It's All About The Money

bitcoin and the decentralized technology. And you know, I like to bring to you some of the some different ways to look at the world, and I try to expand your thinking so you can really understand these complex subjects that we're dealing with, some of the latest breaking news, and some interesting people to listen to as well, so you don't have to hear me talk all the time.

But today I want to start off talking about something that's basically dominating most conversations today and I want to explain it to you in a way that you probably haven't yet heard. And so we're going to talk about this because this is actually what's changing the world, and

it's really all about the money. So we said, I talked about it from politics of finance and technology and really this financial piece on about an eighty year timeframe, we have these financial revolutions, and that's exactly what we're facing right now. We can see where at the end of a long term debt credit cycle, potentially a hundred year sovereign debt bubble that's blowing up. And of course

you see all over the news everything you know. You see inflation, and you see debt sealing limits increase, and money being printed and sent around the world to people, etc. And it's hard to really understand what's going on, especially when you have some intellectual mouthpieces like Paul Krugman talking about this and trying to explain to you. But it's

all wrong. Now, if you watch my main YouTube channel, just the Mark Moss YouTube channel, like to start off the videos by saying, I'm trying to change the way you think about money because almost everything you've learned is wrong. And when you listen to people like Paul Krugman, they're lying to you. So of course everything you've learned is wrong because they're telling you the wrong information. We're going to talk about that specifically, but also what we learn

in school is wrong. They don't teach you about the way money works. They don't teach you about the way the financial system works or the banking system works. And of course they don't tell you how to get wealthy. They tell you how to basically live within this system without disrupting it, without changing the way the system works, and without really getting ahead. Which is why, of course, today over about half of all people retiring today, that

baby boomers, are broke. They have no money. About half of the people today couldn't come up with a thousand dollars for an emergency. And so how is that financial education you've been getting working for you? If half the people retiring have no money, and of the people that of the half that do, half of them have less than one hundred thousand dollars, which is not enough to retire off of. So how's that financial education been working?

I saw I think sixty percent fifty or sixty percent of people making over one hundred thousand dollars per year, which most of you might consider that being rich or well off or something like that, about half of those people report living paycheck to paycheck. So how's that financial education coming for you? It's obviously not working very well. We saw, I've talked about it on the radio last week in Baltimore and then in Chicago. In Baltimore was

more about reading. In Chicago, fifty five school districts, not one single student, not one could pass math or reading. So how's that education going for you? So let's talk about this a little bit and let's explain what's going on. Now. The Treasury, which is the United States government. So we have the Reserve and we have the Treasury. The Treasury is the United States government. The Federal Reserve is a bank.

It's a collection of banks, and it's a private bank. Now, for some of you listen to this, you doubt that it was set up as a private group of banks. It is recognized and allowed by Congress. So it's semi quasi private, if you will. It's really private. It does maintain its autonomy, and they control monetary policy, so they control the banks. The United States government and the Treasury control the fiscal all right, so that's the money being

spent in the government. The Fed just controls the monetary policy, which is interest rates, in the amount of the banks reserves, etc. So the United States government, the Treasury put out a report this last week. It's called the Financial Report of the United States Government. Fiscal year two twenty two. It's at Fiscal Treasury dot gov. If you want to go read this report. Now that's two hundred and fifty eight pages, so you probably don't want to read all that, but

it's worth a read. So this is directly from the Treasury. This is their own report, and it starts out on the first page with a letter written by Janet Yellen, which of course is the head. She's the Secretary of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury, which of course

is the United States government. Basically in this document, surprising that they would actually put this document out because in this document they basically make the case that the government is bankrupt, insolvent, what we'd call a zombie company, and they make the statement that says the path that we're on is not sustainable. That's what it says. So it's pretty interesting they would put out this information. Now, like

I said, everything you've learned is wrong. So typically they're trying to change the story, change the narrave show you information that maybe misleads you. But in this information, they've basically come out and told you, and like I said, even made the statement that it's not a sustainable path. I want to see the source of the information. I want to see what they have to say first before I start listening to other people's opinions of that data.

Now back to Paul Kruegman. Paul Kruegman is, like I said, kind of the mouthpiece of the Fed, the Treasury. He's the cheerleader that basically says everything they do is correct. And of course Paul Krugman is not correct. He's never been correct. Paul Kruegman is the one who famously said the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machines. That's what he said. Ten years from now. The phrase quote information economy will sound silly.

So look, when somebody, when we have economists, we have forecasters, when they give us their information, we should take that and pay attention to it, and then we should then, of course, see if that information comes true. So if this is somebody we want to continue to listen to. So, for example, al Gore said in two thousand and nine that the North Pole will be ice free by the summer of two thirteen because of man made global warming.

The polar bears would be gone by twenty thirteen. So he said this in two thousand and nine, so we have to take a look at that. We're to look at what Paul Krugman says, I want to come back. I'm gonna explain that even more, and then we're gonna

dig into this Treasury report. I'm going to show you what they said, what the data shows, and then we're gonna look at some data points actually in the economy, in the markets, in real estate to see if this is true, so you can understand exactly what's going on

how to better navigate this. If you're just tune in right now, you're listen to the Mark Moish show, we're talking about, of course, the decentralized Revolution, really kind of focusing right now on this eighty year financial revolution cycle that's being reset right now. I got a whole lot to cover at this show. You don't want to miss this. We're gonna break it down and it's gonna make sense to you. All right, So I gotta take a quick break. I'm gonna be back in a minute. You don't want

to miss this, don't go away. I'm gonna be right back, all right, Welcome back. If you just tune in, you're listening to the Mark Mos show, we talk about the decentralized revolution, how the world is changing as we look at it through the lens of politics, finance, and technology.

Today we're looking at the financial revolution piece, and I was explaining how when we have experts and they make predictions, we should listen to those and then we should see if they got them right, to see if it's somebody that we want to continue listening to. So as I was saying with al Gore in two thousand and nine, he told us that the ice would be gone, the polar bears would be extinct by summer of twenty thirteen. Here we are a decade later, and the ice caps

are even bigger than they were before. Polar bears are flourishing more than they ever have. So Al Gore is someone we should not be listening to in regards to climate. And back to Paul Kruegman telling us about the economy, it's the exact same thing. He said that the internet's impact in the economy has been no greater than the fax machine, and that ten years from now the information economy would sound silly, but yet here we are in

the information economy. The information economy, you're listening to me right now making my living in the information economy, and of course that doesn't sound silly. And so again, is Paul Krugman someone we should be listening to And I would say absolutely not. But of course the government needs someone to be out there shilling their data points, and

that's exactly what Paul Krugman does. Now, there's an article that came out this week that thought was pretty interesting, and of course he's a Nobel Prize winning economist, but he recently wrote some articles in the New York Times, which, of course The New York Times is also a mouthpiece for the government. It's important to listen to the information and know where it came from, what their interests are, what their biases might be, and then you have to

start to learn to separate the facts from opinion. And so we know that, for example, if I was reading RT Times, I would know, well, that's a Russian news outlet and it's probably biased towards Russia. If I listened to the New York Times or the Washington Post, well, I know that's like a CIA mouthpiece, and I have to know that it's biased from that potentially, at this point, maybe some of the most neutral news might be Al Jazeera.

I'd like to get some news from there. I tried to look at it from both sides, so I'm going to be equally critical of both sides that are trying to spin this bias, but still fact check me as well. It starts to try to separate what I tell you as fact from what I tell you as opinion, so you can start to formulate your own ideas anyway. So he wrote this in The New York Times, and he claimed that the debt of the government is quote over

hyped issue and isn't all that unusual from a historical perspective. Now, this article that came out said that his attempts to support these employ the kind of fraudulent accounting that would land a corporate executive in jail. So what he's doing is he's taking this data and trying to spin it to support his point. But it's such it's such a it's so much of a speculator, so much of a spin that it would literally land a corporate executive in

prison if they try to do this. He says that, of course he's trying to say that taming quote the federal debt should be well down on the list of government priorities. So he's saying that it's not a problem. The debt's not a problem. We shouldn't even be worried about. A matter of fact, it should be way down the list of all the things that we worried about before. After we worry about things like climate change and child poverty. Because the debt projections have become quote much less dire

over the past decade or so. In reality, the debt is far higher than projected, and Krugman's own words prove it. Now, let's again, let's see what these numbers are. I'm gonna give you the numbers directly from the Treasury's own report, not from Paul Kruegman, and not opinion based. We're going

to look at what the Treasury put out now. I do want to just say, going back to Paul Kruegman, in two thousand and nine, under President Obama, they started racking up debt and they projected nine trillion dollars in deficits over the coming decades. Over that wou'd be from two thousand nine nineteen, Krugman wrote back then, quote, even if we do run these deficits, federal debt would be ninety percent of GDP in twenty nineteen, or substantially less than it was at the end of World War Two.

So again the Noel Prize winning economist is telling us that no problem, no problem running these deficits. Even if we do, even if we do run a nine trillion dollars in deficits, it's gonna be way less than it would in World War Two. However, he said it would be ninety percent. However, it turned out to be twenty one percent higher than that one hundred and ten percent. So again he's wrong. He's wrong, he's wrong, he's wrong.

I don't know why we continue to look at him or listen to him, But let's take a look at some of these things that the Treasury put out in their own data. Now, what we can see is that the US has a massive spending problem. So if we go back, Unfortunately I can't show you the chart because we're here on the radio. But if I showed you a chart, you can go onto the thread. So the FED puts out its own data, and you can go

to Fred dot st. Louis, fed dot org and you can get all this data that the FED actually puts out. I like to go to the source. And so if we look at this, we can see basically a chart of lines which shows the debt, the amount of debt that we're building, and the amount of gross domestic product that we're producing. So remember wealth is not money, wealth is goods and services. So we want to look at the gross domestic product, the amount of goods and services

that are being produced. Now it's a little bit of amis leading number because the amount of spending the government actually does that increases. The GDP has grown bigger and bigger and bigger. But that's a whole another topic for another time. But if we look at just the GDP growth, we can see that until about nineteen seventy, the GDP growth and debt we're growing at about the same pace.

But since around nineteen seventy they really started getting off, really nineteen eighties where they just really took a drastic turn, and we can see that now the amount of debt we're growing is way outpacing the amount of growth. Now, the problem with this is that means it's not sustainable. Now.

The scam is that they tell us that, hey, we took an economic hit, we're not going to get as much growth as we normally would because of whatever recession or whatever the pandemic or whatever it is, and so we should just take on a little bit of debt. Let's go ahead and spend more than we bring in, because we'll make it up later. It's sort of like if you lost your job and you're gonna live on a credit card for a little while. But it's okay because when you get another job, then you're gonna go

ahead and pay that debt back off. Or you're going to go into debt to build a new product or a business line, or a new business, and then when the business grows, you wible to pay that off. The problem is that the business doesn't ever take off, it doesn't grow, but yet you keep spending more and more and more and more debt, and eventually, eventually it's going to hit. Eventually it's going to hit. But the problem is all that debt bogs you down and doesn't allow

you to grow. All the money that should be going into productive investments gets spent just to cover the debt, or what we call the interest coverage. Now you might have heard the term of a zombie company before. We have lots of zombie companies in the US and around the world. And a zombie company would basically be a company that that doesn't make enough money enough profit to cover even the interest on their debt. That's a zombie company.

So no matter how much they grow, they just can't pay off the debt because the just to cover that the interest is more than the money they make. Now, could the government be in that position? Could the government? Could the United States government be a zombie company. I'm going to answer that question with some data and some facts, and we're gonna show you exactly what the Treasury said

about where we're going. And I gotta be honest, it's shocking, and you're gonna understand exactly why we're arguing over debtsillion limits, and you're gonna understand exactly what is going to happen because there's no other option once you hear the data directly from them. So let's take into that. I'm going to take a break. If you're just tune and you're listening to the Markma Show talking about the decentralized rever we're talking about this eighty year financial revolution that we're

focusing on right now. I'm going to cover a lot you don't want to miss this, I'll be back. Don't go away, all right, welcome back. If you just tune in, you're listening to the Markama Show. We're talking about, of course, each and every week, the decents realized revolution, the politics, finance and technology. We're focusing on just the financial revolution aspect today and we're going over this report that the US Treasury just put out. Now, I explained to you

what a zombie company was. A zombie company is someone that doesn't have enough income to cover the interest revenues, must cover expenses plus interest, or your zombie. Now, the US government has a problem, and that is that they're entitlement spending, which is the mandatory This is money they owe to people, you know, Medicare and Medicaid, so security, etc. They have to pay this mandatory expenses. So just that alone,

not all the other expenses. Just that plus the interest on the debt is more than the revenue, the tax revenues they bring in. That means there a zombie company. Now that doesn't take into consideration all the other long term contracts they're committed to, like defense contracts. But let's go ahead and skip past that. So just per the Treasury, the CBO Congressional Budget Office. This is the government estimates that for this year twenty twenty three, there will be

four point eight trillion in tax revenue. But the mandatory expenses, which are the entitlements, also the defense budget eight billion for defense and seven hundred billion, which is the net interest on federal debt equals five point three trillion. So you have to be super good at math. Five point three trillion of mandatory expenses is more than the four point eight trillion of income. So that's a zombie company.

Now that doesn't include all the other spending. Well, I'm not talking about, you know, all the other money that we're sending into Ukraine and all the other money we're sending to other country for gender studies. I'm not krying all the money for welfare and UBI. I'm not talking about any of that. I'm just talking about the mandatory, the entitlements, the money we owe to other people, medicare, medicaids, so security. I'm talking about the defense, and I'm talking

about the interest on the debt. That's it. Now. You also know that the FED is on a warpath to fight inflation. They are raising rates higher, higher, higher, higher, higher, to fight inflation. But there's a couple of problems that lead that really lead to the zombie company really going overboard. And so as they continue to raise, as the FED continues to raise interest rates, the net interest on the

debt goes up. So per the CBO Congressional Budget's Office estimates for this year, they estimated seven hundred billion in interest on the federal debt. However, you keep hearing about, well, the economy is still pretty good, the jobs markets so pretty good. The FED is going to keep hiking rates.

Now they're talking about the FED getting to potentially a six percent rate, six per What does that mean, Well, that means at six percent, the interest of the government is now not seven hundred billion, it's about one point eight trillion, one point eight tit Now that's on the thirty one and a half trillion dollars a debt we have today. That's not including where it might be by the end of the year. So that's not seven hundred billion,

it's one point eight one. That's that's an extra trillion dollars, an extra trillion dollars a year. Now, the CBO Congressional Budget Office, again they have these projections where they show, just like any business would, what their revenues are expected to be moving forward twenty twenty four, twenty five, six,

twenty seven, all the way till twenty thirty three. So they show the revenues, how much they expect to get from income tax, perill tax, etc. And then they show their outlays and they break it down by mandatory, what's the mandatory expense they have to spend, and then what's discretionary. So mandatory for you personally would be like your house payment, your electricity bill, or your car payment. You have to pay those things or you get put on the street

and you have no car. Discretionary would be like you know, going clothes shopping, going out to dinner, and things like that, going on a vacation, so you have the mandatory and discretion. They break that out and then they show the total deficits, so the shortcoming. So in twenty twenty three they're showing

a deficit of one point four trillion. By the end of the decade, they're showing it to have a By twenty thirty, you have a deficit of two point one trillion, So basically adding in two trillion dollars of debt every single year, two trillion dollars of debt every single year. Now, first of all, this is based off of tax revenues staying the same, which they're not. As a matter of fact, tax revenues are down nine percent year over year, Wire tax revenues down. Well, turns out the FED is on

a warpath. The Fed is on a warpath to stop inflation. They want prices to stop going up. They want prices to stay stable. They don't really want prices to come back down, but they want prices to stop going up. So what they're doing is they're crushing demand. And if we raise rates higher, that will bring asset prices down, your stocks, bonds, your retirement account, that will bring your real estate, your house value down. And if we can bring the value your assets down, people feel broke and

they don't spend as much. That's their theory. The problem with that is that as asset prices come down, then there's no capital gains. Like I'm not selling stocks or real estate at a profit, there's no capital gains tax going to the governments. Now, tax revenues went down. Also, they want people to feel broke so they stop spending. But if people stop spending, then the tax revenue drops. So the CBO has this baseline projection, but they're basing it off of tax revenues going up, but in reality,

tax revenues are coming down. They're down nine percent year over year. Now, if we have a recession, which it looks like we're going into, I'm going to have talked about some of the data here in a minute. If we have a recession, then we would expect tax revenues to dip by twenty percent. So now what does this due to the qualifications to calculations, So you can see

we're in a really, really big problem. Now, the CBO, again directly from the CBO Congressional Budget Office, they show here in twenty twenty three, we have about one hundred percent of debt to GDP one percent ratio of GDP wrote debt to GDP. But they're showing this on a chart I wish I could show to you going straight up, almost like a hockey stick. And by twenty fifty, again the CBO projects by twenty fifty will be at two hundred percent debt to GDP. Well, that's not sustainable. They

go on to tell us more. The Treasury goes on to tell us they actually published in this report I'm talking about, they titled it, well, this was an executive coming to the fiscal year for twenty twenty one, and they titled it quote an unsustainable fiscal path. And in this they showed that the amount of debt held by the public is going to go up by astronomical amounts.

Like I said, by about the year, they showed about by the year twenty forty five, we've been two hundred percent, but they showed by the year like twenty eighty six hundred percent, what six hundred percent, So we are on an unsustainable path. Let me give you a couple of other data points then we'll move on. But what else was in the report or what else is relevant to the report? I should say, is that this is based

off of the debt, right, the amount of outlay. So we again they're showing seven hundred billion dollars in interest being owed, but again rates are going up, which means though oh more. Now, a lot of the debt that the government has is locked in by timeline. So there's zero to one year maturities, there's one to three year maturities, there's five year, ten year, twenty year thirty year maturities.

So not just as the FED continues to raise rates doesn't mean all of the rate goes up, which is why the FED is showing a seven hundred billion dollar amount even though I'm sorry, the Treasury is showing seven hundred billion oh, even while the FED is raising rates. It's because a lot of that debt is locked in.

But that's part of the problem. So what we know is that all the US government debt, we can see what the maturities are, and what we can see is that fifty percent of the debt, of the thirty one trillion of that matures in the next three years and is going to have to be refinanced. Now the FED is telling us they're going to raise rates and leave them there, raise rates and leave them there. Now they're

talking about maybe get into six percent. So what does that mean for the outstanding government debt and what should we expect. I'm going to tell you exactly what that looks like, and then we're going to look at some of this economic data to really back this up, and it is it's not good, not good now. And so when you have these Paul Krugman's of the world painting these rosy pictures as the article that I read to you from stated it's criminal. If a CEO did this,

it would be criminal. And so I want you to understand this now. The reason why it's important to understand it is because it basically shows what's inevitable. So if you want to know what you should be thinking about with your business, or your retirement account or your house, then you want to stay tuned to what I have

because it's going to show what is inevitable. If you're just tuning in, you're listening to the Mark Moa show talking about the decentralized revolution this week, talking about the financial revolution that's happening. I got a lot more to cover when I come back. Don't go away, I'll be right back, all right, Welcome back. If you just tune in, you're listening to the Mark Moa Show talking about, of

course each and every week, the decentralized revolution. We're talking about right now, the financial revolution piece that's happening, and I'm telling you what's inevitable. All right. I was setting up the read new information from the Treasury report. If you're missed in this, don't worry. You can go catch it on the archives just go check out the Mark Moss Show on your favorite podcast player, or you can watch me and listen to me on YouTube under the

Market Disruptors YouTube channel. Check it out, and while you're at it, follow me on social media at one Mark Moss at that's just the number one, Mark Moss. Shoot me a message, tell me you're listening, ask me some questions. I'd love to engage with there. All right, so let's keeping the treasury up at night. Remember the treasury the US government is that of the thirty one and a half trillion dollars of debt they owe, it's locked in

on these different maturity dates. But fifty percent of the debt is maturing and is going to have to be refinanced in just the next three years. And so remember those CBO projections I was telling you where by twenty thirty where at two trillion dollars a year? Well, and how grossly misstated those are, because one, the income is going to continue to go down, but also the amount

of interest expense is going to go up. And so we can see fifty percent matures the next three years, and it's going to be replaced at rates of wherever we're at for five six percent. So how's that going to work. It's going to take that seven hundred billion dollar number and that's going to push it through the roof. We're going to go to over a trillion dollars a year of just interest only. That's that's where we're headed. Fun, fun, fun,

fun stuff. So that's why Paul Krugman is wrong. Now, if your Social Security or if you're on SO security or expecting to get so secured at one point, I have something to tell you that you may not like, and that's that it is set to start running a shortfall by the end of the decade. As a matter of fact, if the Sociecurity funds become insolvent and there's no change to current laws, beneficiaries would see more than

a twenty percent reduction in benefits. So I'm not planning on getting any at all by the time I retire. And if you're on it, that's something to be paying attention to. You might start seeing a reduction there, a drawdown, which is going to be super important if you're depending on that all. But again they're based in all of this information on economic data. One the amount of revenue

they're going to collect. But Again, if the economy continues to go downhill, then the amount of tax revenue to collect also goes downhill, which puts the deficit even higher. And we can see that the economy is seemingly barreling into a recession. No matter what they want to tell you with the data, the jobs data, the unemployment data, it's all wrong. Everything, everything you've learned is wrong. So we can see here if we look at some different

economic indicators, we can try to find it ourselves. There's this conference boards Leading Economic Indicators. It's continued. It's declined in January, dropping zero point three percent month over month, so that's not good. We can see it's the tenth straight monthly decline in the LI Leading Economic Indicator. It's the longest streak of declines since Lehman, which was twenty straight months of decline, so we're currently in the longest

streak since Layman happened. Among the leading indicators, we have deteriorating manufacturing new orders, so manufacturers aren't ordering, so manufacturing production is going down. Remember, wealth is not money, wealth is goods and services, So when manufacturers aren't producing goods and services, that's not good. Also, leading indicators are consumers, expectations of business conditions, credit conditions, and all of that combined more than offset the strength supposed strength that we

had in the labor markets. The Conference Board expects high inflation, rising interest rates, and contracting consumers spending to tip the US economy into recession in twenty twenty three. So if that happens, tax revenues go down. It says this is on a year of year basis, the li is down six point zero three percent, which is close to the biggest year over year drop since two thousand and eight. So we're on the longest streak since we saw in

two thousand and eight. It's the we're almost to the same size of drop that we saw in two thousand and eight. It's not a good sign for GDP. And if it's not a good sign for GDP, what does that mean, that means tax revenues go down. We can also see subprime auto loan delinquencies just had a thirteen

year high. All this money that got injected into the system through the COVID pandemic got you know, all these companies to expand very quickly, like Amazon started building out all these new shipping centers, started hiring all these people. All these people got hired on the new jobs, and they went out and bought cars with that stimmy. But now all the layoffs are happening, and now people can't

afford those cars. Now I've been hearing stories and reading reading stories of all these cars at car auction lots that have never even been registered, meaning they're brand new, they're less than one or two years old, where people bought them, probably on their stimmy, and then never even got to the first registration where they had to pay

for the tags. And now we're starting to see that the FED might start understanding this, because the problem is is that they are hell bent on getting inflation back down to this two percent supposedly I don't even know where. Well, there's a story this week I saw where did two percent come from? Supposedly New Zealand just pulled that number out of thin air. Oh, let's go with a two

percent inflation rate, And apparently that's what stuck. But the problem is, as the FED continues to try to bring inflation down, they're pushing asset prices down and helm price down to make you feel poor. But as you feel poor, and as you have no cap gains, the government doesn't get the funding at the same time as their spendings going up. They're already a zombie company and solvent, which

means they're only even more insolvent. So the question is, or the question or the question that I would ask myself, is what does all this mean? What does all this mean? Mark? I mean, okay, you've made a case the economy is going into recession. The Treasury itself, for its own report says that it's insolvent and it's only be going to come more insolvent. What does this mean. It means that money printing is inevitable. That's what this means. So what

this means is that the federal government is insolvent. They're bankrupt. They haven't filed for bankruptcy, but they're insolvent. They're spending way more on just mandatory expenses than they bring in in income, and at the same time their income is going down, their expenses are going up. So we have to refinance all this dead at higher rates and all these things. So no government with a money printer will go bankrupt. So this means they're going to print money.

So while we have all this posturing and the Fed says, they don't, you know, they want to continue to tighten the markets. They don't want to ease the markets. We know what's inevitable, and I believe the markets it's inevitable, which is why the markets aren't going down. Jerome Powell keeps one in the markets to go down, but they don't. I saw this article this week talking about how the Fed minutes appear to argue against what Powe was saying in the presser, and they wanted him to go back

and reiterate again. But Powell declined to try to talk down financial markets, saying, we're just going to have to see seeing Look, I told them what's going to happen. Let's just leave it up to them. They're going to figure this out. But the markets don't believe what the Fed is saying. And the reason why they don't believe it is because they know what's inevitable. They know that the treasury is going broke and they're going to have to print the money. No government, the money printer will

go broke. And so while we don't know exactly what's going to happen over the next two to three months, we do know what's going to happen over the next two to three years. Now, what's going to happen over the next two to three years is massive amounts of money printing. The US dollar is going to have to get weaker. When the US dollar gets weaker, it will push asset prices higher. There's no other way now, Like I said, the other way is the government goes bankrupt.

But of course, as I said, no government with the money printer will go bankrupt, and so I think the chance of that happening is slim to none. Now, there are two types of defaults. Of course, there's the default where I don't pay you, and there's the default where I just pay you back with a bunch of made up money that's not worth as much as what you're actually owed. So I pay you back the million dollars I owe you, but it only buys you half a

million dollars worth goods today. And that's exactly what's happening, and that's where we're going. And so if you're trying to plan what should I do with my business, my investments, etc. If you think long term, you know it's inevitable the money printer will burr again. If you're just tuning in you're listening to the Markmas Show. We've been talking about what the Treasury report said and the inevitability of money printing.

The financial revolution is here and we're witnessing it. Thanks so much for listening.