HOW TO INVEST with the Feds Balance Sheets Exploding | with George Gammon

you George, thanks for joining. Hey, thanks for having me. I'm I'm excited to have a chat and a lot to talk about that for sure, so much to talk about. And you know, I've been I've been doing that analysis and commentary for quite a long time and sometimes you get these like boring patches, but not right now, there's more than enough to go around. UM. I've been watching your video those and the last several videos you've done.

They're all, you know, talking about the topic of the moment, which is the bailouts, the stimulus, the unlimited you know, quantitative easy and etcetera. And uh, you've really been breaking down like all these like acronyms that the FED keeps coming up with. Alright, maybe tell us about some of these acronyms and kind of what that means. Ah jeez. Well, the bottom line is they're just trying to buy everything

in sight. So I think if you start from there, it's much easier to understand any of the I call them four letters solutions, but that you know, the news changes so quickly. First it was all the four letter quote unquote solutions that they had back in two thousand and eight, but now they've added more and they're now coming up with these five letter solutions that even the

letters are expanding, just like their balance sheet. So but really what each program, let's call it, is all about is just giving the FED an excuse to either lend money directly to corporations or to buy their equity or buy their existing debt. It's really what it's all about. So the the endgame, I think is the FED is going to have stocks, bonds that they're going to own a lot of the equity and debt of the S

and P five hundred. So it's all going from the private sector onto their balance sheet, if you think about it from their standpoint, makes sense because our economy is really all about asset bubbles, debt, and confidence that's what our economy is built on. And the FED I think knows that, and they won't admit it, but I think they understand it well. So they understand they have to

keep those asset bubbles inflated at all costs. So if you're just thinking this through, like what would I do, Well, I want to take all of the assets that can get a haircut, and I want to put them on my balance sheet because I never have to sell. Yeah, the FET doesn't have a profit and loss, so if they get let's let's not give away the punch line before we build it up a little bit here. Well, I could go on for hours about that. But as far as the specific programs that achieve this objective, you

want me to touch on that, No, we don't. I mean, we don't need to dig into each one. But it's interesting because you're kind of showing how they've been adding more and more and more. As you said, they're actually getting the acronyms are getting longer. Yeah, it seems like basically each one gives them more power, more leeway. Correct, At first, they were um allowing the primary dealers to

buy assets and they were kind of loaning them. Now they're like, shoot, why go through them, Let's just buy it ourselves. Exactly. That's a great point. That's a great point. That's the biggest difference from what I've seen between what they first came out with and what they've come out with more recently. The first thing was just the primary dealer credit facility, and that's just saying, okay, primary dealer, whatever is on your balance sheet, will take it from

you and we'll give you a quote unquote loan. But if you look at the the fine print, it's yeah, it's alone, but it's at zero percent interest and most likely they can roll it over indefinitely. So is that really alone? And then excuse me, so they say that's to support the primary dealers, but why couldn't the primary dealers?

Was one point five trillion and access reserves actually be proactive and go into the market by the stocks for the Federal reserve, and then the Fed gives them this loan at zero percent interests that they can roll over, uh, indefinitely. So that kind of gets them around the laws that were set up. But to your point, the new abbreviations or acronyms they've come up with, these five letter duties.

They just allow the FED to go straight into the market and give credit, extend credit to a lot of entities, not just corporations. But it gives them, uh like they just call them investors, and I don't know who these people are, but it gives financing to investors. And keep in mind, this is a nonrecourse loan. So again, is this really alone here, So they're giving this financing to

investors for them to continue to buy asset and securities. Well, these asset back securities have student loan debt, credit card debt, they have subprime auto loans, they have SBA loans. So in essence, although that's not technically going onto the FED balance sheet, it's going onto a balance sheet of an entity that really doesn't have to sell and prior and

things change so quickly. If you would have said last week the FED would go directly and buy the corporate bond market or something like that, people would have said, no, no, no, they can't do that because of this stipulation or this law or this regulation and have to be an act of Congress or the government would have to change something. Well, they pretty much just ignored that and said, yeah, it's

it's the law, but whatever, we don't care. And then just no one calls him out on it because the talking heads at CNBC or the quote unquote market, they want the FED to come in and prop things up because they're taking a fifty haircut in their portfolio in the last thirty days. And you got Acmin coming out on CNBC and basically crying, trying to beg people to buy stocks. And I have nothing against him. I think he's a brilliant guy and I'd love to interview him.

But well, I'll just say that he is emotional and really pleading with people to get out there and not only stay home, but also to kind of buy stocks, Like Okay, well, why why is he doing this? He's got to be talking his book. And I'd be pretty emotional too if I ran ten billion dollars and I just lost five billion of it in the last thirty days.

But anyway, the bottom line is every week, every day that we move forward into this crisis, we're seeing the FED take end the government for that matter, taking more and more measures that really just ignore the law, and the bottom lines, are just gonna do whatever they think they need to do in order to keep the bubbles inflated. Now, Um, we kind of jumped right into thick of it because that's kind of where we are. Um. But if we want to just rewind the clock a little bit, this

is not new. This is not because of the virus. This is been going on for a long period of time. I mean, you've been talking about this well before. So this is um, this isn't something like, oh, we have this crisis, let's do this. They've been doing this right that this is only accelerating it or is this completely new. Well, there's a couple of programs that are completely new, but it's still the same. It's a continuation, right, it's in

the continuation and acceleration. Uh yeah, with it, with this with some of them. Right, with some of these programs, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that they are new and they are to get around having to go through the primary dealers, and the primary dealers make decisions or take action in order for those reserves that the FED has to get out into the system. But as far as UM, the majority of the acronyms, they used them

in two thousand and eight. But you know, to be clear, quantitative easing started off in the end of two thousand eight and was supposed to be a quote unquote temporary measure. Remember Ben Bernanke came out promised everyone that wasn't monetizing the debt, because the definition of monetizing the debt would be if they kept it on the Fed's balance sheet. No, no, no, just bringing these treasuries onto the balance sheet temporarily. We're gonna unwind as soon as we're out of the crisis.

And who yelling said it's just gonna be just like uh, watching paint dry. Yeah, I think we're her words or someone. And so we found that it's not going to be like watching paint dry because they try to unwind the balance sheet. And by the way, after q E one, now I have q E two, have q E three,

we try to unwind. That doesn't work. We have the not que, which was them bailing out the repo market back in September sevent And so my point is we've had this quote unquote temporary stimulus from QE that's now not only permanent but growing exponentially. And then you combine that everything that they do has the same type of effect. Why because it goes back to what I was saying earlier, with the entire economy being built on asset bubbles, you

continually have to more and more and more money. You have to be more interventionist to make sure that those bubbles aren't collapsing. So let's look at the stimulus. They just came out with two trillion dollars. Okay, but we had a stimulus package back into nine but that was only roughly eight billion. So you see the amount of queue that they're having to do, the amount of stimulus, the amount of the deficits that the government has to run in order to profit these bubbles just gets more, more,

more and more. So the point is any temporary program they come up with, whether it's in RIPO, whether it's in I think now with these four letter acronyms, I don't think these are gonna go away anytime soon. I think they'll be more permanent. And it just gets to a point where you're almost like Japan, where the Fed owns the bond market and they own whatever E T s. If it gets bad enough off, I think they just

ignore that and buy stocks directly or bonds directly. But it's it's not temporary, it just it keeps growing and growing and growing. And right now, let's remember too, the FED did this originally to give confidence to the market, so they had kind of this Fed put and so that means the Fed is kind of back stopping the market. What we know right now that's gone, that's expired, because every time the Fed came out with a bigger bazuka over the last couple of weeks, the markets just shaking

it off. It goes up for the next hour and then just tanks. The only thing that's um kind of propelled this market higher is this stimulus package that the government has come out with. But what happens when the sugar high from the stimulut from the stimulus package wears off and all of a sudden people go back to reality and say, oh wait, the job report or the

unemployment numbers went up by three point three million. Right then what happens next week when the there's another three million jobs that are lost And and generally, if you look through history, you'll find that the tipping point for the United States going into a recession is always about the unemployment rate. Right, so when the unemployment rate starts to spike, that's when things get bad. And not only

are we spiking now from an all time low. But we're just I mean, it's a it's a a parabolic move when you look at a chart. And I'd also like to remind people that are comparing this to two thousand, eight thousand nine that back then the jobless claims the number we receive today at its height was maybe six hundred thousand, SI, there you go, and then today it's

it's three point two or three point three millions. So the previous high was I think and it was seven hundred and two thousand, six and fifty thousand, and now now millions. Yeah, So this this seems like um to me. You know, if we trace this back to the break from the gold standard, if that's nine, nine seventy one, wherever number you want to start looking at. We've started building up the debt and it seems like two eight seven, two thousand, two thousand and eight, two thousand and eleven.

It keeps trying to de leverage that debt, right, and the Fed just keeps, no, don't, let's just pump more debt in. But there's so much bad debt out there, as you say, all this junk that's out there, and it's just it just it just goes away in the blink of an eye. And and and that's what they're doing. They just keep trying to like reinflate it with more debt and then each time it just takes more and

more and more. Yeah, that's exactly what happens. And it's just like taking a drug or uh, you know, drinking or anything that the more of the drug that you take, the more you need to get high, the lot of diminishing returns. Yeah, exactly. So I think that's what's going on right now. We know that the FED is now pushing on a string, and at what point do we get where the government stimulus package has the same type

of effect. And that's when you've really got problems because if you can't inflate a bubble through monetary policy, and if you can't do it through fiscal policy, then what's left other than the FED doing what I think they've set themselves up to do now, and that's just to buy and take the private sector balance sheet onto the balance sheet of the Fed. You know, it's a it's a scary thought thinking about that. And before we dive

into that, I'm just curious. You know, we talked about the law of diminishing returns, and so we can see that, right, it was fifteen trillion, thirty trillion, I mean, what's it going to be this time? Right? Each time it gets more and more, and it almost seems like more money is being put out than the economic growth that we're getting back in return. Or we're almost at that point? Is that so like we're spending more than we're getting

are we? I mean there yet? Yeah, There's been several studies done that show once the debt to GDP gets up to a certain level in a country, that every single dollar or every single um uh yeah, I guess every dollar or the government spends, they get back less in return. So there's an opposite money multiplier in fact, and I think we're there. I think the number that they came out with, I wish I could remember the

specific study. It's very famous, but they said about a hundred to a hundred and ten percent of g d P. And I want to make sure that people are are clear that because a lot of people in the market or on Twitter, they say, well, yeah, we could be like Japan where they're buying all of these e t f s and the bonds, like we talked about earlier, and they're printing all of this money and it really

hasn't created inflation. It's more created kind of a zombie economy where they just have very low deflation for for decades on end. And although that is a possibility, I think in the United States, it's not a probability. The probability is very low that we see that because of the dynamics with the reserve currency, the dollar, and how much the FED will have to print, and the fact that we're that we're seeing the supply chains being disrupted

within the United States. And I think with what's going on with the the the illness will call it. I don't know if you're gonna put this on YouTube, but we'll say will say the illness. Everyone knows what I'm talking about. There you go, There you go. I think you could see a situation where there's a lot less goods and services that are imported, and if there are fewer goods and services being imported, there's more dollars or there's fewer dollars being exported, so more dollars are staying

within the demand stick economy. And if you combine that with mm T, which is a part of the stimulus package, and you combine that with the FED creating all of these additional deposits, because as I'm sure you know, what, what most people don't understand is when the FED creates money and they just we call it print money, they're they're not really printing the money that you that most people think of. It's it's not it is kind of dollars,

but it's more it's it's it's bank money. It's just reserves for the for the banks and the primary dealers that are under the Fed's umbrella. So in order for the money that the FED prints to get out into the real economy, well before it took uh an action of the primary deal they would have to do something. They'd have to buy a financial asset, or they would have to create a loan, and that creates an additional deposit,

which makes the money supply grow. So if you have the FED now going directly to the real economy to create deposits, the government is doing it as well with

MMT and all these other programs. And you have the fact that there's fewer dollars escaping the United States, then you have just simple more dollars chasing the same amount of goods or services, or I would argue actually fewer goods and services because if we start not only the supply chains being broken down right now because of this illness, but also in the future, if you have Trump or Biden or whomever come out and say, listen, we need to stop producing face masks in China. We can't be

reliant on uh India for our pharmaceuticals. We can't be reliant on Taiwan for our ventilators. So we've got to do all these things in the United States. Well, that takes time first and all. You can't just wave a magic wand and have all these supply chains appear. So in the interim you have a reduced amount of supply, and even when that supply comes online, it's at a much much higher ice because you're producing that in a developed economy as opposed to a Vietnam something like that.

So the bottom line is you have less goods and services, you have more dollars chasing them and fewer dollars escaping. So if you have fewer dollars escaping, you can have a quote unquote strong dollar. And I talked about this in a video this morning, but you can have a strong dollar. So every single time the average Joe turns on CNBC, it's the dollars strong, Holy cow, the dollars strong. The d X y is at one ten, it's at one dollars, uh, you know, crushing the euro, it's crushing

the Aussie dollar or the yen, anything like this. While at the same time, the average Joe is going down to whole Foods and the price of his apples are going from a dollar to two dollars, to three dollars, to four dollars to five dollars. And so there's this disconnect I think with people, and that's something that I'm trying to preach as much as I can that hey, let's not let's understand that you have to compartmentalize your personal cp I with the strength or weakness of the

dollar that you hear on TV. And and this is why. It's because of what's going on with the FED, the government and the the illness. And but I also I want to be clear too that the economy was extremely, extremely weak, and it was built on a house of cards.

This at some point in time, we would have had this happen, whether it was with this illness or something else, and a lot of people say, oh, we can have this v shape recovery, which we might have due to liquidity, but we won't have due to fundamentals, because they say, well, the unemployment rate was low, we had such a great economy prior to this. My rebuttal to that is always very simple. If we had such a great economy prior to going into this crisis, why do we have interest

rates at zero? Right? Right? Like why did the economy need interest rates solo? Why was it when Powell took rates up to two or two point to five all of a sudden things started to implode? Right? If we had such an awesome economy, If we had such an amazing economy, don't you think we should be able to normalize interest rates? And why can't the Fed unwind their balance sheet? Why do they have to do repo? Why did they have to do que if we've got such

an amazing economy? Right? Yeah, it was definitely cracking up well before the sickness. It was it was it was kind of like I called it at first, I said it was like the pin prick on a balloon, But really it was like getting a nail and a tire that was already deflating. Yeah, so uh, one of those. But you know, yeah, you're right, everybody saying the dollars too strong, the dollars too strong. I see lots of people calling, you know, to let's weaken the dollar, weaken

the dollar. Um. But of course the dollar is the strongest. Everyone's flying to liquidity. Um. They're trying to do that right by printing more and lowering rates and all these programs. UM. But I guess your last video you were kind of saying that these limited, these unlimited billouts actually lead to the dollar going down. So right now it's the dollars going up. But they're doing these bells to try to weaken them. But you think they overshoot the goal and

maybe they just it just ends up making it two weeks. Well, we've got to define what we're talking about by a week. Dollar first and foremost. So if you're talking about the dollar relative to foreign currencies, that would be one answer. But if we're talking about the dollar relative to the apples that you buy, the whole foods, that would be

a completely different answer. Or maybe the dollar compared to the bond market, or the dollar compared to a specific stock or the SNP, so I I really want to encourage people to compartmentalize those So I could see a situation because of what I explained before that the dollar could definitely go up. Mean, I agree with Brent Johnson and well, I can totally see where he's coming from, whether it's a guy like Brent or Jeff Snyder or anyone who's in that route Paul with that dollar bowl camp.

But what they're saying is isn't necessarily that the prices of goods and services, or the price of your healthcare or the price of gasoline or your rent is going to go down. They're saying that the value of the dollar relative to the Euro is going to go up. Right, That's a totally different argument. And I do see a possibility where they'd have to come in with a Plaza accord two point oh and artificially lower the value of the dollar. They meaning the FED in the foreign FX

markets to pump enough dollars out there. They've got the swap lines going right now with the other central banks, with the majority of central banks except for China, and that could ease the pressure. But even if you ease that pressure, it's still kind of creating more dollar or demand in the future. So and I don't it's it's difficult because you've got them some countries that would really like to see a dollar being devalued. Some countries would

not be too keen on that. So I don't think you're going to get a universal Hey, yeah, let's all hold hands, kumbaya. Let's bring down the dollar like they did in nineteen eighty five, I think it was. But there, I think the FED can just say, listen, we don't care what you want to do. We're just gonna take five trillion dollars and pump it into the FX markets and just be like a currency manipulator, just like China

has done for so long, and they just bring it down. Now, that's not to say, now let me play devil's advocate here. That's not to say that even if they did that, you would say you would see hyper inflation in the United States. Let's remember that when they did plase accord one point. Oh, we'll call it. The value view of the dollar in the FX markets, especially relative to the the German mark and the yen, went down over two years by five zero. But if you look at inflation

in the United states. It's still only was up maybe five or six percent per year, So again, completely completely different buckets, right, Yeah. And and the way they measure that inflation, like you said, doesn't take everything new an account. So everyone knows the price of gas went up, and the price of homes went up, and you know, all the things that we need. The CPI doesn't measure those for some reason. Right. Uh, school went up, healthcare went up,

I mean, everything's gone up, right Yeah. And everyone's CPI is different because of what they buy. So my cp I as an example, is completely different than some like a school teacher that's making thirty dollars a year because the prices of the stuff I buy is uh, it might be staying the same, or even if buying the same types of items like food, let's call it, it's

a much lower percentage of my overall income. Where if you've got a school teacher making forty grand year, where the majority of her or his income is going to rent, healthcare, food, gas, he or she could experience fiftcent inflation per year those specific items that occupy of their paycheck. And um, all while the dollar is getting strong or supposedly very strong, so um it's uh, it's like watching a car crash. Right, we're with witnessing this all in real time. It's an

it's an interesting time to be watching the markets. We can see the development that is going down. We can see uh you know models like you said, maybe Japan, maybe it's different, et cetera. What do you think I mean? On your YouTube channel, you say helping you build wealth and thrive. So how do we take this information and discern it in a way that we could try to thrive from this um? Right? How do we decipher this? What are we watching for and what are we trying

to do? Well? First of all, I like to try to encourage people to compartmentalize their portfolio as well. So what I do is I have ten percent for insurance for an investment, which I would define is something that pays me to own it, and then ten percent for a speculation, which I define is just something I'm betting on the price going up. His insurance is like gold, like precious metals, like absolutely would be gold, not even silver. It would just be physical. Gold wouldn't be an e

t F. Just physical. And that you're I'm not trying to get rich. I'm just trying to maintain the purchasing power that I already have. So with I think oil down a barrel, you see companies like Exxon, Chevron, Um, Shell, Dutch really really just tanking in price. And again it's not that they don't have problems. They definitely do, but at a certain point, it's all a function of price.

And if I can get a twelve percent dividend, let's say, on an Exxon, and I know they've got a lot of debts and they've they've got but I'm not too worried about that long term. And I also realized that they could stop paying their dividend over the next one year, so it's very realistic. But listen, I'm not buying Exxon right here to hold for three weeks or six weeks.

I'm buying it to hold for ten years. And if you believe that cars are still going to run on gas in call it ten years, then I think you've got to believe the price of Exxon will most likely increase above and beyond call it thirty five dollars, and they'll be able to pay their divid an end, and they might most likely be able to increase their dividend after a year, after a year and a half, after all of this is in the rear view mirror. Even if the economy goes into a Japan type situation, that

still doesn't mean that oil is at twenty barrel. And it's not to say that can't go down to three or ten. But what I like to advise people and what I try to do myself, and psychologically it's actually very hard to do, but I try to completely ignore whether the price of x y z asset is going up or down. I just forget about it. And I just asked myself, is this cheap or is it expensive? And if it's cheap historically speaking, then I buy it. If it's if it's expensive, then if it's in my portfolio,

then I go ahead and sell it. So I think you've got to look at the oil right now and say, historically it's definitely very cheap. I'm not saying now is the time to go in. But what I'm doing is just starting a watch list of stocks or assets that I would like to buy at a specific price, and if they get down to that price, maybe I pulled the trigger a little bit. I think that's something proactive

everyone can do. Also, I think that the average Joe or Jane can always go out and make sure, make sure, make sure, make sure they've got a fixed rate mortgage. And I know the majority of people in the United States do. But if you don't make that change, Yeah, now is the time. You've got interest rates at at

five thousand year lows. Go ahead and lock them in right now, because over the next ten twenty thirty years, while you're paying off this mortgage, the chances are very high that the rate of inflation exceeds your interest rate. And if the rate of inflation exceeds your interest rate, that's a transfer of wealth from the lender to the borrower. In other words, it's a transfer of wealth from the bank to you. And that's what you want. That's I love that point. I'm like your thesis on you know,

the fed by and everything que unlimited. The dollar goes to zero, crashing the system, the house of cards, as you said, crashes at some point, I mean, do we start to look at like, Okay, well, shoot, maybe equities won't be a good play. I mean, maybe they run out of ammunition. Maybe the diminution returns get to it. Maybe it's more about gold, Maybe it's about lifeboats, alternatives outside of the dollar, or you don't think it gets

that bad, No, I do. I don't know that the dollar goes to zero, and I definitely don't think it goes to zero short term. I think five years, ten years, it could go not to zero, but it could lose call it fifty of its value, could lose of its value per year. But I think that in what I'm talking about is not only in the United States, but outside the United States against the Euro or against all

these other currencies. So I could see I definitely could see hyper inflation if you define it by the dollar losing fifty of its value on an annual basis. Totally could see that in five ten years. But I don't see it in the next And what do you think about f D. I see it was a pretty interesting The head of f D I C put that video out right and said, everything safe, don't be worried. Um, this tells you all you need to know. Why why do they have to come out and do that? Right? Uh,

let me touch on your earlier point. Uh. I do think long term you want to have hedges against the dollars. So that's why I like physical gold for a speculation, obviously you gotta throw a bitcoin in there. I think the asymmetry is definitely what you want. A lot of people get on me because they like to be an

either or type person. Either your gung ho about gold and you think it should be a hundred percent of your portfolio, or your super gung ho about bitcoin and crypto and you think that should be a hundred percent of your pol I really don't understand that. I don't understand the arguments going back and forth between the two camps because to me, we're all on the same team and they're not even competing asset classes. In my book,

they're totally They're not even apples and oranges. I always say they're like apples, or they're like oranges and and Ford pickup trucks. That why would you not have both? But one is insurance and one is a speculation. So I wanted to touch on that. What was lost to check your I appreciate that that, and actually I was just I talk about both. I've been a bitcoin guy, I am. I talk about gold, and I constantly get hit with that. But look, our goal, our job is

not to pick the one asset. Our goal is to have an allocation and we met we we we do it based off of risk and reward, and I like both. I think there's room for both and and for a lot of the same reasons, but also for different reasons. Absolutely, yeah, you got. You gotta own different asset classes for different reasons and different objectives within your portfolio to have a mathematical probability of you being ahead of the game in the long run. And I don't want to get into

the boring nerdy stuff. Some of my videos I go into binomial calculators and the Kelly criterion because before I got into entrepreneurship way back in college, I counted cards at blackjack, So it always put me in that mindset of probabilities and money management. And so then we're watching the FED go into quei infinity, a lot of you know,

potential inflation deflation to watch for. So as investors, if we want to kind of keep an eye on that, try to hedge against the dollar inflation at some point through gold, maybe through bitcoin um and then keep an eye on the world dominator stocks I like to call them, right the value stocks, and maybe look for good entry points at some point because you think even though the Fed's gonna go full full crazy Bazuoka style. Um, those stocks are gonna survive that. They're gonna prop them up

as long as they need to. Yeah, I think they're going to try. So where's your entry point? I'd go back to just asking the question, is it cheap or is it expensive? Like a lot of people are trying to call a bottom right now, it's like it's the bottom by the dip, by the dip. Well, I don't do that because I look at the market cap to GDP you want to call it the buffet indicator, and or I look at a cape ratio and as even though we've come down, um call it or so from

the highs, it doesn't mean the market's cheap. But the market is still extremely extremely overvalued. Of course their pockets of opportunity, that's true, But as a whole, the SMP is still up in the stratosphere. So I wouldn't be a buyer of the entire market until the cape ratio at least comes down below fifteen, and i'd like it even below ten. So that's kind of what I'm looking at as far as your blue chips for an entry point.

But I'd also encourage people to look outside the United States, because there's stocks in other markets that are down way below where they were even in two thousand nine, and a lot of these stocks are great dividend payers that would be considered blue chips in that other country. Of course, you gotta worry about the exchange risk if your expenses

are denominated in dollars. But I think that people should maybe just start doing some research to see what opportunities exist, not only in the United States, but potentially outside of the United States as well. Yeah, great, great advice. I like that. What about one last question? What do you what do you think about the DOWT gold ratio? Do you do you look at that? Yeah, I've seen that. I know it's um I think it's a lot like the silver to gold ratio, and that I don't know.

I'm not good enough to know if that's an indicator or if it's just something that's kind of interesting to look at. So I try to kind of stay in my lane, if you will, and just ask myself is cheaper? Is silver cheap compared to silver? And not necessarily is silver cheap compared to gold? I didn't I did a video titled silver is not what you think it is. And I basically said, I don't believe in the gold to silver ratio. Silver isn't needed anymore, and and that

that ratio is broken a long time ago. Um, the doubt of gold ratio, I still believe in that. So that's something that I keep an eye on. But yeah, I know I've was regarding the silver to gold. I interviewed Rick Rule the other day and he's in your camp. He he doesn't. He thinks it's kind of cool to look at, but it's not really an indicator. And uh, I know I interviewed Shift the other day and uh and Lynette Zang, and they're under the belief system that

and they're old school. They've been doing us a long time time, and they believe there's going to be a one to one ratio again. Whether the whether that means the dows at twenty thousand and an ounce of gold is twenty thousand or five, it doesn't matter that. They just think that at some point in time in the next couple of years, we're going to be at a one to one. If we have time for one more question, yeah, Um, so you did a video talking about Jim Rickards calling

the revaluation to gold. I kind of copied off of your video about that as well, and so I'm curious about that. I mean, if if you know, the unlimited bazooka cannons and the destruction of the dollar and all the current I mean, we already see the you know, I m F or the b I s calling for digital currencies with their SDRs, which maybe like Chinese to people listening, But um, I'm curious based off that video. I mean, if this qui infinity and diminishing returns and

it all fails, no confidence left in currencies. The argument is the only way to restore confidence is to go back to some gold standard, whether that's one percent or um. Do you think there's a good probability of that happening, a very low probability or no chance, or where do you sit? I think there's a very good probability. That will have to have a currency, and I have no idea what currency it will be. I don't know if it will be digital. I would assume it would be digital.

I don't know if that's a digital SDR or a digital dollar or libra who knows something like that, but or maybe a bitcoin, maybe hopefully. I mean that would be awesome. From a philosophical standpoint, There's nothing more that I'd like to see than to have a decentralized currency is as what we use in the world to transact. But I I don't think the governments would be too uh too keen on that to say the least. Why would why would they ever why would they ever vote

to tie their hands behind their back? Right, Yeah, exactly exactly, And to have a government back digital currency, it gives them so much control. I don't think most people understand. I don't think they've pulled back the layer of the onion because I hear a lot of people on Twitter or even in the comments of my videos, they say, wow, the dollar, are it already is a digital currency? I mean, I don't really use paper money. I just use electronic digits on my bank account and I use an a

t M card. And what they're not understanding is if we had a true and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but if we had a true digital currency the way where they've each token let's call it has a serial number, and they track that it goes to someone's electronic wallet, then the FED or the government could control not only the supply, but they could control the demand,

and most people don't realize that. As an example, they could say, Okay, here's your worth of mm T everything for this month, but you've got to spend it in the next four eight hours. Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's programmable, it's specific, you have to spend in this timeframe. You can only use it for these certain things, like it

can be stopped, sees man, you know whatever. So for sure that's what they'd want um And I think that's kind of where it goes, is like a digital SDR most likely, but I would think it maybe has to have some goal backing. Maybe it's yeah, that's yeah, that's where I was going with that. For sure. It's a great point. I think that eventually the Fiat system, the Fiat currency system that we've been trying out since nineteen seventy one is in kind of going back to Brenton Woods.

That's going to collapse, and I think you're gonna have a total loss of confidence, and not only the dollar or the end the Euro, you name it. I don't think that's tomorrow, but I think ten years, fifteen years down the road, that's where we're going to be. And to your point, any currency is all about confidence, Any

economy really is all about confidence. To instill the confidence, I don't think the government or the I M F or whomever is issuing this currency is going to have a choice but to back it with something that people have confidence in. And again going back to Twitter and in my comments, a lot of people say, oh, the government would never back it with gold. That's crazy, that ties their hand. But they're implying that the government has

a choice. I don't know that they would have a choice now whether the digital SDR or the digital dollar is backed by one who knows. But and then, of course I think what will happen. So in the short term, I think you all have this digital fiat that gives them total control. I think that blows up. They have

to have something that's backed by gold. But I only think that last maybe ten twenty years, where everyone forgets what happened with the disaster of fiat currency and you have all the politicians or economists start claiming that, oh yeah, this this is our problem. Is this stupid gold standard.

We've got to get off this gold standard. We could only have the ability and the control over the amount of currency in the system, then we could just solve all the problems and we could just print money, and everyone's going to forget about what happened ten fifteen years ago, just like everyone now or thirty days ago forgot what happened in the GFC. They totally forgot. Oh yeah, that

was the market can never go down. You hear all these things, the narrative is exact or was exactly like it was back in two thousand eight, two thousand and seven.

It's it's shocking that the recency bias of the notly the mainstream media, but the population at large, and that that they just have this kind of like a selective amnesia where if if it's it's a cognitive dissonance type of rationalizing, where if it makes them feel good about their four oh one k or whatever they have invested in the market, if that's going to give them more purchasing car in the future, then they just kind of tend to forget things that are inconvenient, or make up

things or cherry picked data points to make it easier to sleep at night, knowing that the stock market always goes up, right, the dollar is always going to be the world reserve currency. Well, I don't think so, right man. So much more to talk about. I'd love to get into some more of like the bailouts and things like that. So many different angles we could go, but I know we're out of time, so so we'll go ahead and cut it off. But I appreciate you given the time

it was. It was a great conversation, and uh, thank you. Yeah for sure. Let's I love the conversation. Let's definitely do it again soon. Okay, thanks