Schiff Sovereign Podcast

Sometimes it feels difficult to get one’s bearings. Markets are near all-time highs, yet extremely volatile. America is the ‘hottest economy in the world’ attracting trillions of dollars in capital, yet inflation is up... and seemingly almost every week some major corporation announces mass layoffs. Very little makes sense these days. So today I wanted to take a big picture view of what’s happening in the US economy… and more critically, where it may be headed. 1. It’s all about the US federal budget deficit It’s not exactly controversial anymore to say that federal spending is completely out of control. Fiscal Year 2025 (which ended on September 30 of this year) posted another $1.8 trillion deficit, and interest on the national debt exceeded all military spending. This becomes worse each year and will soon reach a point where it is unfixable. The government has to borrow money just to pay interest on the money it has already borrowed… which means that the annual interest bill-- already more than 20% of tax revenue-- will continue to increase. 2. The budget deficit has to be financed, one way or another When the US government spends more than it collects in tax revenue, it makes up the difference by selling more debt, i.e. Treasury securities. Very broadly, you could group the investors who buy the US government’s debt into two groups: foreign investors and domestic investors. 3. Foreigners are abandoning US debt faster than anyone cares to admit. But for the past few years, foreigners (including foreign governments, central banks, large corporations, commercial banks, and even individual foreign investors) have been net SELLERS of US Treasury securities. It’s not hard to understand why; the entire world has witnessed utter chaos and insanity, from a guy who shook hands with thin air, to the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, to TWO attempted assassinations of a Presidential candidate, to “Liberation Day”, to the government shutdown, and more. Plus, all along the way the national debt reached an eye-popping $38 trillion. Foreigners are no longer looking at US government bonds as a “risk free” or “safe haven” asset. Instead, it just looks better to avoid. 4. Domestic investors don’t have enough savings to finance the deficit Each year, between businesses and consumers across the US economy, a total of roughly $1-2 trillion in “net savings” is generated. This is essentially the combination of all business and corporate profits, plus the net total of whatever households have left over after paying all bills and expenses. This year net domestic savings in the US economy is on track to be less than $1 trillion. But the budget deficit is roughly $2 trillion. This means there’s simply not enough savings in the United States to finance the annual deficit. 5. So, the Fed steps in and fills the gap Since foreigners aren’t buying, and the domestic economy doesn’t generate enough savings, the only option left to finance the budget deficit is for the Federal Reserve and the banking system to create the money. That’s why, over the past decade, US money supply has grown by 6.8% annually, while the real economy has only grown at 2.3%-- a difference of 4.5% annually. In short, this means that the growth in money supply is significantly greater than growth in the production of goods and services. A 4.5% difference isn’t very much if it were just a single year. But if you compound that 4.5% difference over 10-15 years, it means that the amount of money in the system has become substantially greater than the amount of goods and services in the economy. So there’s a LOT more money chasing around less ‘stuff’. The net result is inflation. 6. Bad policy makes it worse Between 2020 and 2024, the U.S. went from being a net energy exporter to importing the equivalent of 2 million barrels per day. That wasn’t a weird coincidence—it was the deliberate result of idiotic Biden-era po...

We sincerely hope the House of Representatives can pull itself together and get the government back open this week. Not because we love federal bureaucracy—but because this shutdown is embarrassing, and it continues to chip away at the rapidly declining confidence that foreign governments and central banks have in the United States. This matters. Foreign governments and central banks collectively own $10+ trillion of US government bonds and other agency securities. And given how rapidly the national debt is rising, the Treasury Department needs every lender they can get. Up until recently, foreigners have always happily stocked up on US government bonds— which were traditionally viewed as THE world’s “risk free” asset. But over the past few years, they’ve seen endless financial chaos and political dysfunction. They watched Joe Biden shake hands with thin air. They watched the humiliating US withdrawal of Afghanistan. They watched millions of migrants stream across the US border with impunity, then be showered with taxpayer benefits. They watched TWO assassination attempts on a Presidential candidate. Then, even after last year’s election, they watched the richest guy in the world willingly roll up his sleeves to help eliminate federal waste and cut the deficit— only to get chased out of town by politicians who are addicted to fraudulent spending. They’ve watched extreme political dysfunction, with two sides who can’t agree on anything... including the most basic task of keeping the government open. They’ve watched deficits grow and the national debt spiral to $38 trillion. They watched the debt grow by HALF A TRILLION dollars just over the past SIX WEEKS when the government was supposedly closed. In short, if you were a foreign government or central bank, there’s little chance you would look at Congress and think, “these are serious, responsible people.” Quite the opposite. In fact you would probably think that it’s time to start cutting your Treasury holdings and back away from the US dollar. After all, the United States Congress doesn’t exactly look “risk free” any longer. Foreigners understand that a time is coming—sooner rather than later—when the US dollar will no longer be the dominant global reserve currency. Many central banks still hold nearly 100% of their reserves in US dollars. They know they need to diversify. And we’ve written about this many times before— the #1 asset that they’re purchasing right now is gold. It’s not because these foreign central bankers and finance ministers are irrational gold bugs. Instead, they understand that gold is nearly the only asset that (1) is universally accepted, (2) carries zero counterparty risk, and (3) has a large enough market to absorb hundreds of billions of dollars in capital flows. That’s why, from Poland to Ghana to Kazakhstan, central banks have been buying gold in record quantities. It’s not just China. China is the most desperate. They hold hundreds of billions in US dollar assets as part of their strategic financial reserves, and the Communist Party is extremely concerned—because they see a real possibility that they could be at war with their own borrower in the future. Only three central banks were selling gold last quarter—and their reasons are easy to understand. Russia was one—not because they love the dollar. But because they need to fund a war. Frozen out of the global financial system, gold has become almost a medium of exchange for the Russian government. Singapore was another. Most central banks only buy strategically; they don’t try to turn a profit. Not Singapore. Their financial institutions are filled with sharp traders who would sell high into record trading volume, with the intent to buy gold back at a lower price. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Singaporean government picked up more gold during the recent price dip earlier this month. The third was Uzbekistan,

Imagine for a moment you own a small piece an old, well-established, family-owned business. Your long-lost ancestors started this company a few centuries ago, and subsequent generations built it into a global powerhouse— we’re talking $100 billion in annual revenue and hundreds of thousands of employees. Hundreds of years later, the family business is well past its peak and is in decline. And at this point the ownership is in the hands of thousands of descendants of the original owners. But even with all of those different perspectives, everyone agrees that something needs to change. The various stakeholders still believe in the company, still believe that the brand can be restored to its former glory. But it’s definitely time for new leadership. So the company starts a search to recruit a CEO. Your fingers are crossed that they find a highly experienced turnaround specialist who knows how to restore fallen stars. Yet, to your utter bewilderment, the executive candidate that most of your fellow stakeholders support is someone who has absolutely no business experience... someone who has never managed a single employee. In fact, he’s never even had a real job! He’s never run a budget, let alone a large organization’s, he can barely manage his own finances, and to make matters worse, he actively hates business. Why would anyone support such a candidate for the company’s top job? Well he’s a fairly well-spoken, charismatic guy. He has a winning smile. He checks a bunch of diversity boxes. He also offers some ideas that really excite your fellow stakeholders— even though none of his ideas actually survive scrutiny. His ideas remind you of the election for your high school class president where one of the candidates promised to put Coca-Cola in the water fountains... You’ve been around business long enough to know ideas are pretty worthless. Execution is what matters. But you find yourself in the minority... and the other stakeholders end up choosing this inexperienced neophyte to lead the company. This is what NYC did yesterday in electing Zohran Mamdani. And it’s really hard for any rational person to expect a positive outcome. It’s easy to lament the election of a card carrying Socialist. But if we’re being intellectually honest, we can acknowledge that a lot of people are suffering. They’re struggling more than they used to—and they don’t understand why. Voters don’t understand how years of mismanagement and waste at the city level have led to a significant decline in municipal services. Crime rates are up, and even the basics like garbage collection or the city’s rat infestation just continue to get worse. Nor do voters understand how idiotic state policies have driven productive people and businesses away from New York state to friendlier jurisdictions like Florida, resulting in a hollowing out of the tax base (and hence reduction in services). They also don’t understand how the blowout of federal spending—starting especially with the pandemic—has resulted in higher levels of inflation. And they definitely don’t understand the vagaries of monetary policy, and how the Federal Reserve’s mistakes have fueled the inflation problem. Most voters don’t understand any of these things. (Neither does Mamdani.) They only know that they’re falling further behind, and they want change. Well, change they got. Unfortunately, it’s probably not going to be a good change. Ironically, one of the other things voters don’t understand is Socialism. These days, most people who like the idea of socialism skew younger—too young to remember the Soviet Union. When they think of Socialism, they think Norway. They think it’s possible to have free healthcare, free education, robust pensions and retirement, social safety nets, low unemployment, and a strong economy all at the same time. The reality is far different. Scandinavia has achieved certain success in its public welfare progr...

There was a popular legend from medieval Venice about an impoverished orphan from the island of Torcello. The boy came to Venice at a young age, found a job, and worked tirelessly and energetically-- enough to impress some of the city’s wealthy patricians. Eventually the boy-- now a young man-- had built up enough credibility that some local noblemen entered into a commenda contract with him, i.e. a sort of proto-limited partnership. The idea was that the investors would finance a trade voyage (and stay comfortably at home in Venice), while the young man would risk life and limb on the high seas. The investors would take 100% of the financial risk in exchange for 75% of the profit, while the orphaned entrepreneur would earn a 25% cut in exchange for risking his life. The young man went off to sail the known world and came back with 10x his investors’ money. Ecstatic at the tremendous return on capital, the investors backed several other voyages… until eventually the young orphan boy with no prospects became one of the richest men in Venice. No one knows if this particular story is true. But it’s emblematic of the incredible rise and peak of the Republic of Venice. 1,000+ years ago, it was truly the America of its day. While the rest of Europe was toiling away in poverty due to the constraints of the ridiculous feudal system, Venice was like a rocket ship far ahead of its time. Its entire society was built on economic freedom. ANYONE, from anywhere in Europe, could come to Venice, work hard, take risks, and make a fortune. It was the American dream seven centuries before there was an America. Venice also prided itself on a strong rule of law, not to mention unparalleled political and financial stability. It became the richest place on the continent, by far, and its ducato (ducat) gold coin eventually displaced the Byzantine gold solidus as Europe’s major reserve currency. But eventually, like most great civilizations, it peaked. Venice’s swashbuckling, risk-taking, hard-working entrepreneurial culture became complacent. Rather than finance new trade routes and keep innovating, the great moneyed families of Venice were happy to sit at home and spend their fortunes on art and architecture. The government became clogged up with an entrenched political class that remained in elected office year after year. They became lazy, then incompetent, and then ultimately ran the place into the ground. Meanwhile, other rising powers emerged on the geopolitical horizon-- among them, the Ottoman Empire. In the 1300s, the Ottoman Empire came out of nowhere as a ferocious competitor, ruthlessly conquering everyone who stood in their way.  They were also shrewd at trade and commerce, and they posed a direct threat to Venice. It was a classic historical case of a rising power against a declining power. And it seemed like war was inevitable. And to be fair, the two countries did cross swords a number of times; history records these as the “Ottoman-Venetian Wars [note the plural]”, though realistically they were extremely limited conflicts, i.e. not full-blown total war in which both sides tried to obliterate one another. The reason for the limited nature of the conflicts is simple: trade. Both Venice and the Ottoman Empire did a LOT of business with one another, and they both knew that destroying their adversary would be self-destructive. So instead, they fought small, limited conflicts while continuing to engage in trade and commerce. This is very similar to the US-China conflict that has already been going on for a number of years. We can’t even count the number of cyberattacks that China has waged on the US and US infrastructure. There will be more. China has been buying up land across the United States left and right to stage military assets for further conflict. They’ve engaged in election interference. Stolen intellectual property. Flooded the US with Fentanyl. Brazen espionage,

The most polished, eloquent, and articulate voice on the Left right now is no longer the greasy used-car salesman Gavin Newsom. It’s the next mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani. He has Obama‑level charisma and speaking ability, which is terrifying, because it means his political career won’t stop with New York City. I watched the mayoral debate between Mamdani and former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo— of daytime Emmy fame for delivering pandemic briefings while murdering nursing homes residents with his COVID policies. But after being cast out by his party over #MeToo allegations, this was meant to be Cuomo’s big political comeback. It will not be. Last night’s debate made it painfully obvious the fix is in. The moderators gave subtle advantages to Mamdani, like allowing him to respond to questions last, giving him ample time to think through his responses and hear what his opponents said. They even joined in on the beat-down of Cuomo over not being pro-Islamic enough. The fact that Cuomo could not name a single mosque he had visited, Mamdani said, “is why so many New Yorkers have lost faith in politics.” Wow. It’s not the crime, the trash piling up in the streets, the homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, noise, illegal parking, or the absolute unimaginable infestation of rats that have overrun the city. It’s because Cuomo can’t name a mosque. Those problems, by the way, Mamdani openly admitted urgently need to be solved... including the rats. In fact he ranked New York’s rat infestation as one of the top two problems in the city (the other being noise). Yet in almost the very next sentence, when asked how he would pitch corporations on relocating to New York City, he looked in the camera and said with a straight face, “The quality of life.” Because nothing says quality of life like a medieval infestation of plague rats. The debate was so absurd, I kept waiting for an announcer to declare, “Live from New York, it’s Saturday night!” But that didn’t happen. Instead, when asked how he’d pay for his utopia of free buses, free childcare, city-run groceries, and state-sponsored everything, Mamdani pointed to a shining beacon of fiscal competence and economic magnetism: New Jersey! He said, if New Jersey can tax corporations more, why can’t New York City? Because nothing says high growth, business-friendly fiscal responsibility like New Jersey. When the discussion turned to crime, Mamdani blamed Donald Trump. But the solution is definitely not Trump sending in the National Guard. That was only a good solution when Governor Kathy Hochul did the exact same thing last year. Insead Mamdani wants to hire a legion of social workers to stop New York’s violent criminality, and pay for everything by raising taxes. Apparently he’s completely blind to all of the people and businesses who have fled the city over high taxes, rampant crime, and... rats. I get into all of this, and many other jaw-dropping debate moments, in today’s podcast. And I also discuss why this doesn’t have to be America’s future. There are actually places that are solving problems— and no, not New Jersey. Look at Florida. It went from heavily indebted to budget surpluses in about fifteen years. Today the state is so fiscally stable that they’ve paid down half of their debt, and now they’re talking about eliminating property taxes altogether. There’s already no state income tax in Flodia, yet the government still manages to keep crime under control, maintain functioning infrastructure, and enjoy a booming economy. America’s problems are substantial. Florida is a great example of how they can be solved. New York City is proving to be an astonishing tale of how they can become much worse. Which way will the country go? You can listen to the full podcast here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76MOBLG3xOQ The podcast transcript is available here.

Yesterday we wrote that with gold topping $4,000, it’s time to step back and look at the big picture—and the fundamentals haven’t changed. Foreign governments and central banks hold about $10 trillion in US denominated reserves. But for years they’ve been trading this paper for gold— because it is their only realistic alternative. Why are they searching for an alternative? Because they are losing confidence in the US government. The debt, the political dysfunction, the weaponization of the dollar— these all make them less excited about loaning money to the US government. And their steady buying of gold is what pushed it to these levels. Those catalysts have not gone away, and if anything, are stronger than ever. When a few hundred billion in demand can double the price of gold, imagine what happens if even a small portion of the remaining trillions rotate into gold. Does 5% of dollar reserves shifting into gold translate to $10,000 gold? 20% re-allocation to $20,000 per ounce? We don’t know exactly, but these numbers are not fantastical. There’s still enormous room for upside. In the short term, of course, we can see plenty of noise. Markets respond to headlines—like the new prime minister of Japan openly calling for more money-printing. Any environment like that naturally drives gold higher. But at the same time, we’re seeing signals that a correction could be near—a stampede of new individual investors, record inflows into large gold ETFs, and a drop off in jewelry sales. There are some classic signs of a short-term top. But we don’t focus on short term trading. We always look at the long term big picture. And the long-term trend remains solidly intact. So does the most important story of all right now: the much ignored mining sector. Even after a massive run, many gold miners are still deeply undervalued relative to the long-term intrinsic value of their businesses. One company featured in our premium investment research is up 5x in the past year. Yet even if gold fell back to $3,000, it would still be turning enough profit to trade at just four times earnings. It’s debt-free. It pays a dividend. And it offers massive downside protection. So while no one has a crystal ball—and we can’t tell you what happens tomorrow—the reality is that the mining, drilling, and service companies behind this bull market remain absurdly cheap. That’s an opportunity to take seriously. We dug into all of this in our latest podcast which you can listen to here. https://youtu.be/96mB4tbh9Ao And if you want to learn more about our investment research— currently available for a limited time discount— click here. (You can find the podcast transcript here.)

On December 26, 1933, US Secretary of State Cordell Hull sat in a conference room in Montevideo, Uruguay, chain-smoking— as usual. It was just months into Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term as president. In the midst of the Great Depression, the new administration was trying to turn the page from America’s imperialist era and become (what FDR called) “a good neighbor” in the region. So Roosevelt sent Cordell Hull— a tall, austere Tennessean to build relationships in Latin America. Hull was was polite, unshakably formal, and most importantly—stone cold sober in a room full of diplomats who treated every negotiation session like a vineyard tour. It was perhaps because Hull might have been the only delegate who wasn’t falling-down-drunk that, by the end of the conference, a series of landmark agreements had been signed— everything from women's rights to non-intervention—including the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. Born out of border disputes in South America, this document established the modern legal definition of statehood, with four main pillars: Permanent Population – A stable group of people living in the territory. Defined Territory – Clearly recognized borders, even if not fully settled. Government – An organized central political authority that exercises control. Capacity to Enter into Relations with Other States – The ability to engage diplomatically and sign treaties. I found this interesting this week as the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, and other countries formally recognized Palestine as a sovereign state during the UN General Assembly. At a minimum, Palestine doesn’t meet the definition of having an effective central authority—one part of the West Bank is run by the Palestinian Authority, while the other is run by the Israeli military, and Gaza is run by Hamas— a terrorist group that openly targets civilians and uses its own people as human shields. In the end, this recognition was just more destructive derangement from the Left. It’s ironic that countries like Britain are so concerned about Palestine when they have already utterly destroyed themselves with immigration. So much so, that they now have to cover their mistakes by arresting people for posting online, threatening to arrest others simply for being openly Jewish, or even just looking at the wrong meme. Despite this endless track record of failure, the Leftists in charge change nothing. Even while holding near-total power in many countries, and dominating single-party cities and states in the US, their policies and ideas are proven failures. Yet they still blame the other side while refusing to make a single adjustment or course correction. And if you call them out, they won’t argue on the merits of ideas. Instead, they’ll label you a racist, a fascist, or “far-right”. If that doesn’t work, they’ll resort to outright violence. Today we dive into a number of these failures—from Palestine to Jimmy Kimmel to Iryna Zarutska—and come away with a conclusion. To be frank, I’m not sure the UK and Europe are going to recover. But America is going to get past this deep ideological divide. America has been through worse. Back in the early 1900s, anarchists, Bolsheviks, and socialists were blowing up buildings, assassinating politicians, and planting bombs in public squares. You might remember the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti from history class—two anarchists convicted of murder in 1920. That wasn’t some isolated case. The left-wing violence of the era was widespread and organized. And yet, the country pulled through. As crazy as the world seems today, there’s still a lot of reason for optimism. That’s what we talk about in today’s podcast episode. You can listen here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflS4Y1GEIE You can find the podcast transcript here.

It pays to think long-term—and to recognize major trends and opportunities before they become obvious. Some of the greatest wins in history stem from long-term thinking. Some of the richest people on Earth, like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, had to commit to decade-long visions to accomplish their goals. At the same time, there’s no shame in recognizing short-term, time-sensitive opportunities right in front of us. Especially in finance and investing, it’s critical to balance both views. Long-term, we’re watching a clear trend unfold: foreign governments and central banks are losing confidence in the US government and the US dollar. They’re selling Treasuries and buying gold—driving gold prices to record highs. Why gold? Because it fills the vacuum— no other currency is appealing to replace the US dollar. But the price of physical gold is only part of the story. For the last couple of years, we’ve pointed out the massive disconnect between rising gold prices and the underperformance of gold-related companies. That gap is finally beginning to close. Gold and silver producers—especially the ones with low costs and high margins—are now seeing record revenue growth. And many of their share prices have surged 3x, 4x, and even 5x. Yet we still believe there’s significant room to run. This is the part of the cycle where investor capital floods in—especially institutional money that needs larger market caps. And with Q3 earnings about to reflect record-high gold prices, we expect many of these companies to report blowout quarters over the next couple months. We think there’s still a short window—likely just a few months—where these companies remain undervalued despite strong performance. The disconnect between gold prices and gold company valuations is closing fast, but hasn’t fully closed yet. Once the broader market catches on, we expect a surge of capital into the sector—especially from institutional investors—which could push prices much higher in a short period of time. That kind of rush often leads to a mini-bubble. And while the long-term case for these businesses remains strong, the short-term opportunity lies in getting in before that final wave of excitement hits. In the long term, we think gold could easily go to $5,000–$10,000, driven by a global shift away from the dollar. That doesn’t mean it will be a straight line up— there will likely be pullbacks. But the long term trend is clear. But in the short term, gold-related businesses are poised to benefit from the surge in revenue and capital inflows right now. And that’s a short term opportunity. We discuss this dynamic in more detail in today’s podcast. We also cover: The historical parallels between today’s U.S. dollar and the fall of the Roman denarius Why there’s no real alternative to gold as a reserve asset in today’s geopolitical landscape How Congress’s dysfunction is accelerating the loss of global confidence in the dollar The key differences between physical gold and gold companies—and why that gap created an overlooked opportunity You can listen here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozLLSx-TML4&lc=UgyHTIXs7-c9Ye5xdzR4AaABAg You can also access the podcast transcript, here. P.S. While gold has doubled in recent years, many of the companies we’ve been following in our investment research newsletter The 4th Pillar—especially miners, royalty firms, and service providers—are up 2x, 3x, even 5x just in the past few months. Their costs are steady, but as gold prices surge, revenues and profits skyrocket. Even after big gains, we still think several of these companies could double again as earnings roll in and investor interest explodes. If you want to see the names we’re watching now, click here to check out our premium investment research service, on sale for a limited time.

You might be surprised to know that the government is facing yet another shutdown at the stroke of midnight on September 30. A lot of people might be thinking two things: First— “again?” And second— what about the “One Big Beautiful Bill”? The One Big Beautiful Bill, signed into law on July 4, did not, in fact, contain all the necessary resolutions to fund the government for the next fiscal year (which starts on October 1). As a result, Congress still needs to pass 12 appropriations bills in order to avoid a shutdown at the stroke of midnight on September 30. From what we can tell, the Trump administration seems to be pushing for spending cuts this time around, which is great. I sincerely hope they are successful, because the country desperately needs fiscal restraint. But at this point, it’s up to Congress—and that’s far from a foregone conclusion. The most likely scenario is they’ll just punt any real decision-making and instead pass a stopgap continuing resolution that will merely add to the deficit. In short, America will remain on its current trajectory—which the Congressional Budget Office estimates about $25 trillion in additional deficit spending over the next ten years. This is why so many foreign governments and central banks are aggressively working to establish some kind of alternative to the US dollar as the global reserve currency. Most likely, they won’t be very successful—simply because nobody trusts the Chinese or the Russians. India has far too many capital controls. So does Brazil. And as large as these countries may be in combined economic power, they have completely different economic priorities. Plus they don’t even trust one other. So the prospect of some “BRICS dollar” emerging as a serious competitor to the US dollar’s reserve status is laughable. But there actually is a serious competitor already—and that’s gold. The reason why is simple: no single country controls gold. There’s no supranational agency that can regulate the gold price. Gold is a free market, all about supply and demand, and it happens to be an asset nearly every central bank on the planet already owns. This is the reason why gold has surged to an all-time high—because foreign central banks just keep buying so much of it. And they’re doing it to reduce their exposure to the US dollar, and to reduce the hold and power the US government has over them. We think this trend is absolutely going to continue. And that’s why we’re still in the early days of this gold boom. In today’s podcast, we discuss all this, as well as: The global sell-off of US Treasuries and the pivot by foreign central banks toward gold. Why foreign governments and central banks now own more gold than US Treasuries for the first time in decades. Historical lessons—from the Byzantine empire to Venetian gold ducats—on what happens when trust in a currency breaks down. How central banks are also eyeing platinum and strategic assets as alternatives to the dollar. Why well-managed gold and silver producers could deliver outsized returns compared to the metals themselves. How owning gold today is a hedge against US fiscal chaos and a way to offset the increased costs of inflation. Why we’re still in the early innings of a gold bull market, even with prices already at record highs. You can listen to the full podcast here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDiueo1tfc4 Podcast transcript is available to you here.

William Martin probably knew he was in deep trouble when he boarded the plane to President Lyndon Johnson’s Texas ranch. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he had just warned that the US economy was overheating—and that the boom could end in a crash. But he probably didn’t expect the visit to end in a physical altercation, with the President of the United States literally shoving him against a wall and shouting: “Boys are dying in Vietnam, and Bill Martin doesn’t care!” It was 1965. The Vietnam War was raging. Johnson was desperate to keep funding the war effort and his expansive “Great Society” domestic programs. He needed low interest rates to keep the borrowing cost manageable and the economy growing. Martin refused to play ball. So Johnson resorted to raw, personal pressure. He couldn’t fire the Fed Chair, but he could humiliate him, bully him, and try to bend him to his will. That wasn’t even the first time a US president went to war with the central bank. The tradition goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson, who practically fought to the death against the Second Bank of the United States—and even believed an assassination attempt on his life was connected to his war against the Bank. Now, here we are again. Like Johnson, President Trump is a big personality with a big agenda. He wants to stimulate the economy. But more importantly, he wants to bring down the federal government’s interest expense, which is $1.2 trillion this fiscal year. And rather than physically assaulting Jerome Powell, Trump has been figuratively shoving him around on social media, hammering the Fed for keeping rates too high, too long. He’s also been turning to the hundreds of thousands of pages of US regulatory code to find ‘cause’ to oust sitting Fed officials—and replace them with loyalists committed to the cause of lower interest rates. I predicted this two weeks ago. And just a week later news broke that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook had allegedly committed mortgage fraud. Today Trump attempted to fire her. Suddenly it makes sense why another Fed official, Adriana Kugler, resigned without notice or explanation. The White House immediately filled her seat with a trusted insider: Stephen Miran, a Trump economic advisor and vocal advocate for a weaker dollar. I also predicted the Fed would cave quickly under this pressure. And after Chairman Powell’s speech on Friday at Jackson Hole, that capitulation is now a fait accompli. He didn’t cut rates yet. But he opened the door to a rate cut as early as next month. But cutting rates won’t be enough. If the goal is to bring long-term interest rates—and with them, the average cost of federal borrowing—down to 2%, the Fed is going to need Quantitative Easing. With a lot of help from Grok, we calculated the Fed would have to create roughly $10 trillion in new money to achieve that target. And as we’ve argued many times before, that level of monetary expansion will be very inflationary. But inflation doesn’t always show up the same way. For example, from 2008 to 2015, the Fed printed trillions… and yet retail price inflation remained muted. Food, rent, and gas prices didn’t spike dramatically. Instead, we saw asset price inflation—stocks, real estate, crypto, even fine art soared to record highs. Then came 2020 to 2022. The Fed printed again—this time even faster—and we got both asset inflation and retail inflation. Grocery bills skyrocketed. Rent exploded. Insurance premiums multiplied. All while stocks and housing hit new peaks. And if you look back to the 1970s, monetary accommodation triggered mostly retail price inflation, while stocks languished for a decade in real terms. So the big question now is: what kind of inflation are we going to get this time? That’s what we explore in today’s podcast. We make a strong case that the Fed’s capitulation, rate cuts, and monetary expansion will continue—and we examine whether that wi...

Few people understand how the Federal Reserve actually works— and frankly, I’m not sure the President or Treasury Secretary are among them. That’s not an insult, just based on what they say. Let me explain. Most people think the Fed sets “the interest rate” for everything—mortgages, car loans, 10-year yields. But that’s not how it works. The Fed only sets a very narrow rate—the overnight lending rate between banks. Everything else, from your mortgage to the government’s long-term borrowing costs, is determined by the bond market. And as America’s debt spirals past $37 trillion, the bond market—not the Fed—is in control. This misunderstanding matters. Because when Treasury Secretary Bessent says he’s going to “get rates down,” what he really means is printing money. That’s the only lever left: the Federal Reserve creates money electronically and uses it to buy government bonds. The consequence of that is inflation: more money in the system means higher prices. Sometimes it shows up in financial assets—stocks, bonds, real estate—can also surge to record highs as a result of inflation. Other times inflation hits the grocery store, your utility bill, or your insurance premiums. Lately, it’s been both. Inflation is everywhere. But this administration is also openly floating the idea of a sovereign wealth fund—borrowing billions (or trillions) and putting that money directly into the stock market. Intel. Nvidia. Strategic stakes in American companies. It’s not socialism, and it’s not free markets. It’s something in between: a blending of state and corporate power. Call it National Capitalism. If that sounds far-fetched, remember—they’re already talking about taking a stake in Intel. Why would they stop there? This administration is full of people whose entire background is borrowing massive sums of money at low interest, pouring it into enormous projects, and pocketing the spread. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what they know. That’s what they do. Trump is a very successful real estate developer who has personally borrowed billions of dollars throughout his career. So of course when they look at the economy, their instinct is to repeat the same playbook on a national scale—borrow cheap, buy big, and hope the gap between cost and return pays for everything. But when the government itself becomes one of the biggest stock buyers, what happens to markets? They explode higher. And you’re going to want to own assets when that happens. This is the subject of today’s podcast. We dive into: Why the Fed’s “rate cuts” don’t control the 10-year or 30-year Treasury yields—and why the bond market is now in charge. How the U.S. is spending $1.2 trillion a year just on interest payments, and why refinancing old debt at today’s higher rates keeps driving costs up. The Fed’s true method of lowering rates: creating new money, buying bonds, and fueling asset bubbles—at the cost of more inflation. The absurdity of how the US banking system works. How every time the Fed “prints money” to bail out a crisis—9/11, 2008, the pandemic—it ends up inflating specific bubbles: housing, stocks, crypto, collectibles, and now consumer prices across the board. And we wrap up with a quick look at Total Access—our highest level membership built around forging lasting relationships with other members in extraordinary settings. It combines world-class networking and internationalization strategies with unforgettable, once-in-a-lifetime travel experiences. Right now, Total Access membership is open for a limited time. You can learn more here. And you can listen to the full podcast here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g22tNN5YNo The podcast transcript is available here.

I was still just a kid as the US headed into the 1992 US Presidential election, but I remember the excitement around my home town as Ross Perot entered the race as an independent candidate. Perot was from Dallas, where I grew up. And he was one of the first tech billionaires, long before the dot-com boom. Like Elon today, Perot knew that America was heading down a dangerous fiscal path. At the time, the US government was spending about 28% of its annual tax revenue just to pay interest on the national debt. It wasn't because the debt was so vast. Actually back then it was just a fraction of today's debt. The real problem was that sky-high interest rates from the 1980s (15%+) had pushed the government's borrowing costs and annual interest bill to the moon. So Ross Perot decided to run for President under a promise to fix the deficit. Few people understood anything about the deficit back then. So Perot used his vast fortune to buy TV time where he would explain the problem in hour-long presentations. I remember  learning things from him that I'd never even heard about before-- Treasury markets, bond yields, government accounting, mandatory spending, and more. Perot single-handedly dragged America's deficit issue to the front page and started a national conversation; so even though Bill Clinton ultimately won the election, Perot succeeded in making deficit reduction a top priority. It was interesting times politically. Clinton was rocked by scandals, impeached, and deeply hated by the other party... quite similar to the situation today. They didn't have social media back then, but 'talk radio' pundits raged 24/7 with the same ferocity of today's Twitter mob. Yet even with such conflict and division, Congress and the White House managed to work it out. And over the next decade, interest costs fell from 28% of tax revenue down to 18%. And by the end of the 1990s the government was posting strong budget surpluses. How did they do it? It wasn't rocket science or black magic. They simply took a common sense approach to spending-- they held spending increases to minimal levels, all while tax revenue soared thanks to a tech-fueled economic bonanza. Over the ten-year period between 1991 and 2000, government expenditures only rose by 35%. Adjusted for inflation that's just 5.5% over the entire decade. Meanwhile tax revenue nearly doubled over the same period. Poof. Problem solved. And America stormed into the 21st century with a record budget surplus, and its interest costs and national debt under control. Could this happen today? Maybe. There are a lot of similarities. The US government currently pays roughly 22% of tax revenue just to cover the annual interest bill on the national debt, and this amount is growing rapidly. Not to mention, interest costs plus mandatory entitlements (like Social Security and Medicare) already consume 100% of tax revenue. If they don't solve this problem, America is going to be looking at a major fiscal crisis in the coming years. Unfortunately few people in power seem to be taking this seriously. The White House is far more focused on tariffs and trade rather than the obvious problem-- excessive spending. And when it comes to deficit reduction, their approach is to seize control of the Fed to push through interest rate cuts. Congress, meanwhile, seems completely oblivious to the problem. One of my major concerns is that American voters tend to oscillate from one side to another. So if the guys in power now don't solve this problem now, voters could swing hard to the Left in 2028, quite possibly to a card-carrying socialist. There are certainly a lot of socialists emerging in American politics. And they all see deficits as a "revenue problem" and believe that higher taxes will fix every challenge. Well, we did the math in today's podcast: "taxing the rich" won't make a dent in the deficit problem. Neither will wealth taxes,

To the surprise of absolutely no one today, the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee chose to do nothing at the close of its two-day meeting. The White House is furious about the decision; the President believes that the Fed should be slashing rates, and that the current “high” rate of interest is costing the US government hundreds of billions of dollars each year in excess interest. (I put “high” in quotes because interest rates are still well below historic averages...) Now, I am no fan of the Fed. Quite the opposite— the organization is a total failure. Just consider that section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act (passed in 1913) states that the Fed is supposed to maintain a stable currency. Yet the US dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power under the Fed’s stewardship over the past 112 years. Personally I think it’s difficult to find another organization that has been so terrible at its core mission for so long. Yet even with that scathing criticism in mind, it’s still not the Fed’s job to bail out the US government’s finances. If Congress and the White House want to pay a lower interest rate on the national debt, then they can make the hard decisions to cut spending, balance the budget, and attract foreign investment by acting like responsible adults. Unfortunately none of that seems to be in the cards. So instead there seems to be a clear plan being hatched: Project “Hijack the Fed”. Let’s start from the basics: In order to fund its roughly $2 trillion annual budget deficit, the US government has to sell debt (bonds) to investors to plug its funding gap. And this responsibility falls to the Treasury Department. Ordinarily, Treasury would sell a mix of US government bonds, ranging from ultra-short-term 28-day T-bills, to very long-term 30-year bonds. Lately, however, the Treasury Department has been focused on selling mostly short-term bonds... simply because those rates are lower. The yield on a 12-month T-bill, for example, is just 3.86%, whereas the yield on 10-year Treasury is almost 5%, so it’s a difference of roughly 1%. In some ways it’s sensible to take the lower rate. But it’s a risky strategy. If interest rates suddenly rise, then the US government could wind up paying even MORE interest in the next few years, just to save 1% today. So clearly the Treasury Department must have some confidence that rates won’t be going higher... and will probably be headed lower. Last month Secretary Bessent even said this out loud: “What I’m going to do is, I’m going to go very short-term. . . Wait until this guy [Fed Chairman Jerome Powell] gets out, get the rates way down, and then go long-term.” In other words, he’s going to keep selling the lower-interest short-term debt. Then, once Jerome Powell’s term as Fed Chairman ends next year, the Treasury Secretary thinks that HE will be able to “get the rates way down”, at which point he’ll start selling long-term debt to lock in lower rates. This is a stunning admission that the Treasury Secretary (and by extension the White House) think that they will be able to steer interest rates much lower through their new Fed pick next year. Coincidentally, Treasury Secretary Bessent also happens to be on Donald Trump’s shortlist to be the next Fed Chairman. So let’s skip over the obvious legal and reputational issues involved in such a move. The bigger problem is that there’s only one way for the Fed— even if Secretary Bessent becomes Chairman— to “get the rates way down”... and that is by expanding the money supply, i.e. what we often refer to as printing money. And just as we saw during the pandemic when the Fed printed $5 trillion, large-scale money printing can easily lead to some nasty inflation. Why it matters: We’ve been talking about the next inflation cycle for a while, explaining why 2033 is the key date to keep in mind; this is when Social Security’s major trust fund will run out of money,

The US owes a LOT less money to China today than it did a few years ago. As recently as three years ago, for example, China held $1.3 trillion worth of US government bonds. Today they’re down to around $750 billion. In other words, China’s government has decided to cut back on its US dollar Treasury holdings by more than 40% over the past three years. And at first, that might sound like a good thing— HOORAY! More independence from foreign creditors! America is better off without that Chinese money! Right? But in reality this is a huge problem. Because it’s not just China. Going back to the years before Covid, roughly a third of US debt was owned by foreigner governments and foreign central banks. But then federal debt skyrocketed during the pandemic, and US government credibility plummeted. Even the government’s credit rating has been slashed. As a result, foreigners across the board began stepping back from Treasury securities. Today foreign ownership of US debt is less than 25%, and falling. This is a significant drop in just a few years. Why it matters: The US Treasury relies heavily on foreign capital to fund the federal government’s gargantuan (~$2 trillion) deficits. So if foreigners’ appetite to buy US government debt is waning— at a time when federal deficits are exploding higher— where will the Treasury Department come up with the money? There are essentially two answers. Either (1) the Federal Reserve will “print” the money, or (2) domestic investors within the US economy will buy government bonds and fund the deficit. But both of those options come at a significant cost. Consequences of the Fed funding US government deficits: In order for the Federal Reserve to buy US government bonds (and essentially fund the government’s annual budget deficit), the Fed must first expand the money supply. We often refer to this as “printing money” even though it all happens electronically. The Fed calls it “quantitative easing”, or QE, but it’s all the same thing. The consequence of QE is inflation. Serious, serious inflation. Think about it— during the pandemic, the Fed’s QE created roughly $5 trillion in new money... resulting in 9% inflation. Creating enough money to fund federal budget deficits over the next decade could result in the Fed having to print $15+ trillion. So most likely that’s going to be a LOT of inflation. Consequences of the US economy funding government deficits: American investors, i.e. banks, funds, corporate treasury departments, etc. could also buy more US government bonds in order to offset waning foreign demand. But this capital comes at a big opportunity cost Any private capital that goes in to the Treasury market means less money available to buy stocks, fund venture capital, or finance real estate mortgages The net result is lower stock prices, higher mortgage rates, and slower innovation.   Why China is first to ditch US government bonds: After sanctions on Russia, which included freezing their Treasury holdings, other countries got spooked — especially China. China probably fears becoming the next target of US financial weaponization. This may also be an indication that they will eventually invade Taiwan So China is hedging: they’re selling their US government bonds and buying literal metric tons of physical gold— driving gold prices to record highs. The bottom line: The shrinking foreign appetite for US debt is a glaring red flag. It signals waning confidence in US fiscal credibility and could lead to a capital squeeze at home — or nasty inflation spiral if the Fed fills the gap. Many Americans might cheer the idea of being less reliant on Chinese or other foreign money. But in reality, foreign investment in government debt is the closest thing to a ‘free lunch’ in economics. It means that foreigners are financing federal deficits, meaning less inflation at home,

Bitcoin today is trading at around $120,000. If you’re willing to pay double the price, i.e. $240,000, please contact me immediately. I’ll happily sell you some of mine. Why would anyone do that? I don’t know. But that’s exactly what investors are doing when they buy shares in “Strategy,” formerly known as MicroStrategy. The company currently holds about 580,000 Bitcoin, worth roughly $69 billion. But the market values the company at more than $124 billion. In other words, investors are paying nearly double just for the privilege of owning Bitcoin through a corporate intermediary. Crazy, right? Yet Strategy’s Executive Chairman and co-founder Michael Saylor has managed to convince legions of investors to do just that— pay 2x the Bitcoin price. He does so by presenting a bunch of made-up metrics to investors— terms like “Bitcoin Yield”, “Bitcoin Multiple”, “BTC $ Income”, and my personal favorite, “Bitcoin Torque”. One of Saylor’s most clever ideas was to borrow money from investors to buy Bitcoin; the company issued billions of dollars of corporate bonds (which are supposed to be a ‘safe’ and stable asset), then used all the money to buy Bitcoin— an extremely volatile risk asset. And this is why I think Michael Saylor should be the next Treasury Secretary— or at least be tapped to save Social Security. I’m only half joking. Because Saylor’s idea to borrow money to buy Bitcoin might be one of the only ways to save Social Security without a serious tax hike or other financial pain. Let me explain— The Social Security system was built on a simple formula: workers and businesses pay taxes into the system, and those taxes fund the retirement checks to beneficiaries. For decades, Social Security ran a surplus—more payroll tax revenue coming in than benefits going out. And that surplus was parked in a giant trust fund. Unfortunately, though, Social Security’s trust fund was only allowed to invest in one thing: US government bonds. The result? Pitiful returns averaging a measly 2%. Now Social Security is running a deficit— the monthly benefits are exceeding payroll tax revenue. So the program’s administrators make up the difference by dipping into the trust fund. The Social Security Administration officially estimates the fund will be fully depleted by 2033. And when that day comes, benefits will be automatically slashed by about 25%. Cutting Social Security benefits would be political suicide. So the most likely solution is a major increase to the payroll tax. But there may be another way. What if the government were to borrow a bunch of money to start a Sovereign Wealth Fund... And that fund could invest in a diversified, real-world portfolio run by America’s many talented investment managers. Real estate. Commodities. Equities. Precious metals. Crypto. The kinds of assets that can actually grow. This is exactly what Michael Saylor did. He borrowed heavily from the bond market to buy risk assets. Maybe the US government should do the same. If the fund could manage, say, 9% annual returns over the past few decades— they could easily pay 6% to bond holders and pocket the extra 3%. Mathematically it works— such a return would reverse Social Security’s looming insolvency if the fund were of sufficient size. There’s obviously risk in the plan, which is why I’m half-joking. But Social Security is in dire enough shape that all options ought to be considered. Coincidentally, Congress is discussing setting up a Sovereign Wealth Fund this week... Though I’m not holding my breath on this, let alone any meaningful reform on Social Security. Peter and I both believe that the inevitable outcome here is that the Federal Reserve will step in to print money and bail out both Social Security AND the Treasury Department. In fact the White House is already identifying potential candidates to replace Fed chairman Jerome Powell when his term expires next year,

It’s “Crypto Week” on Capitol Hill with all sorts of crypto legislation on the docket— including the so-called GENIUS Act that aims to regulate stablecoins. I’m not sure the GENIUS Act is in fact genius, but it might be a pretty clever given its potential benefit to the Treasury Department and government bond market. On its surface, the bill aims to provide a formal regulatory framework for anyone who wants to issue stablecoins, i.e. digital assets that are typically pegged to the US dollar to maintain a “stable” value. But beneath the surface, the GENIUS Act is a way to funnel more money into US government bonds. I’ve written about this many times before: the US government is hopelessly addicted to irresponsible spending. Multi-trillion-dollar deficits are no longer the exception—they’re the baseline. And these massive deficits require the Treasury Department to borrow more money from the bond market. Problem is that some of the biggest buyers of US government debt securities— specifically foreign governments and central banks— are starting to lose their appetite to invest more money in Treasury bonds. So Uncle Sam is feverishly trying to drum up more lenders. Enter the GENIUS Act— which requires stablecoins to be backed by “safe” assets, like... US government bonds! The Treasury Department is probably hoping that some of the crypto wealth tied up in Bitcoin’s latest all time highs will flow into stablecoins... and thus into the US Treasurys backing them. But if they think this is the silver bullet to fix America’s fiscal mess, they should think again. Unlike traditional long-term bond buyers who help lock in funding for decades, stablecoin issuers (according to the GENIUS Act) will only be able to buy the shortest term US government debt, like 90-day T-bills. This means that the Treasury Department will face constant pressure to refinance a major chunk of its debt every few months. We discuss this in today’s podcast— where we also answered some reader questions about stablecoins. One reader, for example, asked if stablecoins are a good way to diversify out of the US financial system. My answer? Not really. Once the GENIUS Act passes, most of these stablecoins will be issued by US-based companies and regulated by US government agencies. And over time, more and more agencies will likely encroach into the stablecoin industry— the SEC, IRS, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, etc. That means if the government wants to restrict, freeze, or confiscate your digital dollars, they won’t even need to break a sweat. It just takes a phone call and a compliance letter. More importantly, even if the coin maintains its 1:1 dollar peg, it’s still tied to the dollar. And if the dollar loses value due to inflation—which it is and will almost certainly continue to do—then your stablecoin will depreciate right alongside it. Bottom line— holding a stablecoin doesn’t matter if the underlying currency is unstable. You’re not really diversifying any sovereign or currency risk. If you're looking for real diversification—something that actually hedges against the US dollar and protects your purchasing power—stablecoins aren't the answer. Gold, productive assets, other crypto, foreign stocks and financial accounts… those are the tools for genuine financial diversification. If you want to hear my full thoughts on the GENIUS Act, stablecoins, and the implications to the US Treasury market, listen to this short podcast here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isApDBrYwp4 You can access the podcast transcript here.

Many of our readers know that I was an Army intelligence officer, and so I want to start by clearing up some basic terminology. When people talk about intelligence work, they often confuse terms like asset, agent, and operative. An asset is someone who provides intelligence—intentionally or not—to an agency. Even a guy who’s bragging in bed to some woman he doesn’t realize is part of a honeypot intelligence operation. He’s spilling secrets and doesn’t even know it. That’s an asset. An agent, by contrast, knows what they’re doing. They’re actively, willingly working with an intelligence agency. They’re recruited, trained, and they know who they’re talking to. And an operative is someone actually doing the work—on the ground, collecting the data, running the missions. When people say “CIA agent,” thinking of a James Bond style spy, what they probably mean is an “operative.” Which brings us to Jeffrey Epstein. Is it plausible that Epstein was in the intelligence business, either as an agent or even an operative? Of course. It is extremely likely. This was a guy with deep access to powerful people in politics, finance, science, and media. He was inside every major institution and had personal relationships with celebrities, billionaires, royalty, and heads of state. Clearly the intelligence community would take an interest in someone like that. Epstein had access, influence, dirt, connections—and he knew how to use them. Combine that with his ability to blackmail people who committed the most vile crimes imaginable and you’ve got leverage more powerful than aircraft carriers and nuclear warheads. And that may be why no real information has been released. If Epstein was working with US intelligence, the implications are beyond horrifying. We're talking about the federal government—funded by your tax dollars—knowingly enabling a long-term blackmail operation built on the exploitation of children. If they admit Epstein was one of theirs, they'd be admitting that senior officials knew what he was doing, who he was abusing. They let it happen, and they used it as a tool of statecraft. That kind of admission would light a match to the powder keg that is American distrust in government. And they know it. There’s also the possibility, that Epstein worked for a foreign intelligence service— and the US intelligence and law enforcement establishment didn’t even realize it. Which would mean the entire US intelligence community—the CIA, FBI, DOJ, NSA—missed the fact that a foreign service was running a massive blackmail operation on US soil, targeting US officials, abusing children... and they did nothing about it. That's not just a failure. That’s catastrophic incompetence. And their motivation to cover that up would be similar to the UK “Grooming Gangs” cover-up that I recently wrote about. In the UK, grooming gangs operated for years while the government and media looked the other way. Why? Because investigating them might have been politically incorrect. It might’ve been an admission that mass migration and multicultural policies went horribly wrong. So instead, they gaslit the public, censored speech, and criminalized dissent. The same pattern is happening here. A massive scandal implicating the highest levels of government, media, academia, celebrity, and global finance is being buried—because admitting the truth would mean admitting failure on a colossal, nation-destroying scale. I ask a couple other questions in today’s brief podcast, such as: Where are the investigative journalists? Do you remember the clowns at ProPublica who got their hands on Warren Buffett’s tax returns and paraded them like it was the scoop of the century? Why haven’t they gone after Epstein’s hedge fund, his financials, his filings? Where’s the Pulitzer Prize-winning exposé? Same with The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the self-righteous media establishment.

In today’s podcast, we take on a provocative question from a reader: What is the single root cause behind America’s decline? You might think it's overspending, or the Federal Reserve, or career politicians. But what if it’s something even more fundamental… like letting just anyone vote? Should someone be allowed to vote if they don’t understand basic concepts like what a deficit is, or how the government even works? This episode digs deep into the consequences of letting uninformed masses steer the ship of state — and why it leads, predictably, to disaster. We also address: Term limits — and why replacing career politicians might not matter if voters keep electing clowns. Why 2033 is the year to watch — and what happens when Social Security goes bust. How the “One Big Beautiful Bill” may have accelerated that to ‘Crisis 2032’. How foreign central banks are quietly ditching US Treasuries and buying gold — and what that means for the dollar. Eisenhower’s lost wisdom — how a general who faced down Hitler and the Soviets feared inflation more than war. Click here to listen to the full episode. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-pON0_L0Yc You can access the podcast transcript here.

In our latest podcast, we dissect one of the most toxic patterns in American governance: total abandonment of principle the moment it’s politically inconvenient. In 2022, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan criticized the idea that a single lower court judge could block an entire federal policy from taking effect across the whole country—saying it “wasn’t right.” But last week, she voted to preserve them… because they could be used to block Trump. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans—once furious over Pelosi’s “zero-cost” fantasy math—are now pushing their own trillion-dollar bill using the same fake arithmetic. Lindsey Graham, as Senate Budget Committee chairman, even called himself Zeus, the “King of the Numbers.” When no one on either side sticks to principles, the result is: $61 trillion in debt by 2035 at the current rate. A growing revolt from foreign bond buyers. A nation inching toward ‘Crisis 2033’—the year Social Security goes broke and debt interest consumes about half of all tax revenue. In this episode, we also cover: Why blind optimism and aggressive ignorance are America’s real enemies. How NYC’s hard-left turn reveals stunning voter ignorance. The Corporate Transparency Act: a case study in bureaucratic insanity. The link between gold prices, central bank behavior, and debt markets. Why our undervalued gold picks are exploding while Treasury buyers flee. (Click here to learn more about The 4th Pillar investment research— currently 40% off). Click here to listen now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DcYri_yx14 The podcast transcript is available to you here.

I can understand why so many people are worried about World War 3 breaking out. It’s a completely rational concern. I just don’t happen to share it. Why? Because regardless of the debate over whether the US strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities were a good idea, or a reckless risk of another expensive foreign entanglement, one thing is indisputable: America reminded the world of its immense military capabilities. There’s not a single adversary nation that wants to risk armed conflict with the US after watching those stealth bombers obliterate their targets. And the proof is already here: Iran’s foreign minister flew to Moscow seeking military support from Russia... and Putin offered absolutely nothing except for strong words. This is why I’m more convinced than ever that World War 3 is NOT going to break out over this conflict: no other country wants F-35s or B-2 stealth bombers in their airspace, let alone the 75th Ranger Regiment and ‘Delta Force’ special operators. There’s now a great deal of debate over the wisdom of the air strikes, including within the President’s own party. I’m extremely sympathetic to the view that America cannot afford yet another foreign occupation brought on by regime change in the Middle East; it should hardly be controversial to say that a country should avoid pointless and unwinnable conflicts. At the same time, it should also be uncontroversial to see obvious benefit in ensuring that your sworn enemy does not have nuclear bombs. As I wrote yesterday, a fairly conservative cost estimate of the air strikes, naval deployment, and assistance to Israeli air defense is around $1 billion. That’s not nothing. But it’s also clear that the government spends a lot more than that on completely idiotic and pointless programs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics spends more than $1 billion each year just to publish dubious economic reports that private companies (like ADP) already produce for free... and with greater accuracy. Would anyone rationally argue that the Bureau’s reports are more important than neutralizing a nuclear threat? Unfortunately I’m not sure anyone in Washington is engaging in this kind of rational cost/benefit analysis... which is why the US has a $36 trillion national debt. Private businesses and individuals have to make these rational decisions every day about how to allocate scarce resources— primarily time, money, and energy. The government, on the other hand, pretends that it has unlimited, infinite resources. And this ‘unlimited resource’ mentality is FAR more concerning to me than the prospect of World War 3. Without a change, the US could easily find itself in an existential financial crisis within the next eight years. I’m not being dramatic. And in today’s podcast, we explain why and how that’s likely; we discuss: Why the Social Security cliff is coming faster than expected—and how even its predicted 2033 insolvency is optimistic. How this problem—and America’s debt addiction— could be solved, if any politician were willing to even address it. How the US missed a golden opportunity to refinance its debts at much lower interest rates just four years ago. How the US used to be capable of making wise investments— like the Louisiana Purchase or buying Alaska. What the looming fiscal crisis means in practical terms for Americans (Spoiler: inflation). Why foreign governments and central banks are shifting their reserves away from US dollars and towards strategic assets— not just gold, but platinum, industrial metals and even uranium. And why the companies that produce these real assets are remarkably cheap. CLICK HERE to listen to the podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7iJIOJkPeo The podcast transcript is available to you here. P.S. The clock is ticking—America likely has eight years at most before a financial crisis unleashes runaway inflation. Foreign central banks know it.