. And indeed, this problem does exist, but Ms Lagarde has probably forgotten who fuelled this problem over the last decade through massive money printing and intervention in the financial markets.

[3] Javier Milei (President of Argentina) reminded us that the West could still have a bright future ahead of it, but that it needs to turn towards freedom. These words were probably directed at the United Kingdom, Belarus and Germany, where freedom of expression is being fiercely opposed. (See also: Article in Gefira)

Merz versus Merkel and Scholz?

Friedrich’s speeches were always boring and merely reflected Germany’s political mainstream. They provided fertile ground for criticism from the AfD. Yes, if chancellors like Scholz or Merz were concise, witty and non-conformist, the AfD would not have risen so high. And lo and behold: the chancellor, who has long since surpassed Olaf Scholz in terms of total unpopularity among his own people, is finally speaking plainly:

“I would like us to return to acceptable market prices in energy production at some point and not have to permanently subsidise energy prices from the federal budget. [Applause] We cannot do that in the long term. And that is possible – I want to say this here, it is almost trivial, but I want to say it again: it was a serious strategic mistake to phase out nuclear energy. If we were going to do it, we should at least have kept the last remaining nuclear power plants in Germany online three years ago, so that we would at least have the electricity generation capacity [applause] that we had at that time. As it is, we are now undertaking the most expensive energy transition in the world. I don’t know of any other country that is making it as difficult and as expensive for itself as Germany. We have taken on something that we now have to correct, but we simply do not have enough energy generation capacity. So, we want to improve this quickly. The power plants are to be built. As I said, we now have the approval, which is imminent. All the necessary documents have been exchanged, and then we can get started, put it out to tender and start building. Incidentally, construction can also take place at the old sites. The old grids can also be used. That was different under the previous government. They wanted to do everything from scratch.” (Video)

Exactly: making everything new – that is the core idea of all revolutionaries, whether they are red, brown or green. But where was this combative Merz when his party colleague Angela Merkel shut down nuclear power plants in 2011 amid the Fukushima fever? There is a lack of men with backbone in both the CDU and the SPD, because it was under Merz’s government that the two 160-metre-high cooling towers of the Gundremmingen nuclear power plant were blown up in front of thousands of spectators.

So is this policy change genuine, or just empty words? The question is not insignificant, especially for Germany’s neighbouring countries. France, for example, supplies Germany with electricity from nuclear power plants to prevent blackouts in the country and is therefore more of a lobbyist for the Greens. Poland, on the other hand, is a subcontractor to the German automotive and engineering industry, and if Germany commits economic suicide through its green policies in recent years, this will have a negative impact on the country’s economy.

2 million draft dodgers

On Jan 30. 2026, Czech Radio Plus (Český rozhlas Plus) conducted a thirty-minute interview with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The journalist kept asking questions in English, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy kept answering in Ukrainian.

Most of the time the talk was predictable and boring. President Zelenskyy is giving such interviews by the hundreds, and there is really nothing new he might say. The war is going on as it has been going on for four years now. The president’s pleas and requests that he has been making throughout this time – at first embraced with understanding – have slowly begun to fall on deaf ears: Europe is no more capable of supporting Ukraine while the United States has reversed political course. If the European Union cannot send more aid to Kiev, what could Czechia do?

Towards the end of the talk there emerged an interesting piece of information. The journalist quoted Ukraine’s current minister of defence saying that there are as many as two million Ukrainian men avoiding draft, men who are for the most part outside Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was asked what he would like to say to those men and whether he would not like European governments – among others the Czech government – to push those men back to Ukraine. What may come as a surprise Volodymyr Zelenskyy neither condemned military dodgers nor did he call for measures to make them join the Ukrainian army. Ukraine’s president tried to understand the different motivations behind the decision that made those men quit their homeland. He also grew philosophical when he began describing the war-seasoned soldiers in the front and saying that they would not be too happy to have among themselves guys who are unwilling to fight. Fighting men necessarily hugely rely on their brothers in arms because they depend on them for their life. A dodger forced into military service might bring more detriment than be of any use.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s lenient stance on draft evasion poses questions. Has the president become soft on dodgers because he feels politically insecure? Has he become soft because he fears being imprisoned at the war’s end and accused of sending hundreds of thousands to the front to be killed and mutilated, knowing full well that the war cannot be won? Has Volodymyr Zelenskyy understood the senselessness of the hostilities? Does he anticipate the near end of the war? Or maybe he has realised that Ukraine will need men – lots of men – after the war for reconstruction? Has he understood that even if Ukraine won the war, the huge lack of men would make it impossible for the country to rebuild its economy?

One of the final questions was whether Volodymyr Zelenskyy considered being elected for the second term. The reply was that he did not know yet whether he would run again for president, but – yes – he kept thinking about it. Now, the Western listener might remain indifferent to this statement on the part of Ukraine’s president, but Ukrainians – at least some of them — remember that Volodymyr Zelenskyy promised to act in the capacity of president for only one term. What has changed? Has Volodymyr Zelenskyy tasted the flavour of power? Are the powers that be still backing him? Do the powers that be still wish him to occupy the highest post in Ukraine?

Two million draft dodgers and their families are not likely to vote Volodymyr Zelenskyy into office again. They remember one more thing: Volodymyr Zelenskyy promised to stop the hostilities in the Donbass. They remember that he even performed theatricals in the public in that he knelt down to show how urgently and humbly he would be in his talks with Moscow only to deescalate the conflict and bring peace. People remember. Instead of peace they got war and bussification – abducting people from the streets in broad daylight and sending them to the front. Two million draft dodgers are the tip of the iceberg. There are certainly more others who would have followed suit but for one reason or another could not. Ukrainians voted for Zelenskyy precisely because he promised to end the hostilities. Does he not know it? Does he cherish hopes of still being liked by the people? Does he think he might be elected?

It is often said that people vote with their feet. Yes, two million (officially) draftable men have already voted against Kiev’s bellicose policy. Add to this the women and the men that cannot be drafted, add the silent resistance inside the country and you will get the picture. Some commentators say that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is divorced from reality. His statement that he thinks about being re-elected – i.e. about being liked by the majority of Ukrainians – confirms that he is.

Market situation at the end of January 2026

I. The Magnificent Seven lose their cohesion

Analysts are beginning to divide the Magnificent 7 into smaller subgroups. They talk about the “Fab 4” or “Mag5” – that is, the 4 or 5 companies from the group that continue to drive the market upwards, while the rest have become a burden. Only Alphabet and Nvidia outperformed the S&P 500 in 2025. The gap between Mag7 share prices in the second half of 2025 was enormous.

Competition in the field of AI has become a wedge that divides the group. Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Meta are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure and data centres. Nvidia dominates the market for the chips needed to power these models. Apple and Tesla are lagging behind. Apple has been criticised for lower costs and slower AI development, while Tesla has suffered from slowing electric car sales. Nevertheless, the “magnificent seven” still have a huge impact on the market, accounting for about 36% of the S&P 500’s capitalisation.

Source: MSN

II. Withdrawal from defensive sectors

The defensive sectors of the US economy are currently the most undervalued relative to high-tech companies in history. Defensive sectors include companies whose services are in demand regardless of the state of the economy or consumer sentiment: healthcare, consumer staples, utilities, including electricity, water and gas companies, and the telecommunications industry. We observed similarly low valuations for defensive companies before the dot-com bubble burst in 2000. Investors were so obsessed with the internet craze that they forgot about the major sectors. The same is true today, with the difference that the above-mentioned glorious companies are benefiting from it.

III. Can precious metals continue to shine?

In 2025, the price of gold rose by 64% in dollar terms. Over the past 5 years, this growth has been 152%, and the price of gold is currently at its ATH (all-time high). Does gold have a chance for further growth? Let’s take the ratio of US stocks to gold. Every time gold reached its 1929 peak of 1.54 gold, it provided a solid foundation for growth in the gold market.

Factors that point to a further rise in GOLD prices include geopolitical tensions, interest rate cuts by central banks, mistrust of the bond market and the weakness of the US dollar. Another such factor is high demand from central banks. In 2025, after a hiatus of almost 30 years, central banks hold more gold than US bonds. However, we must remember the dangers. These include a possible recovery of the dollar, the return of investors (at least temporarily) to the bond market, and young investors choosing Bitcoin over gold. It should also be noted that gold has grown by an average of 11% per year since 2000.

2025 was also a phenomenal year for silver. The metal rose 146% in dollar terms. This growth had a solid foundation, as it was driven by demand for silver in the economy and the limited availability of the metal. Another important factor was that the US classified the metal as strategic and China (the world leader in silver processing) restricted its exports. Is silver expensive now? At over $90 per ounce, silver is at an all-time high. However, compared to M2 (a measure of money in circulation that takes into account funds in current and savings accounts), this value is well below its historical peak. If the price of silver had reached a level similar to that of 2011, given the growth in M2, the price would be $97. But if it were the same as in the 1980s, an ounce of silver would cost approximately $531!

Silver therefore has potential for further growth. This may be driven by increased demand from industry, the aforementioned export controls from China, or the fact that the silver market is relatively small and demand for silver is high. Since 2000, silver has grown by an average of 10.4%. The 146% growth projected for 2025 is a significant deviation from the norm. It is also worth noting that the gold-silver ratio, i.e. the ratio of how many ounces of silver we can buy for one ounce of gold, is currently at a low level of 50. This indicates that silver has become significantly more expensive compared to gold over the last 30 years. Speculators, industrial lobbies and politicians, who would benefit from a fall in the price of silver, could have a negative impact on the price of the metal.

IV. Refinanzierung von US-Schulden

The high price of precious metals is mainly due to capital migration from bonds. The US debt will have to be repaid in 2026. This problem will be solved through refinancing, i.e. issuing new bonds (taking on new debt) to repay bonds that are approaching maturity. The last two times we saw a similar situation – during the GFC, the global financial crisis, and the “Covid recession” – interest rates were at 0%. Currently, interest rates are at 3.75%. The higher the interest rates, the higher the borrowing costs and the burden on the government, which is already enormous. In the current fiscal year 2026 (since October 2025), the government spent $179 billion in just two months to service its debt. This is the second largest expenditure after social spending.

V. Die Globalisierung des Renminbis

The dollar’s share of global reserves (black line) is falling in favour of gold. The decline in confidence in the US financial system will not go unnoticed by its biggest competitor, China. Beijing is expanding its financial payments network and developing an alternative to the US-led Swift system. The Middle Kingdom is lending more and more money to developing countries and encouraging international companies to issue bonds denominated in Chinese currency. About half of cross-border transactions in China are currently denominated in its own currency, compared with almost zero yuan share in such transactions 15 years ago. As a former member of the Chinese central bank said, the government wants the yuan “to be seen as a strong currency that is used more globally”. The yuan currently accounts for 8.5% of global foreign exchange transactions. That is a small amount compared to the dollar, which accounts for 89% of this category. However, the message is clear: China will fight to strengthen the role of its currency in international trade. This is another area in which Beijing is challenging the United States.

The growing social stratification in America

The richest 10% of Americans currently account for a record share of total consumer spending (49%). This percentage has risen by 13 percentage points over the last 30 years. At the same time, the 80% of people with the lowest incomes account for only about 37% of total consumer spending. This is a decline of 11 percentage points since 1995.

It is extremely important because consumer spending accounts for 68% of US GDP. This means that the richest 10% account for a record 33% of GDP. Meanwhile, the poorest 80% of Americans account for only 25% of the US economy. These figures show that the US economy has become dependent on the spending of the richest. When 10% of the population generates 1/3 of GDP, it is no longer just a question of inequality — it is a question of the imbalance of the system.

This very pessimistic sentiment among consumers in the United States is the result of a declining sense of security. When consumers are uncertain about their future, they spend less. Consumer sentiment is currently at the same level as during the pandemic in 2020, a time of economic downturn, because Americans fear the consequences of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. To reverse this view, Trump announced the introduction of “dividends” from tariff revenues. This dividend would amount to at least $2,000 for every taxpayer, with the exception of high-income individuals. However, apart from the announcements, there are still no official regulations or an official programme to implement this initiative. Such low morale among the American middle and lower classes is also due to the fact that almost one in four Americans has no savings.

Incidentally, with raw materials becoming more expensive, especially metals, the social transfers announced by Trump are adding fuel to the fire of inflation. And Trump is doing everything he can to stimulate it, devalue the dollar and appoint to the Fed his man from May onwards (when Jerome Powell’s term ends), who will certainly lower interest rates on the President’s orders to accelerate the whole process.