What Venezuela’s Regime Change Means for Oil

Ed Elson checks in with Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody’s Analytics, on his outlook for 2026 to start the year. Then Rapidan Energy Group founder and president, Bob McNally, joins the show to discuss what President Maduro’s ouster means for the oil markets. Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X Follow Scott on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Flowing ad budget on metrics that look great till the CFO sees them. That's bull spend and marketers are calling it out in dashboard confessions.

• 0:09Speaker 01

  I remember telling my boss, it'll be good for the brand when leads were slow. Yeah, it it wasn't.

• 0:17Speaker 00

  Cut the bull spend. LinkedIn lets you target by company, job title and more. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com slash campaign. Terms and conditions apply.

• 0:30Speaker 02

  A payday candy bar is miles and miles of peanuts. Salty crunchy peanuts, sweet, sweet caramel, wrapping you up with every bite. Enjoy the tasty journey, my friend. Payday Peanut Caramel Bar.

• 0:46Speaker 03

  This episode is brought to you by Welch's Fruit Snacks. Back to school season can be tough on parents. But choosing a snack you and your kids can both get behind doesn't have to be. Stock up on Welch's Fruit Snacks, made with whole fruit and now made with no artificial dyes. It's a snack kids already love and one you can feel good about giving them. Go back to school with Welch's Fruit Snacks, now made with no artificial dyes.

• 1:13Ed Elson?

  Today's number, 303 billion. That's how many barrels of oil are sitting in Venezuela, more than any other nation in the world. That is $18 trillion worth of oil at current oil prices, roughly equal to the GDP of China. However, none of this has anything to do with what happened this week.

• 1:37Speaker 05

  Money markets met. If money is evil, then that building is hell.

• 1:47Ed Elson?

  Welcome to Profty Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is January 6th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices climbed with the Dow closing at a record. The price of oil rose on President Maduro's capture in Venezuela. More on that later. Meanwhile, Treasury yields dropped and finally Bitcoin rallied above $94,000.

• 2:11Ed Elson?

  Okay, what else is happening? It is our first daily episode of the year and even though we took a holiday break, the market certainly did not. So here to help us review what we missed at the end of the year and also discuss the outlook for 2026, we are speaking with Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody's Analytics. Mark, welcome back to Profy Markets and Happy New Year.

• 2:35Mark Zandi?

  Happy New Year, Ed. Thanks for the opportunity. It's good to be with you.

• 2:38Ed Elson?

  Absolutely. You are our first guest back in the new year, which is a huge honor, as I'm sure you will know.

• 2:47Mark Zandi?

  I'm sure you say that to all the economists, but I'll take it. I'll take it.

• 2:52Ed Elson?

  So we, well, first, we should want to start with your scorecard for 2025. You basically add up all of your predictions from last year and compare it to what we actually saw. You pretty much nailed most of it. I'm just looking at the scorecard now. Job growth, GDP growth, unemployment rate was pretty accurate. I mean, generally pretty accurate across the board. I guess, which things surprised you in 2025? Which things did you get wrong? What sort of struck you?

• 3:31Mark Zandi?

  Well, first thing is that we got that close. As you know, Ed, there was a lot of drama in 2025, lots of things going on, tariffs, immigration, Doge, you know, just it seemed endless. And despite all of that, the numbers came in pretty close to what we thought they would at the start of the year, the start of 2025. The thing that I took greatest pleasure in was jobs. You know, average monthly job growth in 2025 compared to 2024 was 125,000 on the nose and our forecast, 124,000 per month. Now, we've got to be...

• 4:12Mark Zandi?

  Truth in forecasting, you know, we were overly pessimistic about jobs in the first half of the year and overly optimistic in the second half after and when I really the demarcation point here was liberation day. That was when things kind of changed. That was back in April of last year. So we didn't get the entire year right, but on average through the year, we got it right. The thing that we missed most was around asset prices and the increase. I mean, the equity market was up 15% calendar year 25 or 24. We were, we expected 10%, a good year, but it was even better than that. Even house prices, and we've been forecasting house prices and doing a lot of work there

• 4:54Mark Zandi?

  for, for decades. You know, they, they came in up 4, 3, 4%. We were expecting closer to 1, 2%. So, you know, asset prices came in a little bit more strongly. But again, you know, it was a pretty good year from a forecasting perspective and it's not always that way. So, so I'll take it and, and I'm enjoying it.

• 5:15Ed Elson?

  Something that you undershot, and to be fair, let's, let's give you your cred. I think I did. This was pretty accurate across the board, but you did undershoot on inflation. You forecasted 2.3%. It's, it's higher than that, which is a whole other conversation. But the thing I kind of want to focus on right now is the most recent CPI report, which we got while we were gone. So we haven't had a chance to discuss it on the podcast. And it showed that inflation actually slowed down to 2.7% in November, which totally shocked me. And honestly, my first reaction, I mean, I was kind of checked out at this point,

• 6:00Ed Elson?

  getting ready for, for the holiday. But my first reaction was, this is not right. And I usually hate to be that guy. I hate to be the guy who just doesn't trust the number because I think we should always just trust the numbers. But that was my first instinct. I haven't really dug into it. But then actually you said yourself that that number is flawed. It went from 3% in September, then down to 2.7% in November, which seems crazy to me. You say that it's flawed. Why is it flawed? What is your reaction to the CPI that we saw?

• 6:37Mark Zandi?

  Yeah, and it's okay to be that guy every once in a while when, in fact, it's right to be that way. You know, and this goes back to the government shutdown and the fact that the survey that the Bureau of Labor Statistics does wasn't done in the month of October. We were shut down. They couldn't do the survey. They couldn't go back and fix it. So they had to make the BLS, the keeper of the data, had to make some assumption about what happened in the month of October. And the assumption they used is one that they they always use when they have something missing, and that is no change. They assume no change in prices in the month of October. And for the missing data, that they had some data that they wasn't based on their survey that they could use,

• 7:22Mark Zandi?

  but anything based on their survey, and that was the bulk of the data, 90% of the goods and services come from the survey. They just assumed effectively no change. And, you know, if it's one or two products that you don't have data for, and you make that assumption, no big deal. But when it's 90% of the products that you're surveying, that's a big deal. And so I, that makes no sense, right? And it's not just me saying that. Everyone says that makes no sense. It does not make any sense in the context of trying to understand inflation. And so what I did is went back and I said, okay, I can collect even more data on different prices for goods and services. Let's use that. And then for those things that I can't get other data for,

• 8:03Mark Zandi?

  I'm going to use my forecast because we've done a lot of work over the years modeling, you know, these different prices for different components, goods and services. And if you do that, then it shows that inflation, it did not decelerate. It remains on consumer price inflation, CPI inflation at 3% year over year. And just for context, you know, the Fed would say in an ideal world, I would want CPI inflation, you know, to 2, to 3, something like that. And we're at 3, and we're still at 3. So that you were dead on to say something doesn't feel right because it wasn't right, and it, you know, it's something to consider. One last point, and then I'll This problem with the data is going to continue on a year-over-year basis until next October,

• 8:48Mark Zandi?

  when we actually get some data. So we're going to be in this awkward position of trying to, you know, quote unquote, correct the data to make it more reflective of actual reality over the next year until we get to the other, we do a round trip here on the data.

• 9:04Ed Elson?

  I hadn't even considered that. We are going to be arguing about which numbers are real and which are fake for another year. The ramifications are large. Let's just look at your 2026 forecast. So some interesting numbers here. We had 2.1% GDP growth in 2025. You project 2.5% GDP growth. So you believe that the economy is actually going to grow faster in 2026. Break down that number for us.

• 9:37Mark Zandi?

  Yeah, so that's because we're going to get a lot of juice from monetary, but particularly fiscal policy. So in 2025, we got a little bit of support from the Fed that they'd cut interest rates a little bit. But on the fiscal policy side, that's government spending and taxes. That was actually a bit of a restraint on growth because of Doge. Remember Doge, the widespread job cuts? That really hammered the economy early in the year. Yeah, hard to forget, hard to forget. Complete, you know, utter failure, but you know, in terms of objectives, but you know, it did do a lot of damage.

• 10:13Ed Elson?

  It was fun while it lost it.

• 10:14Mark Zandi?

  Yeah.

• 10:17Mark Zandi?

  But in 2026, because of the one big beautiful bill act, the OBBA, that was passed under reconciliation back in last summer, that is going to lift growth by just about the difference in GDP in 26 compared to 2025, about four or five tenths of a percent. And that's tax cuts, deficit finance. These are deficit finance taxes. You don't get the juice, you don't get the economic growth unless you're borrowing the money to finance it. And it's both on the corporate side, there's the expensing of investment and that juices up.

• 10:52Mark Zandi?

  Investment to buy businesses and we're already starting to see that in some of the data. And of course, the tax cuts to individuals, that's going to start affecting the economy pretty quickly because households are going to see big refund checks this year because the tax rates were already lowered, but people's withholding didn't change. So they're going to get, when they file their taxes, they're going to get a bigger refund check. And it's almost a hundred billion dollars in additional money. And that's real money to, you know, folks that are going to go out and spend it and that's going to juice things up. So that's four or five tenths. So that's the, that's the difference between 2026 compared

• 11:33Mark Zandi?

  to 2025. It's, it's going to be an okay year, a stronger growth, but that, that all goes to the, the temporary boost that you get from the stimulus. And obviously, all by design, right? This is an election year. We've got the election come November. The idea here is to, you know, juice up the economy as you get into the election process, which is going to be in full gear sometime this summer. And that's when the stimulus, the fiscal stimulus will be at its peak about this, about that time.

• 12:03Ed Elson?

  Yes, which would also explain the federal budget deficit, which you say will grow to 2.1 trillion dollars. It is so funny that, you know, part of the idea that Trump campaigned on was balancing the budget. And here we are. You're telling us the economy is going to grow because we're just going to spend so much that it must grow. There are, there are a few other numbers here. Just want to get your quick reactions to, you say the unemployment rate will rise to 4.6%. You say inflation will rise to 3.1%, which is not great. That's possibly the, the, the bad side, the dark side of what we'll see in 2026.

• 12:47Ed Elson?

  Just let's get your reactions to, to those numbers. Why have you gone with those numbers? What are you predicting in terms of the job market and inflation?

• 12:56Mark Zandi?

  Yeah, pretty much what I'm saying there, if it's 4.6% for the calendar year 2026, I'm basically saying unemployment is going to level, it's already at 4.6% going into the year.

• 13:08Ed Elson?

  Right.

• 13:08Mark Zandi?

  So it's basically flat. So if we grow 2.5% GDP, we're going to get enough jobs to absorb the growth in the labor force and we're going to get stable unemployment, you know, somewhere, it's probably going to rise a little bit here over the next few months and then come in towards, once you get all that fiscal stimulus and all that juice, you're going to, that will start to come in a little bit, but you'll end the year on average 4.6, very similar to what it is today, 4.6. Same with inflation, as we just discussed, CPI, consumer price inflation, coming into 2026 is about 3%. It's going to go a little higher here in the next few months because there's still more tariff pass through that's going to occur, but it's going to moderate towards the end of the year and on average

• 13:52Mark Zandi?

  through the year is going to be about 3%. So that's going to be uncomfortable, right? I mean, 4.6 is above full employment, unemployment, the full employment unemployment rate, which, you know, most people and I would put it around 4. So that's a little, it's not bad, but it's a little uncomfortable. And 3% inflation is, you know, again, not bad, but it's also uncomfortable. That's above the Fed's target. So it's going to feel, the year's going to feel okay, just, but not quite right. And then, of course, you know, you were left with those bigger budget deficits to deal with down the road.

• 14:24Ed Elson?

  Yeah. Okay. Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody's Analytics. Mark, thank you very much. Always good to see you.

• 14:31Mark Zandi?

  Well, now I got a track record, right? So you're going to play this back.

• 14:36Ed Elson?

  We'll check back a year from now. Yeah, exactly.

• 14:40Mark Zandi?

  Thanks for the opportunity. Appreciate it.

• 14:43Ed Elson?

  Off to the break. What Venezuela's regime change means for the markets. If you're enjoying the show, give Prof G Markets a follow.

• 14:56Speaker 07

  Here's your report.

• 14:57Speaker 08

  Oh, thanks, Jane. I wish I could hire someone just like you.

• 15:00Speaker 07

  Try LinkedIn Hiring Pro. It's more than a job board. It's like the recruiter you always wished you had. Hiring Pro uses real time insights to match your role to LinkedIn's unique network of professionals and delivers a shortlist of best fit candidates. You'll spend less time sorting applicants and more time talking to the right people.

• 15:17Speaker 08

  Let's do it. You're irreplaceable, Jane, but another you would be great.

• 15:21Speaker 07

  Hire right the first time. Post your job for free on LinkedIn today at LinkedIn.com/quality.

• 15:26Speaker 02

  A payday candy bar is miles and miles of peanuts. Salty crunchy peanuts, sweet, sweet caramel, raving you up with every bite. Enjoy the tasty journey, my friend. Payday Peanut Caramel Bar.

• 15:42Speaker 03

  This episode is brought to you by Welch's Fruit Snacks. Back to school season can be tough on parents. But choosing a snack you and your kids can both get behind doesn't have to be. Stock up on Welch's Fruit Snacks, made with whole fruit and now made with no artificial dyes. It's a snack kids already love and one you can feel good about giving them. Go back to school with Welch's Fruit Snacks, now made with no artificial dyes.

• 16:14Ed Elson?

  We're back with Profty Markets. The US captured Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro in a high risk raid over the weekend. The Trump administration says it plans to, quote, "run the country until a transition is complete." As for the markets, this is really an oil story. While Venezuela only produces roughly 1% of global oil today, it also has the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Shares of oil giants Chevron and ExxonMobil surged on expectations that US firms will get first access to the market. However, analysts say that getting production back to prior levels could take years and over $100 billion. So the big questions are still unanswered. Who controls the oil? Who gets access?

• 16:58Ed Elson?

  And how does this all hit the global supply? So here to discuss this shakeup and what it means for the energy sector, we're speaking with Rapidan Energy Group founder and president Bob McNally. Bob, thank you for joining us on Profty Markets.

• 17:12Speaker 09

  Great to be with you. Thanks for having me on today.

• 17:15Ed Elson?

  Absolutely. So.

• 17:17Ed Elson?

  The US has captured Maduro. Pretty unbelievable series of events here. It looks as if the administration is going to run Venezuela, at least for the foreseeable future. Let's just start with your initial reactions to what happened here. Were you surprised? What do you make of all of this?

• 17:38Speaker 09

  Well, we weren't surprised, and our clients weren't surprised. I can show you the proof. We told clients on December 15th, we raised our odds of the president removing Maduro from 60 to 70 percent. We didn't know the precise timing, but we were very sure the president had decided to remove Maduro. He's been negotiating with them, so it was a question of whether Maduro lives, rather would leave on a Gulfstream III and go to an apartment in Madrid, or be taken out in a jumpsuit. I mean, there's different options, and it went that way. So we weren't surprised at all. And we're not surprised that the oil markets have taken it sort of in a blase way so far, because really Venezuela is not that important in terms of near-term oil supply and price

• 18:23Speaker 09

  formation. You know, when I step back and look at it, though, I have to compare it to, you know, I was in the White House and National Security Council in the beginning of Iraq, right? And so 2002, 2003, and how very different that started relative to this. So in that case, we had a decisive removal of the regime. I mean, the military, he was gone. And we had then implemented an elaborate plan for the post-war, and it wasn't about oil. We did not hand out all the contracts to US companies. Chinese companies, Russian companies went into Iraq.

• 19:03Speaker 09

  So with, now, we can argue that that turned out a little rough, so I'm not going to say it was a smashing success, but the beginning, it featured that, right? Decisive change of regime. We had a plan and it wasn't about US oil companies. This is very different in every respect. There is no decisive change. All we know for sure is that Nicolas Maduro and his wife are in New York and were arraigned today. That's about it. The regime is still there. There's a pressure and coercion that's going on. There doesn't appear to be any kind of a plan for the day after the Maduro regime.

• 19:45Speaker 09

  And so, and finally, it is not all about oil, it's about many things. But the president has made very clear that getting US oil companies back into Venezuela and getting its production back up with US companies is one of the main objectives of this. So, in every respect, very different than how the liberation of Iraq took place. So that strikes me. But we're still in this fluid area where we're not quite sure what the end state's going to be in terms of a regime in Caracas.

• 20:16Ed Elson?

  Just looking at the oil market in Venezuela, you mentioned there that it's not that important in the short term. However, they also have the largest oil reserves of any nation in the world. Give us like a detailed or semi-detailed understanding of what actually is going on with the oil in Venezuela? What are their capabilities? How important is it? And why is it that it's not that relevant in the short term?

• 20:50Speaker 09

  So, the world consumes about 105 million barrels a day of, we call it liquids, mostly crude oil, there are other things in there, some petrochemical feed stops, some biofuels, refinery gain, but just to keep it simple, 100 or so, 105 million barrels a day. Venezuela provides a little less than a million barrels a day, so less than a percent of total world supply. 25 years ago Venezuela was up at 3%. It was about 3 million barrels a day. Even a little more of production. So its production has fallen from 3 to about, to less than a million barrels a day.

• 21:29Speaker 09

  Now Venezuela does have the world's largest proved reserves, a little over 300 billion barrels. However, not all reserves are the same. Not all oil is. This is a very important concept for folks to get as we try to talk about how quickly will they come back and so forth. Oil ranges in quality. You've got champagne quality oil, light, low sulfur, beautiful. US shale is like that. And then you've got coffee grounds on the other end of the range. Gunky, sulfurous, heavy, full of metals. Okay? Champagne to coffee grounds. Venezuela's the coffee ground variety. And to turn that, those coffee grounds into the gasoline that you and I drive with, or your gas oil, or jet fuel, etc.

• 22:12Speaker 09

  You need a lot of work and blending and upgrading, or in Canada, SAGD, you need a lot of industrial processes to turn this heavy oil. So it's, whereas the champagne kind of oil is almost ready to go. It requires less costly, easy refining. So this is an important feature about Venezuela. Its reserves are enormous, world's biggest, but extremely costly to produce at scale. Now, the good news is Venezuela used to have a world-class state oil company, Petavesa. And in the 1990s, they opened up to Western companies. And they invited them in, the big US companies went in, other companies went in. And working with Petavesa, really talented engineers, relatively low corruption, efficient

• 22:57Speaker 09

  production, they really boosted Venezuelan production. It was exporting more to the United States than even Canada was. But then unfortunately Chavez happened. Hugo Chavez comes in, communist populist dictatorship, kicks the US companies out, except for Chevron, which has a small license, and runs the place into the ground. So you've seen this in other countries where governments come in, they chase away all the talented engineers that they had. Venezuelans all left for Canada, the United States. Middle East, they all went and the engineers went to produce oil there. They under invested, they let the equipment run down. So all that expensive equipment that the American companies had invested in to produce that heavy oil at scale was left to go to rot, basically.

• 23:40Speaker 09

  And it declined and here we are. Venezuela is poor, its production is falling. And getting it back up and running is going to be a mammoth undertaking, measured in years to decades, and tens of billions of dollars. But look, I think a real important context of sort of what does Venezuela really mean? And why does it matter? Is, do we need Venezuelas? Right? Up until a few months ago, you and I were having this conversation a year ago. I mean, the dominant narrative was, well, oil demand is going to peak pretty soon. Look at those EVs coming. Look at climate change policies. Most people believed that oil demand was going to stop growing about 2030 in a few years, and then either plateau or fall. If you believe that, we don't need another Venezuela.

• 24:23Speaker 09

  You may not need a major oil new projects at all, including the IEA was saying, look, it's not clear. If we're going to get to net zero, we shouldn't even be permitting new fields. We should, we can, you know, we don't need, we don't need these new big projects. But what's fortunate for Venezuela and for oil companies is, I would say, toward the end of last year, this narrative, this peak demand narrative, really began to break down and collapse. And I think, look at the major forecasters from the IEA to the major companies that think tanks have put out for everybody's dialing back and saying, wait a minute, these EVs aren't coming fast enough. Climate change policies are being subordinated to energy security, affordability.

• 25:02Speaker 09

  Canada, the US, California, New York, Europe, China, everywhere is shifting the focus back to affordability and energy security. So the world is starting to realize, oh, boy, we need a lot more oil after 2030 than we thought. Not next year. But after 2030, and this is where the timing is perfect for Venezuela to come on and say, "Well, it just so happens we have 300 billion barrels here, and maybe we'll be willing to, you know, invite capital and expertise, get those Venezuelan expats back and get this thing humming because it would be just what we needed to avoid too tight of a market early in the next decade."

• 25:37Ed Elson?

  Just thinking about what happens next. I mean, you mentioned that it's a short-term going to be difficult to make that oil valuable, to get it out of the ground, to fix up the infrastructure and to make it usable. But it seems as though all you need to do is get your act together, invest billions and billions of dollars, which appears to be exactly what Trump and the oil companies are prepared to do. And then I guess the question becomes, what is America's role in this nation moving forward? It seems pretty clear that they are going to commit to getting that oil out of the ground, and Chevron and

• 26:20Ed Elson?

  Exxon, they're all going to go in and figure out how to make money off of this. But I guess the sort of the open question is, where does the US government stand in this transaction? Will they just run the country? Do they just own the oil now? What is their role in this at this point?

• 26:39Speaker 09

  Well, those two questions are linked, right? And I do think you say the US companies are going to get their act together, get the money together and go in and do it slowly, slowly. You, any oil company and the board of an oil company looking to sanction billions of dollars into Venezuela is going to be thinking about the world well beyond the Trump administration. The Trump administration's already over in terms of the lifetime that oil companies think in. Decades, decades. They've got to think about, will this investment pay off if Gavin Newsom is president, or AOC is president, or JD Vance is president?

• 27:21Speaker 09

  And so I think there's going to be a mismatch, honestly, between some folks in the Trump administration who want to see that capital go in fast and want to see barrels come out soon. And the oil companies who are going to be very cautious about this, very cautious, not only having gotten kicked out 25 years ago, but is there a stable regime? Can our people operate safely there? What kind of contracts are we going to get? How are we going to get our money out? How badly dilapidated is the system is? Because they have other options. You can drill in the Permian, you can drill in, you can produce in Canada. Guyana is doing pretty well. Offshore is attractive.

• 28:02Speaker 09

  There are other options to spend your capital than betting the farm on the whale of a Venezuelan project, which has had a tumultuous history, to be sure. So even if President Trump stepped up, and I don't, I mean, I don't hear they're going to do this, and they said, look, we got your back. US government is going to co-invest with you. We're going to take a stake. We're going to mitigate all your risk. That's good for another three years or so, assuming they even did it, right? And three years will only begin in the very beginning stages of the investment and the workovers and the infrastructure investment that we would need to get Venezuela up and running. So an oil company would have to be confident that, you know, it can manage these risks for decades.

• 28:46Speaker 09

  And betting that the US government is going to be a solid financial or political partner, given the volatility we've seen politically here, I don't think that's a bet they would easily take.

• 28:59Ed Elson?

  Really fascinating, and I'm sure that this conversation is going to continue, probably for the next few weeks, certainly, I would say probably months. In any case, this was, this was really interesting. Thanks for your time, Bob.

• 29:13Speaker 09

  Thank you, Ed. Thanks for having me on.

• 29:20Ed Elson?

  Well, we're starting the year with a bang. I assumed our first big story would have something to do with AI or tech or maybe even private credit. I did not think. That it would be a military story, and I especially didn't think it would be the forcible removal of a foreign leader, the first one by the US, by the way, in more than three decades. But here we are. That's what's happened. 2026 is up and running. Now, this is a developing story. Our perspective might change as this all unfolds. But while we are here, I will just give you my quick thoughts on Venezuela and what

• 30:01Ed Elson?

  this invasion means for us. So the first thing to consider is what the administration has told us about this invasion. And based on what they have told us, it seems that this whole thing seems to revolve around Maduro and bringing him to justice. The White House has emphasized that Maduro will, quote, "finally face justice for his crimes." They said he will, quote, "soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts." And they also said that this is, quote, "not regime change, this is justice." That's what they have told us about what happened. Now, depending on your

• 30:45Ed Elson?

  position on foreign policy, this might seem like a very fair reason to go and invade another nation. In fact, Americans and many Venezuelans would agree on this. They would agree that this is a good thing, that this is a good reason to intervene. But that's not really my question here. I'm actually less interested in whether or not this was a fair reason to invade. I'm more interested in whether or not this was the reason that we invaded. My question is, was this really about bringing a dictator to justice, or was this about something else?

• 31:26Ed Elson?

  Now, if Trump had ever demonstrated an interest in foreign policy and foreign justice at any point in his career, then maybe I'd be inclined to believe the story and the reasoning they're telling us. However, he has never been interested in this kind of thing. In fact, Trump has historically gotten along really well with autocrats and murderous dictators, whether it's Putin, or Kim Jong-un, or Lukashenko, or even the former president of Honduras, who Trump just pardoned after he was found guilty of using his position as president to traffic drugs into the US, which is, by the way, the very thing for which Maduro has been charged himself. In other words, I don't

• 32:09Ed Elson?

  really think that Trump has an issue with people like Nicolas Maduro. He's gotten along with many people just like him before. In addition, it has long been Trump's position that we shouldn't do things like what we just saw, that we shouldn't get involved with other nations' issues and other nations' wars. He was vocally against the war in Iraq, for example. He also said we should, quote, "stop racing to topple foreign regimes we know nothing about." He built his campaign on this principle, that we need to focus on America and domestic issues, and we need to stop worrying about other nations and

• 32:49Ed Elson?

  their political issues. This was the whole premise of America first. So why is he reversing his position right now? Well, as we often say on this podcast, if you want to know the truth, do not read the press release. You should read and observe what's happening in the markets, because the markets usually tell you the real story. So let's look at the markets. In the few days since Maduro was captured, we saw some pretty interesting stock market activity. We'll start with the American oil stocks. ExxonMobil's stock has risen more than 2%. CanocoPhillips has risen 4%. Chevron has risen 6%. Moving on

• 33:32Ed Elson?

  to the large American oil refinery companies, we've seen Marathon Petroleum and Phillips 66, both rising 6%. Valero rose more than 9%. Then we look at the oil field service firms, companies like Halliburton, which have risen as much as 10%. Overall...

• 33:51Ed Elson?

  In just a few days, US oil stocks have added more than $100 billion in market value. So the truth is that this invasion, just like any other imperial or colonial operation, is simply about money. And as uncomfortable as that might sound, the reality is, taking over another country, occupying their territory, seizing their assets, especially if they've got oil, that is a very profitable business. And that is why so many nations through history have employed this strategy, whether it was the Romans, or the British, or indeed, the United States. Building and expanding your empire

• 34:35Ed Elson?

  through violent force is a great business. And that is the cold, hard truth. Now, the question many would ask is, does that make it right, or fair, or acceptable to invade another nation? And again, I'm not going to be the one to make a value judgment here. Because all I want for us to be clear on is what is actually happening, what we're actually getting ourselves into. Because no, this is not really about justice or liberation. In fact, Trump revealed his true feelings in a press conference where he mentioned the word "oil" six times more than the word "drugs." This is expansionism. This is interventionism. This is really imperialism in its purist form. Our government has decided it wants

• 35:18Ed Elson?

  to build an empire from Greenland to Venezuela, and they found themselves a good place to start. Now, you may like empires, you may not like empires, I don't really care. But all I would ask is that we continue this conversation honestly, and that we recognize this decision for what it is. It's not about Maduro, it's not about human rights, it's not even about socialism. No, as always, this is about money.

• 35:50Ed Elson?

  Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss, edited by Joel Patterson, and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our research team is Dan Shulon, Isabella Kinsel, Chris No Donahue, and Mia Silverio. Thank you for listening to Property Markets from Property Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.

• 36:18Speaker 10

  Looking for a simple way to thank your clients or recognize employees for a job well done? A Starbucks Card is more than a gift. It's a pick-me-up, a break in their day, and a reminder that you appreciate them. Whether you're shopping for digital or physical cards in bulk, Starbucks Cards are the perfect gift to brighten anyone's day. Share the joy of coffee and connection when you give the gift of Starbucks. Shop Starbucks Cards in Bulk now at StarbucksCardB2B.com.

• 36:45Speaker 11

  For a limited time, you can get a Big Mac meal for just $8. That's a burger, fries, and a drink. They don't call it an extra-value meal for nothing. Get a Big Mac meal only at McDonald's.

• 36:57Speaker 08

  Price and participation may vary. Promotion pricing may be lower than meal pricing.