Venezuela, Power, And The Price Of Oil

We unpack why Venezuela became the target, how “narco-terrorism” frames public consent, and why oil, sanctions, and heavy crude realities complicate every simple story. We weigh competing motives, from regional dominance to distraction at home, and set up part two on investability.

• origins and misuse of the term narco-terrorism
• Venezuela as transit hub rather than producer
• law enforcement pretext versus military reality
• sanctions, heavy oil, and broken infrastructure
• Monroe Doctrine history versus modern dominance
• risks of regime change without institutions
• investor pitfalls, nationalization risk, staged capex
• competing motives: oil, optics, distraction, deterrence
• outlook for governance, social recovery, and timelines

Please listen to our next podcast, Venezuela 2, the investment

Straight Talk for All - Nonsense for None

Please check out our other podcasts:

https://skepticsguidetoinvesting.buzzsprout.com

Disclaimer - These podcasts are not intended as investment advice. Individuals please consult your own investment, tax and legal advisors. They provide these insights for educational purposes only.

Chapters

• 0:00 New Year And Venezuela Focus
• 1:05 Defining Narco-Terrorism
• 4:09 Venezuela’s Role As Drug Transit
• 9:09 Law Enforcement Or Military Action
• 16:11 Oil, Sanctions, And Misconceptions
• 18:42 Monroe Doctrine Versus “Donro” Doctrine
• 24:10 Why Venezuela And Where Next
• 29:16 Heavy Oil And Broken Infrastructure
• 33:33 Investor Risk And Regime “Reform”
• 39:11 Competing Theories Of Motive
• 43:30 Tease For Venezuela Part Two

Transcript

Steve Davenport: 0:26

Hello everyone and welcome to Skeptics Guide to Investing. Happy New Year. Clem and I are back. This is gonna be a crazy year and a crazy start to the year. We're gonna talk today about Venezuela, and we've decided since it's such a long and deep topic, that we're gonna break it into Venezuela one, which will be about why this happened, what is it about Venezuela that made it happen? And um, and then Venezuela two, which will be what is the investment opportunity here, or is there an investment opportunity here? So today we wake up um on January 6th and we think about the new year, and all we can think about is the covert activity over the weekend of US forces in the capital of Caracas to arrest Maduro, the current president and his wife, on narco-terrorism. So, Clem, if this is a narco-terrorism arrest, um, I must assume this is the only narco-terrorism or the top narco-terrorist in this the whole southern hemisphere because it would seem like you would need to go after the biggest and the broadest. So, does this mean that there's no narco-terrorism in Colombia, Mexico, or any other Southern Hemisphere country? Why Venezuela?

Clem Miller: 2:05

So narco-terrorism is a word that was invented essentially out of the blue in the context of the old you know Colombian drug lords issue, way back, I believe, in the 1980s, maybe it was the early 1990s. Um one of my from Scarface? Well, one of my colleagues, or not colleagues, but one of my college friends who went into the Foreign Service claims that he was the guy who invented the term narco terrorist. And it just had such a nice ring to it that it sort of entered the vocabulary. And now and now he was a celebrity. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um so yeah, so I don't know that he got any royalties for inventing this name, but it's it's sort of stuck. Uh, even though, you know, when you use it in other contexts, it may not apply, right? You know, in the in the Colombian context back in the 80s and 90s, it it definitely did apply because you know, the drug cartels actually caused a lot of terrorism, right? They funded a lot of terrorism. And so you have to ask yourself, you know, is that what's really going on with Venezuela? And honestly, I think the issue with Venezuelan drug trafficking and drug trafficking in a number of other countries in Latin America, , is that they're really there to make money. Uh and you know, if anything, violence is a , you know, it's kind of secondary or tertiary. There's always violence associated with drugs, right? But you know, the question is whether, you know, in Colombia back in the in the bad old days, it was about trying to achieve political power through drug money and and violence, and it was all sort of tied in together. And and this this is not Venezuela is not Colombia of the 80s, right? Venezuela is a different circumstance. Uh, you know, where you've got this, you know, now I'm talking about Maduro, , but it also applies to the new acting president, Delcy Rodriguez. They are part of a regime that you know is not based on, I mean, let's be be straight about it, they're not based on drugs, right? They might have drug-running elements, but this is a government that takes a you know socialist perspective towards the economy, and that's more like a socialist um kleptocratic government, like stealing from the people. And and they don't really care about society, they don't care about human rights. Uh so they're you know a classic sort of left-leaning dictatorship in Venezuela that happens to have also been involved in in drug running. Uh they were initially able to sustain their government through or their rule through spreading money around, right? They got they spread a lot of money around to folks to buy them off. And that's when there was a lot of money, right? Because the you had the oil industry prospering to a degree there. And so in the Hugo Chavez days, you know, 2006, 2007, , you know, thereabouts, you know, he was able to spread money around and create, you know, his own private armies and and and whatnot to and and to you know create lots of social programs to you know bring in people and to to create a sense of Venezuelan nationalism. And you know, that's still around. You see remnants of that today, , but you know, this is not you can't just look at Venezuela one-dimensionally and say, you know, it's about drugs, nor can you look at Venezuela one-dimensionally and say it's about oil. You know, it's a it's a complex picture that resembles, you know, sort of a socialist dictatorship. It's more like a, you know, if you think about if you think about a Cuba with oil and drugs, that's what Venezuela is.

Steve Davenport: 7:03

Yeah, I guess I'm trying to understand historically how we got here. I guess I understand that Chavez was kind of a a bad character. And I understand that he created enthusiasm around his programs. But was drugs and oil the same percentage of the economy during Chavez as it is here with Maduro? Or have has has oil overtaken drugs with Maduro, whereas with Chavez, it was a lot more about drugs. I guess I'm trying to understand how these southern dictatorships are evolving to be more mainstream, or are they just the same old, same old, and it depends on you know how successful they can be in one area or another.

Clem Miller: 7:52

Well, let's let's be clear. Venezuela is not a source of fentanyl, right? Okay. Uh that fentanyl is made in China, um, or the precursors are made in China, and it's manufactured in Mexico. Uh, or so is said. And then in Venezuela, you don't have areas, large areas of Venezuela that are coca-producing regions, which is what's necessary for cocaine. Um, that's all up in them in the hills. Uh, you know, the cocaine production is up in the hilly areas. And Venezuela, you know, it it has some hill, well, it does have hilly areas, but , you know, they're not they're not of sufficient altitude to sustain this coca production. So there are no drugs in Venezuela. No. Venezuela is a transshipment point. Okay. For drugs to go to North America and to Europe. And so that's where that's where they make their money as sort of a as sort of a transshipment point. And so that's why you know you can say that that that um Maduro and his group are orchestrating sort of transnational drug running because they work with drug groups in other countries in in Latin America.

Steve Davenport: 9:26

So Venazuela is the outlet point? Because the outlet point in their country would be too hard to work with. The outlet point? What do you mean by that? The point where the drugs are going out to other parts of the world. I mean, why doesn't why why ship it through Colombian drugs and ship them through Venezuela?

Clem Miller: 9:47

I guess it's good. Good question. I'm sure they ship it directly as well out of Colombia. Uh but to some degree, I mean, now I'm speculating, right? I'm speculating that that you know, Chavez probably made it, not Chavez, but Maduro probably made it easier for for folks, drug runners from other countries to use their territory. Made it you know, made it more convenient, made it more convenient for them to to do so. So I guess so fun the thing. But the problem the problem, Steve, with the whole drug issue in Venezuela is that it all operates in the shadows. And so, you know, you can op you can speculate a lot about what's going on, but it's not, you know, it's it's all in the shadows. So it's hard to know, you know, how much Venezuela's involved in drugs. Uh I don't think, you know, , I have to believe that Venezuela is not you know a leader in Latin American um you know drug running, right? I don't believe that. Uh but I believe I do believe that they have to be somewhat involved in it. And I've I don't have much doubt that you know elements in the military and so on in Venezuela are are likely involved in this. So but but you know to what degree you know is is Venezuela like 90% about drugs and 10% about oil? Absolutely not, right? Absolutely not.

Steve Davenport: 11:29

I'm just trying to put it in perspective for the average individual. I think what you're saying is that you believe that this comments, and you can correct me, you think that this drug issue is a cover for what is really the issue, which is a grab for resources in Venezuela, where you see a weak government, you see a candidate that Machado, who you know, if you want to say, you know, we're democratizing South America. The the story gets you know a little convoluted as we go past this point. I think you it it it it is about oil. I I think I would say that's you know point, you know, that's the main point here, right? I mean we talk about drugs and we can argue about drugs, but it's very hard to prove any of this stuff about drugs.

Clem Miller: 12:25

Well, the the I I would submit that the reason why they focused on the drugs as a reason for taking out Maduro is because they're trying to make this is the Trump administration, is trying to make the argument that this is a law enforcement operation. Right. And and that way, you know, the the argument that they're making is that because it's a law enforcement operation, they don't really have to go to Congress to get permission to conduct a war on Venezuela.

Steve Davenport: 13:02

But isn't that argument gonna fall with the fact that you use army resources and not law enforcement resources?

Clem Miller: 13:08

Right. Well, you notice in all these PERP walks that they did in New York, they were all DEA and FBI people, not military.

Steve Davenport: 13:16

But it's not but but the people who were pulling them out of the buildings in Caracas, those weren't FBI and DEA agents. That's correct.

Clem Miller: 13:27

And and the operation is the military, and right, and to that point, Steve, in a in a law enforcement operation, you don't kill 32 Cuban intelligence military people who were guarding Mercury Maduro, right? Uh why were the Cubans guarding it? And and on top of it, Steve, you have to you have to think about it. What what would have happened had there been a big firefight, a huge firefight? I mean, there was with the Cubans, right? But what would have happened had Maduro brought out a gun and started shooting? Would they have killed him? Yes, they would have killed him, right? And and so while they were trying to bring him in alive, you know, they were trying to bring in um Osama bin Laden alive, right? But you know, that was not a law enforcement operation on on bin Laden. This was a so-called law enforcement operation. So, how would you have justified a law enforcement operation when you killed the leader? No.

Steve Davenport: 14:38

I'm just saying that if the people on the operation are military, it's not a law enforcement operation, right? That seems pretty like, well, were there any DEA or FBI agents there on the helicopters? I don't know. I doubt it.

Clem Miller: 14:53

No, I think you will all though. I think they were back, they were back on the ship on the Iwo Jima. That's where they were. Uh no, I'm not disagreeing with you.

Steve Davenport: 15:03

I'm actually pointing out that that I think it's a good point that it is similar to Noriega, but it's not similar in that it was really a military-run operation.

Clem Miller: 15:14

It wasn't a police or law, you know, law enforcement. Much, much more, much more military, , which it had to be given that Venezuela is much more heavily heavily armed, , stronger defenses than Panama was back in you know when they took over, when they snatched Noriega, brought him to the US. So yeah, it's it's it's not about that. It's so let's let's you know discuss oil. Okay, let's discuss oil. So oil um I think is the main reason why Trump decided to do this. But let's be clear about oil. I think a lot of people, including Trump, are very confused about this whole oil situation in Venezuela. Uh first of all, the reason why there's not a lot of oil coming out of Venezuela is not because of Maduro, it's because of the United States. Because we have economic sanctions, energy sector sanctions on Venezuela. So Trump could very easily have just removed those sanctions and there would be more oil flowing out of Venezuela. Simple, right? I don't, you know, I imagine that nobody really told him that. This is how what I imagine, right? Um and you know, clearly , you know, he thinks in terms of tariffs and sanctions, and you know, he's he's got NVIDIA paying him, you know, a certain fee for allowing certain semiconductor chips to go to China. So he he understands this, but I don't understand why he didn't just remove the sanctions and allow the oil to flow just and and not have to go through this whole war. That's what makes me think that there's a kind of a performative element to this. Uh he wants to see the U.S. flex its muscles, , even though you're really not achieving anything more than you could do through you know an executive order removing the sanctions. So so that's one element.

Steve Davenport: 17:42

That's what I think, because if he was if it was strictly about getting more oil, the sanctions could have been lifted. So to me, if it has to be more than this is where we go into this. Um, I've seen these discussions about Monroe documents.

unknown: 17:57

Yeah.

Clem Miller: 17:58

You want to talk about the why the you know why this part of the this hemisphere is that important, or you know, is is that relevant or so this um it's relevant, okay, and I want to do want to come back to oil in a moment, Steve. Okay. But but going off into the Donro Doctrine, as he calls it, or as some call it, right? Um, I would say that that first of all, he misunderstands the the original Monroe Doctrine. So the original Monroe Doctrine was back in, I believe, the 1820s, and there was a fear back then that Western power Western European powers, France, Britain, Spain, um, etc., would try to recover territories that they had lost in the Western Hemisphere. And so what the US was saying by by means of the Monroe Doctrine is that we're not going to allow Western powers to invade, so to speak, or occupy territories in the Western hemisphere. We're going to we are going to stand in the way of that. And so that Monroe Doctrine was really all about that. Now, it's been abused over the years, let's say that, to justify all manner of incursions and coup d'etat and so on and so forth in in Latin America. And this is the the latest in those in those distortions of the Monroe of the original Monroe Doctrine. So the Donro Doctrine is basically the U.S. dominates the Western Hemisphere. That's the Donro Doctrine. And that was never the original purpose. The Donro Doctrine, if you were to, you know, take it to its, you know, its conclusion, would mean that the US would occupy or at least dominate other countries in the Western Hemisphere, including the ones that he's targeted in the past Panama, Greenland and and Canada. And you know, Greenland is only marginally a part of the Western Hemisphere, um, but but still you know you could consider it part of the Western Hemisphere. So, you know, is the US going to you know to start now invading some of these other countries? Uh question mark, right?

Steve Davenport: 20:51

Um Yeah, I think that's what everybody's kind of waiting on. Is I think people are waiting for some kind of a logical kind of move forward here, which is here's why we did it, here's what we're doing now, here's what we're gonna do later to justify this. I don't I don't know if they know enough whether is Panama next, is Colombia next, is you know, I've heard of um, you know, is Iran next. I mean, I I think that your the whole Monroe thing goes out the window if we make Iran next, right?

Clem Miller: 21:27

Right. Well that's not gonna, I don't think that that's I don't think that we're gonna go after Iran, okay? I mean well it's possible.

Steve Davenport: 21:36

I'm not saying we are, Clem. I'm saying that it's one of those governments that would say, boy, the people are protesting, they're being shot in the streets. There is unrest here. There is an opportunity for somebody to take away the unrest by eliminating or capturing the leaders.

Clem Miller: 21:54

Well, one of the things, I mean, since Trump, you know, Trump may have seen all this go down like really smoothly. He may he may say, Well, I can use this in a lot of other places too.

Steve Davenport: 22:22

Correct. That's what I'm saying. You're and so yeah, Iran.

Clem Miller: 22:26

Iran could be one of those. Yeah. And I thought it was kind of funny. Uh, Zelensky's reaction after this was I forget exactly what he said in his tweet, but it was something along the lines of wow, you know, you know who he could take out next.

Steve Davenport: 22:45

I I think that you know, I think people have creative minds here, Clem. And that's what I guess we're trying to figure out is why Venezuela versus all of the other places where elimination of a leader would make our lives better. So which takes us back to the oil. Which takes us back to oil, but Iran has more oil than Venezuela. So I don't think it can be a way like it none of it makes sense, Gwen. I think that you and I are trying to rationalize something that probably doesn't have a real sound logical foundation, right? I mean, that it's it's hard to imagine that Donald Trump would come up with a cohesive worldview and a plan that was going to be understandable. It doesn't seem like it could be that logical. I don't think anything he does.

Clem Miller: 23:42

Is that is that simple? Let's let's let's let's focus let's focus on oil for a second. You know, when when people people people casually people casually talk about oil as if it's something that's easily accessed, , you know, almost like it's money in the bank, right? You can just go in and rob the bank and steal the money and then head off. You know, that's how he describes it. But that's not how it actually works. Uh in fact, when people talk about when oil engineers talk about you know reserves, right? Uh proven reserves, probable reserves, etc. etc. You know, they're talking about sort of concepts. They're not talking about um actually what can be extracted right now, this minute, , through going in and and robbing the bank, so to speak. Proven and probable reserves are all a function of how much investment you make, how much the technology can help you bring it out of the ground. Um we don't even know if if a lot of this stuff is really in the ground, so to speak. So when people throw around numbers like you know, largest oil reserves in the world, I am very skeptical about that. They may have the largest, but I, you know, we know for a fact that a lot of that is is so-called heavy oil, which has a lot of tar in it. And so, unlike in the Gulf states, you know, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, where you can just basically put a straw on the ground and oil comes up. I'm exaggerating a little bit, but that used to be sort of the way it was. In in Venezuela, you have to do what they do in the tar sands up in Canada, up in Alberta, and you need all this heavy equipment to convert this tari gook in the Orinoco basin into into usable oil. So it's not like you know, don't it's not like oil wells, you know, sitting out there and pumping oil into pipes. It's an it's a huge industrial operation. And and those that industrial operation has fallen by the wayside since the late, since Chavez nationalized some of the oil companies that are involved in that that were involved in that operation.

Steve Davenport: 26:20

I'm thinking mainly of Kaneko, which were I mean when I look at this from an oil standpoint, I go right to the stocks that I'm concerned with, with Exxon, Chevron, and and and any of the other international providers, whether it's VP, I assume the U.S. companies would get the early lead in a lot of these things, but I wouldn't be surprised if they would like to see some other people involved, the oil companies, because then they've spread some of the risk.

Clem Miller: 26:52

Well, I thought about that too. And Steve, why don't we talk about that in our second episode about Venezuela? Okay. Investability, right?

Steve Davenport: 27:00

All right. Uh well I still want to talk a little bit about the people of Venezuela, because I think that's an important part of this, because I do think you know, um, Machado is part of this plan to democratize Venezuela. And so when you look at Venezuela in the 70s, they were making two times the GDP per capita of Germany, four times the GDP per capita of Japan, 12 times the GDP per capita of China. And now you look at them, and they're one of the poorest countries in the world. And I know you mentioned that GDP per capita gets influenced adversely by the fact that oil comes right out of the ground and goes and gets made, and the people might not benefit much at all from an oil-based economy. But I'd still say look at what's happened since the mid-70s to 2025. In 50 years, a country can go from having one of the healthiest economies to one of the poorest. And it's it's you know, a decision to go towards socialism and then and the increased corruption of government, you know, leads you to poverty for the citizens. So, in my mind, this is a story that has a couple of different ways it can go, right? It could go towards the let's release the potential of these people and put them in an economy that's more market-based and have their activities go towards things that they can actually try to improve and do differently. So they could be like one of the other economies of the Southern Hemisphere that has a full economy and it doesn't all depend on oil. So if I was a dreamer, I would say in a month we we have a reinstatement of the election results of Machado, and the Machado government takes over and tries to break down all the barriers and all the corruption that has existed for years. Because I thought one of the most interesting things was if this government is overthrown, all of these socialists who've been beating up on the population are gonna go back into the population and it's gonna be, you know, a tough transition, right? The people who've been in charge are now gonna be the people looking for jobs from them, the people who've been oppressed for 50 years. So they've got a challenge as a society that is not insignificant. They've got a challenge as a government in that they're not used to running as a democracy, so how are they gonna suddenly become democratic? Um, it it it feels like there's so many challenges on the ground to this idea. You know, Trump has it as a three-step plan. One, we overthrow or remove the government, two, we install a new government, three, we invest capitalist money in companies' resources, and the economy flourishes. I think that's you know, probably unrealistic at every single step in the process. It's gonna be much harder to get rid of that government, it's gonna be much harder to install a new government, and it's gonna be much harder to get capital from these companies because if they wanted to be in there, they certainly would have been trying a lot harder. But like you say, it's not a simple operation. They're not taking oil out of the ground with a straw. So, therefore, it's it's likely to be a 10 or 20-step process, not a three-step. And therefore, I kind of feel that the why we did this might have been a little aggressive based on how hard it's going to be to actually see fruition of any of these ideas. There is oil there, yes, I admit that, but I think it's it's the oil might have been just as much of a show item that we're saying, hey, the capitalists like the idea of there being oil that the US can. Yeah, but I I'm not sure it's that easy. I I I kind of lean towards the he wanted to show Z that he had the resources to go in and remove people that he doesn't think belong there. And therefore, those same resources could be used in my mind, it's a threat to China because he could take over Panama and control the canal, and now China, which has just increased their exports 40%, is gonna say, hey, wait a minute, how are my exports gonna get to all of the people on the east coast of the United States and Europe if I can't go through the canal? Because Trump now controls it and he's not gonna, you know, he's gonna clamp down on us. So in my mind, it's it's about um the being able to overthrow governments. That's the reason this is going on. It's not necessarily Venezuela because if it was drugs, it would be Colombia. If it was oil, it would have been Brazil. If it was, you know, like there's there's not a logical reason for Venezuela other than it was easy. The people have been oppressed so much, and he's become enthralled with Machado as this woman who beat him for the Nobel Prize, and therefore he wants to show how big he is by helping Machado achieve her new government, and then all of a sudden he'll get the the Nobel Prize for reinstating democratic government.

Clem Miller: 32:43

Steve, I agree with you on part of what you're saying, but I have to I have to really disagree with you on one point, which is that I think I'm hearing you saying that Trump likes Machado and wants to support Machado. I don't think, I don't think he does, right? Okay, I think you know he was he was asked about Machado and whether he wanted Machado to come in and take over, and he said, no, she doesn't have the respect. He said she's a nice lady, but she doesn't have the respect.

Steve Davenport: 33:22

But doesn't that sound like Don the operator trying to make a deal? And then when he controls, when he when when he you know, I I I I don't always take every comment and say there's a whole bunch of logic and meaning behind it.

Clem Miller: 33:37

Right, and she's and she's doing her best to try to to warm up to Trump. But the thing is, is that Dulce Rodriguez who is the acting president just appointed by the you know the hand acting president who was the vice president, Dulcie Rodriguez, she is also sidling up to to Trump. And I think that she's actually going to make some kind of deal with Trump about the oil. And I think it's I think it's I think the only way that that Trump could put Machado, the opposition leader, in power is if there are group boots on the ground in Venezuela. And I don't think he really wants to have boots on the ground. Remember what I said, and so boots on the ground, I mean like a permanent presence in Venezuela, like in like in Iraq. I don't think he wants that, and therefore I don't think he's going to with the rest of the Maduro regime, as long as the Maduro regime goes along with him on on opening up the oil sector. That's what I think.

Steve Davenport: 35:12

Yeah, I guess I I don't think there's any possibility that the U.S. oil industry is gonna enter Venezuela without boots on the ground. Because they have no real, they they put their they nationalized and they burned those companies once. Why would you do something now and say, okay, we're gonna trust that this socialist government is not gonna treat us like this social government, because they told us that everything is good. I I don't see anybody doing anything with billions of dollars just because they the the new woman said, Oh, we really like Mr. Trump your American resources, therefore we are going to, you know, we are gonna open our doors and our hearts and welcome your industry. Yes, they're gonna welcome the industry, and then they're gonna make all the improvements, and then they're gonna say bye-bye. Exactly.

Clem Miller: 36:08

Steve, you're you're you're a hundred percent right, okay. And it and what you're saying, what you're saying is so is so ignored by a lot of people at their own peril, right? I there are in my past, especially at at you know, when I was at Eximbank, and so many times I've seen sort of new governments come in, new regimes come in, and say, Oh, we're reforming, quote unquote. That's the term reforming. You know, we are a reform government, we are going to do this and that, and we're going to the IMF, we're going to the World Bank, and we're opening up our resources sector to foreign investment. They say all the right stuff, and they get the money in. And once they get the money in, , you're right. Bye-bye.

Steve Davenport: 37:06

So I don't know how you sit there and you say, Oh, it's it's energy. So about the energy. Well, the energy is gonna need money, yeah. And in order to put in money, you're gonna need support. But here is therefore you can't have the energy.

Clem Miller: 37:19

Sometimes sometimes, sometimes the smartest people can be stupid when it comes to money. We all know that, right? You see the executive management of oil companies, they could look at Venezuela and say, Oh my gosh, look at the opportunities. And they look at that number, , that you know, as I said, kind of fictional number as to barrels in the ground, and they say, We have to be in there, right? We can't, we can't afford not to be in there, right? And so they'll go in and put money in. You know, hopefully they're smart enough to you know do that gradually or phase it in or whatnot, and not sort of run in like a gold rush to try to to try to you know do this because you could have you know a change in policy overnight. We're sort of getting into our investment all right.

Steve Davenport: 38:23

Well, let's draw how would you finish in in one minute? What would you sell off the why for Venezuela?

Clem Miller: 38:31

Well, I think I think there's a complex.

Steve Davenport: 38:34

I think I I have a different opinion than you, so you tell me yours unadulterated, and I'll give you mine unadulterated. One minute, starting now. Ready to go?

Clem Miller: 38:44

It's complex. I think one reason is Trump wanted to show that he was all powerful, right? Because he wants to create this image of being, you know, the all-powerful quote unquote daddy, right? You've heard about that, , in um both domestically and internationally. So that's one part of it. Uh secondly, is the oil, , which is an important part. Uh third is a distraction from domestic, economic, and political issues like the Epstein files. Uh so that's a distraction element. Uh and um I think you know I think drugs comes in like fourth or maybe fifth. Uh and then of course I forgot um you know the whole Donro Doctrine issue, the Dunroe Doctrine issues. So that's it.

Steve Davenport: 39:43

All 60 seconds. All right, and for my 60 seconds, I'll say Steve, what about you? It's about the dominoes, and the dominoes are establishing the this hemisphere is under the control of the United States, and anybody and anything that we think is important for our future good will come under our eventual intervention, whether it's Panama, whether it's Cuba, whether it's um, you know, the the the works in in Colombia. I think Venezuela was the easiest and quickest for him to get in, get out, and that have the people turn around and tell him, you know, I I believe he might have objectives to try to place a Makado in as the leader and then say to people, look what I did. I brought democracy to Venezuela, and I think he will. Harp on that till the days, you know, till the till the end of his years, as what a great move that was to open up all those resources. I don't think it's been well thought out. I think there will be a lot of problems with it. So, in my world, I think it's a mistake to do this without a longer plan. I also think that lacks one little detail, which is I think Iran is a bigger problem. And the government of Iran and the way they're clamping down on protesters, he would probably, if he wanted the Nobel Prize, you know, that's a place where the government has been very hurtful to its people. And the arguments about what the how they're being oppressed by this religious government are in the same scope, but they're not in this regional scope. So I think that he is looking for dominoes that he wants to tumble. And the easier they tumble and the easier they follow, without other governments reaching out and saying, hey, stop, we'll give you whatever we want, because we don't want this, you know, this violence to and chaos that it's going to bring. I believe that he would love to be in that position. He has one resource that will distract and and and move away from um the current conversation, which is is he following the Supreme Court? Is he listening to what Congress is saying? I hear the Congress is is it gonna try to override his veto, which tells me, hey, he's got this problem back home, and he's decided, like most presidents, if I can't solve the problems at home, I'll go international and I'll try to solve those problems. I think he's shifting his focus when he really hasn't solved the problems at home. He can't solve them. He realizes the Supreme Court's gonna go against them. The whole argument about this tariffs and some of these things is gonna fall. So he needs to have another area where he can find success. And he's gonna try to find it. That's my 60 seconds on it. So now that we understand why Venezuela to a degree, um, please listen as we go into the next topic, which is is this investable? Is there an opportunity here to make money from the chaos? Thanks for listening, everybody. Please listen to our next podcast, Venezuela 2, the investment.