happy with that CEO. Now, nothing to do with the politics of it. Why would you as a CEO do something so freaking stupid? I mean that's just stupid. So how do you explain it?

Well I've got a suggestion. One way to explain it — I don't know if this is the way, but we're being conspiratorial today. You ready? Do you remember that in the earlier part of the last century the CIA was definitely talking to Hollywood and making sure that the movies and the TVs were compatible with the propaganda and brainwashing that the government wanted to do to the citizens? Needed to make us patriotic and want to join the military and think that America is the best and all that stuff.

So we know that there's a long history of the CIA and the government meddling with our major media entities. What is our major media entity for movies you watch at home? Netflix. Netflix. Do you think that Netflix is completely independent and has no connection to dark parts of the government which tell it what it can and cannot promote and which movies they should float to the top and which ones should get the most exposure when it's recommended to people?

Well I don't know. But if the CIA is doing all those other things and they're leaving Netflix alone, that would be more of a story. Netflix is the obvious place that the CIA should put their lever because it's the big one. So if you were going to do any kind of control over how people think you'd go for that one first. Which suggests that the founder may have a cozy relationship with somebody within the government and may have more at stake than just the stock price.

Now I have no information whatsoever to imagine that anybody at Netflix is working with anybody in the government for any reason other than making money for their shareholders. But when you see the CEO do something that's so plainly and obviously bad for the stock price you must ask the following question: Why? Why would you have a job that is specifically to make your stock price do well and then do something that's so obviously terrible for it? I mean really obviously. And he would know it. It's not like I'm smarter than him and therefore if he were smarter he would have known that this recommendation would — no, everybody knows it. 100% of everybody in the world knew that that would cost them a big amount of money. But he did it anyway.

Now I guess he's a founder so he doesn't have to worry about being replaced by the board. But if he hadn't been a founder I would think the board should replace you if you do something that reckless. But nope. There's probably more to this story and we don't know what it is.

Economist Mark Zandi, who is a fairly high-profile economist — I don't know if you've heard his name but if you're a nerd like me I've heard his name — had something to say about our current economy. And he's an expert. All right, so here's an expert economist you can trust. An expert economist. Can you? He's using data, people. He's going to use data. And I'm going to tell you the data. You believe data, don't you? Come on. Come on. You don't believe data and you don't believe experts. You're just so cynical now. You're so cynical.

All right, I'm going to read you what the expert economist said, and then I want each of you who are not experts — you are not, well some of you actually are economists, but those of you who are not economists — I want you to see if you can find out what's wrong with his analysis. Now remember you're not an expert and he is, so this will be a tough challenge. See if you can find the tiny, small, little, tiny, almost imperceptible problem with his analysis. Okay, you ready?

Mark Zandi says, "I've hesitated to say this at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, but with last week's big GDP revisions there is no denying it. This is among the best performing economies in my 35 plus years as an economist."

Now he hasn't justified his opinion yet but wait for it, because it's based on data and I think the data is the accepted data. So listen to this. He said economic growth is rip-roaring with real GDP up 3% over the past year. Unemployment is low at near 4%, consistent with full employment. That's an economics term for saying that if it were less than it is — you know, if employment were any better it would cause inflation. So that's how they say that. They call it full employment. So that would be great.

Inflation is fast closing in on the Fed's 2% target. Grocery prices, rents, and gas prices are flat to down over the past year. Now remember he's not making the mistake of saying that prices are down, right? He's an economist. He's not a politician. Politicians say stuff like "oh prices are dow