An Independent Fed May Be Ruled Unconstitutional - Ep 1040

[SPEAKER_01]: Make no friends in the pits and you take no prisoners. [SPEAKER_01]: One minute, you're up out of a minute and soybeans and the next bull. [SPEAKER_00]: Your kids don't go to college and they've registered vent here with me. [SPEAKER_00]: So, revolutions starts now, starts. [SPEAKER_01]: We have to pass the bills so that you can find out what is in it. [SPEAKER_00]: Turn those machines back off! [SPEAKER_00]: You are about to enter the Peter ship show.

[SPEAKER_00]: If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. [SPEAKER_00]: This is the last stand on Earth. [SPEAKER_00]: The Peter ship shall be solved. [SPEAKER_00]: I don't know, when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness. [SPEAKER_00]: You're money. [SPEAKER_00]: You're storing this for your freedom. [SPEAKER_00]: The Peter ship shall. [SPEAKER_01]: Welcome everybody to another live Friday version of the Peter shift show podcast.

[SPEAKER_01]: We had a lot or I have a lot to talk about from today. [SPEAKER_01]: It was a big week. [SPEAKER_01]: So make sure and listen to this entire podcast from the beginning to end. [SPEAKER_01]: You know, I know sometimes people lose interest to halfway through. [SPEAKER_01]: You don't want to do that. [SPEAKER_01]: There's a lot of really important stuff that I'm going to cover and you got to pay attention.

[SPEAKER_01]: Now, we got the jobs report for August that came out today. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, for a while, I wouldn't even sure if we were going to get the August report.

[SPEAKER_01]: Because remember, Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, [SPEAKER_01]: because last month he didn't like the report because it was really bad so he said it was rigged just to make him look bad so he fired her and there was some talk about the fact that they had to really get everything working better fixed whatever was wrong over there and that maybe we wouldn't even get a job's report for August but we got one.

[SPEAKER_01]: although I'm sure Donald Trump wishes that it wasn't released and I'm not sure who's heads going to roll now because somebody's got to be on the chopping block because someone's got to get fired here because this job's report actually paints a bleaker picture than the last one, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Not that the revisions are as big as the last one, but that the revisions from last month were made [SPEAKER_01]: So, the job backdrop looks even worse now than it did a month ago.

[SPEAKER_01]: So, first, one of the revisions was to the month of June. [SPEAKER_01]: June, which was revised way down last month to 27,000 jobs, this month, it was revised down to minus 13,000 jobs. [SPEAKER_01]: So we now found out that in June, we actually lost jobs. [SPEAKER_01]: Now it's possible we lost jobs in July and August too, we just haven't got those revision yet. [SPEAKER_01]: But that is a big deal because the last time there was any month.

[SPEAKER_01]: where there was a loss of jobs. [SPEAKER_01]: It was during the COVID lockdowns of 2020. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, clearly, that was an aberration right companies were forced to shut down. [SPEAKER_01]: They had no choice. [SPEAKER_01]: They had a layoff to workers, right? [SPEAKER_01]: So you really can't even look at 2020. [SPEAKER_01]: So throw that out as an aberration.

[SPEAKER_01]: So to find another month of a negative number, you go to go back to the 2008 global financial crisis [SPEAKER_01]: So that's the last time for economic reasons that we had a jobs number with a negative print. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, that means during all four years of the Biden administration, we didn't have this. [SPEAKER_01]: We didn't have one year where we lost one month, rather, where we lost jobs.

[SPEAKER_01]: Now, you know, Trump keeps criticizing the Biden economy for being the worst in history [SPEAKER_01]: yet we never had a single month under four years of Biden, then we just had in June under Trump. [SPEAKER_01]: So I think these criticisms are misplaced. [SPEAKER_01]: You know, when you live in a glass White House, you're not supposed to throw stones.

[SPEAKER_01]: And it's not just one month, the last three months [SPEAKER_01]: the average, including today's, which I'm about to get to, but the average creation of jobs is just 29,000 per month. [SPEAKER_01]: Again, the only time we've seen a number that low was during the COVID pandemic and during the 2008, 2009 Great Recession, financial crisis.

[SPEAKER_01]: So the labor market, anyway you want to measure it, [SPEAKER_01]: It's been outside of a major recession or a man-made, you know, a pandemic. [SPEAKER_01]: So there's no way that, you know, Trump could claim that we have a strong labor market when all of the government evidence shows how bad it was. [SPEAKER_01]: In fact, the consensus estimate for the month of August was 77,000 jobs. [SPEAKER_01]: We got 22,000, that's it, 22,000 jobs is all that was created.

[SPEAKER_01]: And maybe more significantly, we lost 12,000 manufacturing jobs. [SPEAKER_01]: Those are the ones that were supposed to be coming back because of the terrace. [SPEAKER_01]: Every day I hear somebody like Howard Lutnik on television talking about all these factories that are being built and all these factory jobs. [SPEAKER_01]: Well, the numbers don't support that. [SPEAKER_01]: We're still losing factory jobs. [SPEAKER_01]: We're not creating them.

[SPEAKER_01]: In fact, if you look beneath the surface at the household survey, [SPEAKER_01]: We lost a lot of full-time jobs. [SPEAKER_01]: All of the jobs, not that we created that many, were part-time jobs, but we lost, well over 100,000, I forget the number, a full-time jobs and created a bunch of part-time jobs to make up the difference.

[SPEAKER_01]: So in extremely weak report, the unemployment rate rose to 4.3. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, that really doesn't paint a true picture of the labor market. [SPEAKER_01]: A more accurate picture is painted by the U6 rate, which jumped up to 8.1%. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, 8.1% is far closer to the actual unemployment rate. [SPEAKER_01]: It's still lower, but it's a lot closer.

[SPEAKER_01]: then 4.3 so if the fed really was paying attention to the data they would look at 8.1 they wouldn't look at 4.3 4.3 is a joke because 4.3 doesn't count all the people who have part-time jobs but are still looking for full-time jobs. [SPEAKER_01]: They're unemployed, right? [SPEAKER_01]: They're under employed, they should count. [SPEAKER_01]: They used to count, they counted in the 70s, they counted in the 80s. [SPEAKER_01]: So why don't they count now?

[SPEAKER_01]: In fact, when we want to compare today's unemployment rate to the 70s or 80s, to say it's not that bad, we never, you know, make the correction to adjust it. [SPEAKER_01]: Because if we did, the public would know just how bad it is. [SPEAKER_01]: But again, even the U6 rate, [SPEAKER_01]: does not include discourage workers who have been discouraged for more than a year. [SPEAKER_01]: They were included in the 70s and the 80s, so it's a complete fraud.

[SPEAKER_01]: We have a weak labor market, but it's not just Donald Trump who's got this wrong. [SPEAKER_01]: It's it's it's power, it's defend. [SPEAKER_01]: If you go back to not the very last Jackson Hole speech, but even the last FOMC press conference, that Pal-Hell, the after they didn't cut rates, and go back and look at pretty much every press conference that DeFed has held since Trump's been president.

[SPEAKER_01]: and Powell has said we have a very strong labor market like he's impressed. [SPEAKER_01]: He's surprised by how strong it is, right? [SPEAKER_01]: He keeps talking about it. [SPEAKER_01]: Well, we now know that we have the weakest labor market since the great recession. [SPEAKER_01]: So if that is the case, how could the labor market be strong when it's objectively so weak? [SPEAKER_01]: So what that means is power was wrong. [SPEAKER_01]: He has no idea what he's talking about.

[SPEAKER_01]: I mean, maybe he based his entire opinion on the numbers that came out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics before they made the revisions. [SPEAKER_01]: Well, if all the Fed does is collect data that the government itself creates and it bases all of its opinions on this government data, what do we need to Fed for? [SPEAKER_01]: Why do we need all these high-priced employees? [SPEAKER_01]: Why do we need to build them a multi-a billion dollar headquarters?

[SPEAKER_01]: on bad data that they've spoon fed by the government, but the bottom line is the Fed and Powell were completely wrong in their characterization of the US labor market as being strong when we have one of the weakest labor markets in memory. [SPEAKER_01]: That's number one. [SPEAKER_01]: Number two, you have to ask yourself if the Fed was so wrong on the labor market. [SPEAKER_01]: What about inflation?

[SPEAKER_01]: Because at the same time, the Fed is assuring us that the labor market is strong. [SPEAKER_01]: They also assured us that inflation's contained, that it's headed back down to 2%. [SPEAKER_01]: That long-term inflation expectations are well anchored. [SPEAKER_01]: Well, clearly, [SPEAKER_01]: if the Fed was wrong on unemployment and they weren't just wrong. [SPEAKER_01]: They couldn't be more wrong, right? [SPEAKER_01]: They were as wrong as you can possibly be on the labor market.

[SPEAKER_01]: So why would they be any more accurate on inflation? [SPEAKER_01]: They won't be. [SPEAKER_01]: They are just as wrong on inflation in the opposite direction. [SPEAKER_01]: Inflation is much stronger than the Fed has claimed. [SPEAKER_01]: Whereas on employment, the labor market is much weaker. [SPEAKER_01]: And the markets are going to figure this out in the weeks and months ahead. [SPEAKER_01]: And in fact, the odds of a September rate cut shot up.

[SPEAKER_01]: And in fact, I think now the markets are looking for the Fed to cut rates every time they meet between now and the end of the year. [SPEAKER_01]: And maybe some more rate cuts. [SPEAKER_01]: next year. [SPEAKER_01]: But the problem is the fetus cutting into rising inflation and rising inflation pressures. [SPEAKER_01]: We have never seen this at least in modern times, right?

[SPEAKER_01]: Normally when the fetus cutting, [SPEAKER_01]: inflation pressures are not there, you know, the Fed was able to hide behind the fact that we were below their 2% target or pretty much right at it. [SPEAKER_01]: But this is going to be the first time that we're starting an easing cycle when inflation is above target and rising. [SPEAKER_01]: It's not just that it's above target, it's the trajectory.

[SPEAKER_01]: And if inflation is going up now, just imagine what's going to happen when the Fed starts cutting. [SPEAKER_01]: And it's not just the Fed cutting rates, it's the entire Trump fiscal policy, the deficits are exploding. [SPEAKER_01]: And as I've said, when the Fed does cut rates later in the month, I expect long term rates to rise.

[SPEAKER_01]: not fall rise because of the inflationary pressures that will be exerted by the cut and there's going to be a call for more QE in fact I heard earlier in the week I forget which of the Trump cronies talked about it. [SPEAKER_01]: Maybe it was Howard Ludnick and maybe it was Scott Besent. [SPEAKER_01]: I forget, but he said that Trump will soon declare a housing emergency. [SPEAKER_01]: Well, what's the housing emergency? [SPEAKER_01]: Housing prices are too high.

[SPEAKER_01]: Americans are too broke to buy [SPEAKER_01]: Let home prices drop, but that's not Trump solution. [SPEAKER_01]: He's got a socialist solution. [SPEAKER_01]: We're going to talk about that and a lot more stuff on the other side of this commercial break. [SPEAKER_01]: So stick around. [SPEAKER_01]: We're coming right back. [SPEAKER_01]: I've never been a nicotine user, but when Lucy said me a sample.

[SPEAKER_01]: Okay. [SPEAKER_01]: So. [SPEAKER_01]: Before the break, I started talking about this so-called housing emergency, and of course, you know, if we had a great economy, why would we have a housing emergency, part of the emergency has to do with how weak the economy is. [SPEAKER_01]: Again, you know, [SPEAKER_01]: If we had the worst economy in the world under Biden, and that economy is objectively worse now, we have a weaker labor market now than we did then.

[SPEAKER_01]: And inflation, even though it's lower than its peak, it is rising. [SPEAKER_01]: Remember, the worst year for inflation under Biden was his first year. [SPEAKER_01]: And that was, you know, a leftover from Trump. [SPEAKER_01]: more specifically the fed policy during COVID under Trump, which he endorsed and signed on him. [SPEAKER_01]: But that the worst year for inflation for Biden was his first year. [SPEAKER_01]: For Trump, the worst year will probably be his last.

[SPEAKER_01]: I think inflation is going to accelerate every year during the Trump presidency. [SPEAKER_01]: So instead of starting off with a high inflation and having a trend lower, he's going to start off with elevated inflation and have a trend higher. [SPEAKER_01]: you know, which is why that their Republicans are going to lose Congress during the midterms and lose the the White House in 2020-28.

[SPEAKER_01]: And the bigger problem there is a lot of the things that Trump is doing to you serve powers not authorized to the president by the Constitution to the extent that Congress and the courts allow him to get away with it.

[SPEAKER_01]: His successor, who is going to be a radical left wing socialist, will wield that weapon with much more danger and velocity than Trump. [SPEAKER_01]: So this is the problem with creating this slippery slope, all the Republicans who are happy to allow Trump to have all this extra power, even though he's doing harm with it himself.

[SPEAKER_01]: But because it's their guy, they're okay, they're not going to be able to say anything when it's the other team that has that club and they start using it in an even more destructive way than Trump did. [SPEAKER_01]: So there is a lot to be concerned about right now. [SPEAKER_01]: But I'll get to that maybe in another podcast. [SPEAKER_01]: There's a few things I wanted to discuss during today's podcast. [SPEAKER_01]: Housing prices are too high.

[SPEAKER_01]: Why are housing prices so high? [SPEAKER_01]: Because for a long time, the Fed kept interest rates at zero. [SPEAKER_01]: And so a lot of people were able to get really low mortgages, 3% mortgages, 4% mortgages, and because homes are bought not based on what the home cost, but based on the monthly payment, the lower the monthly payment, the more somebody can pay for house.

[SPEAKER_01]: now you have a problem where housing prices went way up, but then mortgage rates went way up and home prices never came back down to levels consistent with more expensive mortgages.

[SPEAKER_01]: Now, of course, that will happen eventually and that may create a housing emergency in that is going to create a bunch of defaults and a lot of people are going to walk away and [SPEAKER_01]: Now, some people are staying in their houses, only because they've already locked in a low mortgage rate. [SPEAKER_01]: So that's keeping some of this selling at bay. [SPEAKER_01]: But at some point, there are people that have to sell their houses for whatever reason.

[SPEAKER_01]: And if they have to slash the prices to do it, they may not have enough money to repay the mortgages. [SPEAKER_01]: And so this could have a cascading effect, you know, Trump is talking about how much money Bany of Freddie are making and he wants to privatize them. [SPEAKER_01]: Well, they're going to lose a fortune once housing prices drop. [SPEAKER_01]: And of course, all those losses are on the taxpayer, right?

[SPEAKER_01]: When these things go public, he talked again today about privatizing Fanny of Freddie. [SPEAKER_01]: But again, they're not being privatized. [SPEAKER_01]: They're only privatizing the profits. [SPEAKER_01]: They're socializing the losses to a [SPEAKER_01]: because in order to do the offering, they have to take that implicit guarantee and make it explicit.

[SPEAKER_01]: So Donald Trump will be doing something that even Franklin Roosevelt wouldn't do that even Lynd Johnson wouldn't do or Richard Nixon. [SPEAKER_01]: So Trump is far to the left of those presidents, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Some of the most liberal big government presidents we've ever had and Donald [SPEAKER_01]: He wants to do something, then even those guys were reckless enough and irresponsible enough to do.

[SPEAKER_01]: Now, I guess it's because they didn't have buddies that stand in the catch, stood the cash in on it. [SPEAKER_01]: So I mean, I think Trump is doing things that help his friends, not that help his country. [SPEAKER_01]: But again, I digress again, let me get back to the problem at hand. [SPEAKER_01]: So home prices would come down. [SPEAKER_01]: which would create a whole bunch of problems.

[SPEAKER_01]: But you know, that's what has to happen, because if housing prices are too high, the solution is for housing prices to go down, then people can afford to buy them. [SPEAKER_01]: People can afford to borrow money at higher rates if they don't have to borrow as much money. [SPEAKER_01]: Because again, it's the monthly payment. [SPEAKER_01]: So if I'm buying a $500,000 house with a 3% mortgage, if the house goes down to $250,000, maybe the payment is the same with a 6% or 7% mortgage.

[SPEAKER_01]: So I can swing it plus also the down payment is less because the purchase price is less. [SPEAKER_01]: So that is the solution. [SPEAKER_01]: But Trump doesn't like to free market. [SPEAKER_01]: So he wants to do something different.

[SPEAKER_01]: And I think what they're going to try to do with the Fed that they are trying to take over [SPEAKER_01]: is they want to lower the lending standards at Fannie and Freddie so that they can make even riskier loans than they've ever made with the full guarantee of the U.S. [SPEAKER_01]: government so they can unleash massive credit and they're probably going to make sure the federal reserve

[SPEAKER_01]: steps up a new QE program to buy all these risky mortgages that Fannie and Freddie secure ties just buy up all their bonds to prop it up and just flood the country with liquidity aimed at propping up the housing market but of course all of this is pure inflation it's a massive credit expansion and you're just going to accelerate the demise of the dollar [SPEAKER_01]: and the rise of gold.

[SPEAKER_01]: I did this debate on zero-hedge the other day, if I was yesterday, and Brett Johnson and I were, I guess we're debating, and he believes that the Trump administration's goal is to cement the dollar's role as the reserve currency, to make the dollar even more important and secure his position. [SPEAKER_01]: And I said, if that's the government's goal, [SPEAKER_01]: just like just about everything the government does, they're going to achieve the opposite.

[SPEAKER_01]: Everything that Trump has done is pushing the world away from the dollar. [SPEAKER_01]: That's why the dollar is going down. [SPEAKER_01]: That's why gold is going up. [SPEAKER_01]: That's why China and India and Russia have never had stronger relationships than the ones they have right now. [SPEAKER_01]: We are shooting ourselves again, not in the foot, but in the head. [SPEAKER_01]: We're also allowing China to make inroads, stronger inroads in our own sphere.

[SPEAKER_01]: They're making deals in South America with Canada, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Because we put big tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico. [SPEAKER_01]: And China, you know, China wants free trade, China wants to engage, and we want to, you know, build walls. [SPEAKER_01]: And so we are lessening the US's role in the economy and making the world less likely to want to retain the dollar as a reserve currency, not more. [SPEAKER_01]: But anyway, on the housing emergency.

[SPEAKER_01]: So all of this is inflationary. [SPEAKER_01]: All of this is going to drive up. [SPEAKER_01]: or drive, drive up gold and push down the dollar as we expand money supply. [SPEAKER_01]: Grace, the Fed is going to have to do QE because no one else is going to want to buy this stuff. [SPEAKER_01]: But also the other thing is the terrace. [SPEAKER_01]: I still think that the Supreme Court is more likely than not to strike down the terrace as unconstitutional.

[SPEAKER_01]: And the problem there is the Trump administration [SPEAKER_01]: that the U.S. [SPEAKER_01]: government is going to collect from these terrors. [SPEAKER_01]: And they've been saying that, look, you don't have to worry about the massive deficits that were created by the big beautiful bill, because they're going to be at least partially offset by the trillions of dollars of tariff revenue. [SPEAKER_01]: So you don't really have to worry, right?

[SPEAKER_01]: Well, I never believed that the government was going to collect anywhere near that much money. [SPEAKER_01]: And to the extent that it collected any money, it was going to collect it from Americans.

[SPEAKER_01]: If the court strikes these tariffs down and not only does the U.S. [SPEAKER_01]: government not get future tariffs revenue, but it's got a return, the revenue it's already collected, I think that is going to be a big negative because our creditors are now going to be saying, OK, so now what? [SPEAKER_01]: you ran up the deficits with the big beautiful bill by cutting taxes and growing government spending, the opposite of what you should have done.

[SPEAKER_01]: And now the one thing that you said was going to offset some of the damage is gone. [SPEAKER_01]: Now what? [SPEAKER_01]: We got, you know, and so that's going to put even more downward pressure on dollar and upward pressure on long-term interest rate. [SPEAKER_01]: everybody is banking on the feds ability to bring down mortgage rates. [SPEAKER_01]: Well, mortgage rates are a function of the log in.

[SPEAKER_01]: Now, maybe what Trump's plan might be would be to encourage more Americans to take on adjustable rate mortgages. [SPEAKER_01]: Because they are, if they get like a one year or two year or three year arm, they'll be able to qualify. [SPEAKER_01]: And maybe with these relapsed bany and Freddie standards, they may say, okay, as long as you can [SPEAKER_01]: will approve you, right?

[SPEAKER_01]: So as long as you can handle the really, really low interest rates that you get right now, the government's going to guarantee your mortgage, even though it's obvious that if interest rates ever rise, you have no chance of ever paying your mortgage and it's going to go into the fall, we don't care, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Because the Trump administration is not trying to do what's good for the economy in the long run.

[SPEAKER_01]: They're just trying to make it look good in the short run. [SPEAKER_01]: All they want is to blow more air in the bubble, right? [SPEAKER_01]: And I guess Trump is hoping that he gets out of Dodge again. [SPEAKER_01]: And you know, I think he pressed his luck too much. [SPEAKER_01]: I think he would have been better off. [SPEAKER_01]: Had he just retired after one term that he could have claimed was a success.

[SPEAKER_01]: And then sat back and allowed the whole thing to collapse on somebody else's watch. [SPEAKER_01]: I think that, you know, Biden got lucky, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Biden was able to sleep through four years in the White House without a major crisis.

[SPEAKER_01]: uh... and now trump comes back in and everything is going to blow up and of course it's not just trump that's going to get the blame it's going to be the republican party and everything that the republican party supposedly stands for even though most of what trump is doing is not what the republican party stood for until dollar trump became president and then once he did and became popular then a lot of people just sold their soul and hopped on the trump train and so now it's going to be a trump train wreck

[SPEAKER_01]: And, you know, these Republicans are going to have no credibility. [SPEAKER_01]: Let me get to what happened though in the goal market. [SPEAKER_01]: And gold hit 3600 today for the first time ever. [SPEAKER_01]: Price and gold was up 4% on the week. [SPEAKER_01]: It's now up 37% on the year, 37% for the price and gold. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, I've been doing my best to get my audience to buy gold by silver. [SPEAKER_01]: Silver was only up 2.8% on the week.

[SPEAKER_01]: I say, only, that's still a big week. [SPEAKER_01]: Silver closed the week. [SPEAKER_01]: Just about $41 or just over $41. [SPEAKER_01]: Gold didn't hold $3600. [SPEAKER_01]: It closed, I think, around $35.90. [SPEAKER_01]: You know, traders tend to look at these round numbers, [SPEAKER_01]: and take profits.

[SPEAKER_01]: I wouldn't be surprised if on Monday morning when the US resumes trading, we gap up into price of gold, well beyond 3600, which is why you shouldn't wait till Monday to buy your gold. [SPEAKER_01]: In fact, don't even wait till the end of this podcast. [SPEAKER_01]: If you are listening to me or watching this on YouTube, [SPEAKER_01]: pause. [SPEAKER_01]: Just plus pause. [SPEAKER_01]: Don't worry. [SPEAKER_01]: I'll still be here. [SPEAKER_01]: Just pause it.

[SPEAKER_01]: Then go to shift gold and buy some gold right now and buy some silver. [SPEAKER_01]: Don't wait. [SPEAKER_01]: Don't wait for me to finish the podcast. [SPEAKER_01]: This is too important. [SPEAKER_01]: Put it on pause.

[SPEAKER_01]: go buy some golden silver chip gold dot com and when you're finished buying it then come back and watch the rest of the podcast that's how important it is right i want to make sure that that people i get a board this train right i like the trump train that's going to end in a wreck this one is got a long way uh... to go um... again forty forty one percent year-to-day gains uh... in gold

[SPEAKER_01]: Look at the gold mining stocks. [SPEAKER_01]: The GDX has now officially doubled, doubled on the year. [SPEAKER_01]: So basically we're through a what? [SPEAKER_01]: A six eight months of the year, right? [SPEAKER_01]: And we've had a doubling of the GDX. [SPEAKER_01]: Double.

[SPEAKER_01]: I remember in April, I put out the special report, the best way to buy gold and I was you know, basically begging my gold customers not to buy gold because I said, you take that money and buy these gold stock because I never seen them this cheap in my life. [SPEAKER_01]: relative to the price of gold. [SPEAKER_01]: So I said, below ground gold was such a bargain, you have to buy it rather than the above ground variety.

[SPEAKER_01]: But I also saw the greatest combination of fundamentals that I'd ever seen for the price of gold. [SPEAKER_01]: And I expect an explosion last year was to break out 2024 when gold broke above 2000 and moved up above 3000. [SPEAKER_01]: But I think this move is going to mirror at a minimum to move from 2001 to 2011, where the price of gold was up sixfold. [SPEAKER_01]: So if you take sixfold from 2000, that's $12,000 gold, right?

[SPEAKER_01]: We're barely a third of the way to $12,000 or fourth of the way to $12,000 gold right now. [SPEAKER_01]: We are so much closer to the bottom than we are at the top. [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I really wanted you guys to buy [SPEAKER_01]: closer to 2000, but at the care, you got to buy it now. [SPEAKER_01]: Same day was silver. [SPEAKER_01]: I was telling everybody 30 was the floor. [SPEAKER_01]: You got to buy $30 silver. [SPEAKER_01]: There was minimal downside risk.

[SPEAKER_01]: We barely ever went below it after I said that. [SPEAKER_01]: And now we're buying $40 silver, $41 silver. [SPEAKER_01]: The problem is, and I'm talking to the guys that shift gold, and I've talked to people I know at other [SPEAKER_01]: people just don't want to buy the high. [SPEAKER_01]: Well, you know what? [SPEAKER_01]: You got to get used to buying the high. [SPEAKER_01]: If you don't buy the high, you're not buying gold and silver.

[SPEAKER_01]: You got to buy the high because we're going higher. [SPEAKER_01]: And the longer you wait to buy the high, the higher the higher you're going to buy. [SPEAKER_01]: So you might as well buy it now. [SPEAKER_01]: because if you wait, you're just going to pay a higher price. [SPEAKER_01]: That doesn't mean you're never going to get it down day or down week. [SPEAKER_01]: But it's not worth waiting.

[SPEAKER_01]: You've got to just read the writing on the wall here and recognize the historic nature of what is going on. [SPEAKER_01]: In fact, even bouquets. [SPEAKER_01]: of El Salvador, right, the Bitcoin guy just announced that he bought $50 million worth of gold for El Salvador, right? [SPEAKER_01]: He was poo poo and gold a few years ago when he was buying Bitcoin. [SPEAKER_01]: Now instead of buying more Bitcoin, he bought $50 million worth of gold. [SPEAKER_01]: Congratulations.

[SPEAKER_01]: I'm glad to see that. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, if he could just sell his Bitcoin and buy even more gold, that would even be a better deal. [SPEAKER_01]: By the way, Bitcoin was barely up today, you know, in the face of the big move up a gold. [SPEAKER_01]: In fact, here today, Bitcoin is only up about 18%. [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, that's not bad, 18%, but goals up 37%, Bitcoin's supposed to be up a lot more than goal. [SPEAKER_01]: This supposed to be a turbocharged version.

[SPEAKER_01]: It's supposed to be gold on steroids, right? [SPEAKER_01]: But it's only up. [SPEAKER_01]: And you know, it can easily finish the year negative. [SPEAKER_01]: But the more important statistic on Bitcoin, again, Bitcoin is 15% lower today. [SPEAKER_01]: then it was at its peak priced in gold in 2021. [SPEAKER_01]: That's almost four years ago, four years of 15% decline. [SPEAKER_01]: We're almost in a bear market in the gold price of Bitcoin.

[SPEAKER_01]: This, despite all the Bitcoin ETFs, buying up all this Bitcoin, they didn't exist four years ago. [SPEAKER_01]: The NFT craze hadn't hit yet all the Super Bowl ads, all the celebrity endorsements. [SPEAKER_01]: We didn't have all these Bitcoin treasury companies. [SPEAKER_01]: Micro strategy hadn't loaded up on all this Bitcoin tens of billions of dollars were the Bitcoin and now all the copycat. [SPEAKER_01]: Bitcoin Treasury companies didn't exist.

[SPEAKER_01]: We didn't have the Bitcoin president, right? [SPEAKER_01]: We didn't have the strategic Bitcoin reserve. [SPEAKER_01]: We didn't have the Bitcoin's R, right? [SPEAKER_01]: So none of this existed four years ago, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Get the spite all this

[SPEAKER_01]: Bitcoin is down 15% against gold and these holders are oblivious to all of this. [SPEAKER_01]: They just look back to the very beginning of Bitcoin and talk about how much it's up and they don't look at what's been happening over the last four years and question why. [SPEAKER_01]: Gold has this huge move. [SPEAKER_01]: It's doing exactly what you would expect it to do. [SPEAKER_01]: in the face of a fed that's about the ease into rising inflation.

[SPEAKER_01]: But why isn't Bitcoin doing that? [SPEAKER_01]: Why is Bitcoin behaving differently? [SPEAKER_01]: Why is it following risk assets and not gold if it's digital gold?

[SPEAKER_01]: But people are so wedded to this cult. [SPEAKER_01]: that they don't even bother to question their own beliefs. [SPEAKER_01]: They just assume, as long as they hold or forever, they'll make it to the Promised Land, right? [SPEAKER_01]: They've believed the Messiah, they just gotta have faith and they have to ignore all of the other realities that would cast doubt.

[SPEAKER_01]: But I don't know what, you know, why Boone Kelly decided to buy some gold, maybe he started to lose a little confidence because he obviously could have bought more Bitcoin, but he didn't do that. [SPEAKER_01]: So good for him, right, for coming over to the to the right side.

[SPEAKER_01]: But I think the biggest thing, and I'm going to make this point right now, I think the biggest threat now to the dollar, [SPEAKER_01]: And one of the reasons that I think the price of goal could go ballistic is because I think there is a good chance that the Supreme Court is going to side with Donald Trump. [SPEAKER_01]: in his ability to fire at least a cook, a fed governor.

[SPEAKER_01]: Now, the only way that the court can really come to that determination, it's not going to be to rule that based on having an independent fed where the governors serve with [SPEAKER_01]: unless there is a legitimate cause, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Not just because they feel that they have a cause, but there is a demonstrable legitimate cause and cause generally has to do with something you've done on the job, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Something, a dereliction of duty, right?

[SPEAKER_01]: Not something that was dug up in your past. [SPEAKER_01]: Because they went on a, you know, on a fishing expedition, looking for dirt, right, and they finally dug something up and they thought, huh, you, you, you, you, you, you, you lie down on a mortgage application, right, the only way I think that the Supreme Court could approve this is if they actually rule on the independence of the Fed.

[SPEAKER_01]: and they rule that a truly independent fed is unconstitutional, which I believe it is. [SPEAKER_01]: I never believed that the Federal Reserve Act would hold up to constitutional scrutiny, but it was never really challenged. [SPEAKER_01]: But I don't think that the creation of what really amounts to a banking cartel that has a monopoly on issuing these federal reserve notes, which you're then going to be legal tender. [SPEAKER_01]: I don't think [SPEAKER_01]: It's authorized.

[SPEAKER_01]: I mean, the Constitution has three branches of government, not four, right? [SPEAKER_01]: The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the government, right? [SPEAKER_01]: You have the judicial bench, you have the executive, and you have the legislative. [SPEAKER_01]: So if the Fed really exists independent of any oversight, it would effectively be it, I may be another branch of government, but there's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes this.

[SPEAKER_01]: The only way that fetus constitutional is if it's subject to the oversight of some elected official, like the president of the United States. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, the president of the United States is allowed to nominate the FOMC members. [SPEAKER_01]: So why can't he fire them? [SPEAKER_01]: He gets to pick them. [SPEAKER_01]: Why can't he get rid of them? [SPEAKER_01]: The court might rule that inherent in that power.

[SPEAKER_01]: the power to nominate is the power to terminate because there's nothing in the constitution that says that we should have an independent Fed. [SPEAKER_01]: And I think that justices might say that would be against the Constitution to have such an entity.

[SPEAKER_01]: So I think what the Supreme Court might do is actually strike down the concept that the Federal Reserve is independent.

[SPEAKER_01]: and make it clear that all the FOMC members serve at the pleasure of the president and the president can fire whoever he wants for whatever cause he believes justifies the firing because he was elected president, he's got the power that people trust his judgment and therefore if he believes that a FOMC member for whatever reason is not fit for the job then he can remove them. [SPEAKER_01]: Because that will destroy Fed independence.

[SPEAKER_01]: Now, yes, if Trump wants to nominate a replacement, FOMC member, the Senate is going to have to approve the nomination. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, the Senate might, right, the Republicans might. [SPEAKER_01]: But even if there aren't enough Republicans who want to play ball, with what the president is doing, he doesn't need replacement nominees. [SPEAKER_01]: they can still convene and rule.

[SPEAKER_01]: So as long as Trump gets rid of enough just enough board members, who oppose what he wants to do so that his guys or gals are in the majority, then even if they're

[SPEAKER_01]: aren't enough so he can fire every single FOMC member until the majority that remains will do what he wants because the policy is made based on majority vote right so if there's only three FOMC members left it's two two out of three wins right so but this is going to show the world that there is no independent federal reserve

[SPEAKER_01]: And we've been touting the independence of the Federal Reserve for a long time as this is why you should trust the dollar. [SPEAKER_01]: This is why you should trust our monetary policy because the Fed is independent. [SPEAKER_01]: It's above politics.

[SPEAKER_01]: But if that's not the case, if it's completely political, if the president effectively controls the Fed, meaning that when we elect a new president, [SPEAKER_01]: that the most powerful job in the country is Chairman of the Federal Reserve. [SPEAKER_01]: Well, how can the most powerful position in the government, right, be for an official that's not even authorized by our Constitution? [SPEAKER_01]: I think it will be very easy for the Supreme Court.

[SPEAKER_01]: to declare the whole thing on constitutional now I don't think they're going to wipe out the Fed completely I think they're just going to say in order for the Federal Reserve to be in conformity with the Constitution it must be accountable to the president of the United States must be accountable to the Congress it can't be some independent authority that exists on its own to do whatever it wants right I think that that is [SPEAKER_01]: what they're likely to rule.

[SPEAKER_01]: And that's going to send shockwaves throughout the global economy, financial market, because now people are going to realize that it's going to be debt monetization, right? [SPEAKER_01]: There is no independent check that's going to force Congress or the president to ever act fiscal irresponsible. [SPEAKER_01]: Why should they? [SPEAKER_01]: Once they control the Fed and they have the printing press, why should they ever cut spending, right?

[SPEAKER_01]: Just print whatever they need, they'll keep interest rates [SPEAKER_01]: and this is a huge risk that nobody is talking about the loss of independence and of course what I don't expect the Supreme Court to do is recognize why the Fed was independent because it's not a government agency that's the lie the Fed reserve is a private banking cartel [SPEAKER_01]: The member banks are not owned by the government, they're not part of the government.

[SPEAKER_01]: Even the federal open market committee, even though they're appointed, the members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they are appointed to roles outside the government. [SPEAKER_01]: And once they are appointed, they are not accountable, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Once you appoint them to their 12 month, 12 year term, they do whatever they want.

[SPEAKER_01]: You can't say, I don't like your decisions, for cause doesn't mean because you don't like their monetary policy, if you could just get rid of them because you didn't like their monetary policy, there would be no point of a 12-year term. [SPEAKER_01]: The whole point of a 12-year term is so you can't get rid of them. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, obviously, if there's a real legitimate reason that has nothing to do with their policy decisions, then yes.

[SPEAKER_01]: And you can't concoct a reason if it's obvious that the reason is you disagree with their policy decisions. [SPEAKER_01]: And so you go looking for dirt, then that doesn't count, right? [SPEAKER_01]: You can sense obvious what you're trying to do. [SPEAKER_01]: You're trying to remove somebody for their policy choices, which you have no authority to do, and you're trying to use this phony, you know, mortgage thing as a way to do it.

[SPEAKER_01]: But again, the reason that the Fed is independent, and this is not [SPEAKER_01]: is that what the Federal Reserve does, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Issuing paper money is something that the US government has no constitutional authority to do. [SPEAKER_01]: That's why it didn't do it. [SPEAKER_01]: That's why it created the Fed. [SPEAKER_01]: It created the Fed to do something that it could not do itself. [SPEAKER_01]: Why?

[SPEAKER_01]: Because the monetary powers of the Federal Reserve are created in Article I, a Section 8. [SPEAKER_01]: And in Article I, Section 8, the Federal Government is given the power to coin money and regulate its value, coin money. [SPEAKER_01]: That's it. [SPEAKER_01]: What does coining money mean? [SPEAKER_01]: Well, it means taking money and making a coin out of it, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Not a paper bill, a coin. [SPEAKER_01]: And what is money?

[SPEAKER_01]: Well, money is defined in the Constitution as gold and silver. [SPEAKER_01]: How do you know this? [SPEAKER_01]: Because article one section 10 says no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin legal tender. [SPEAKER_01]: Okay, so that's money, golden silver coins, that's legal tender, nothing else, that's all the Constitution.

[SPEAKER_01]: Now somebody might say, well, that says no state can make anything other than golden silver, doesn't say the federal government, but doesn't have to, because the way the Constitution is written, the federal government can only do what Congress, what the Constitution authorizes it to do. [SPEAKER_01]: The states can do whatever they want as long as the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. [SPEAKER_01]: That's why the Constitution says no state shall coin money or emit bills of credit.

[SPEAKER_01]: Right. [SPEAKER_01]: So states can't make their own money and they can't admit bills of credit. [SPEAKER_01]: What's a bill of credit? [SPEAKER_01]: That's paper money. [SPEAKER_01]: Right. [SPEAKER_01]: So the states are banned from printing paper money. [SPEAKER_01]: But the federal government is only authorized to coin money. [SPEAKER_01]: It is not authorized to admit bills of credit.

[SPEAKER_01]: And in fact, the earlier drafts of the Constitution, and you can see this in the Elliott debates, the earliest draft. [SPEAKER_01]: said, said, Congress shall coin money and emit bills of credit and by a vote of nine to two, they removed emit bills of credit. [SPEAKER_01]: So it wasn't an oversight. [SPEAKER_01]: They deliberated allowing the federal government to issue paper money and then they decided, no way, we don't want to allow it.

[SPEAKER_01]: We had a bad experience with a continental, we don't want any paper [SPEAKER_01]: Right, so it would never exist, at least not from the government. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, private banks, they were allowed to emit bills of credit all they wanted, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Private banks could issue bank notes and they did issue bank notes. [SPEAKER_01]: And that's why we ended up getting a central bank. [SPEAKER_01]: And the Federal Reserve was basically there to read this count.

[SPEAKER_01]: Commercial paper issued by other banks, you know, [SPEAKER_01]: behind why people thought having a central bank was a good idea. [SPEAKER_01]: But the fact of the matter is it had to be private. [SPEAKER_01]: It couldn't be part of the government because then it would be unconstitutional. [SPEAKER_01]: So it had to be this separate thing. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, in my opinion, the way they went about creating it, I think that's unconstitutional too.

[SPEAKER_01]: And that's what I think the current Supreme Court is going to rule that this set up [SPEAKER_01]: right of this independent Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and it has to be part of the government, but it's not. [SPEAKER_01]: And in fact, all these people keep referring to the Federal Reserve as a government agency. [SPEAKER_01]: It's not a government agency.

[SPEAKER_01]: Look, I talked about the letters I received back in the 1980s from Alan Greenspan when I wrote him a couple of letters back then. [SPEAKER_01]: I was just [SPEAKER_01]: And so I wrote him some letters and I used his own words against him. [SPEAKER_01]: I quoted him to him from, you know, his essay capital that, you know, the, the, about gold that was in Iran's book Capital is in the unknown ideal. [SPEAKER_01]: And this was right after the, in 1987 stock market crash.

[SPEAKER_01]: And so I didn't like, you know, the money he was printing to try to, you know, prop everything up. [SPEAKER_01]: And so he wrote me back a couple of letters, which I still have. [SPEAKER_01]: But anyway, um, [SPEAKER_01]: And those letters had stamps on them, right? [SPEAKER_01]: When you get a letter from a government agency, they don't pay postage, right? [SPEAKER_01]: It gets franked. [SPEAKER_01]: Right?

[SPEAKER_01]: So any official government letters that you receive, the government doesn't charge itself money, right? [SPEAKER_01]: It's the government owns the post office. [SPEAKER_01]: So the government doesn't pay itself. [SPEAKER_01]: It just sends out the mail. [SPEAKER_01]: But when the Federal Reserve Chairman sends out a letter, he has to buy a stamp. [SPEAKER_01]: Why? [SPEAKER_01]: Because he's not part of the government.

[SPEAKER_01]: That's why if it was part of the government, why is he buying a stamp? [SPEAKER_01]: Right? [SPEAKER_01]: So it is separate. [SPEAKER_01]: But it was separate for a reason. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, people might say, well, there were some legal tender cases, some Supreme Court cases that said paper money was constitutional. [SPEAKER_01]: Not really. [SPEAKER_01]: Here's what happened. [SPEAKER_01]: And I don't want to go over all the case sightings. [SPEAKER_01]: You can look them up.

[SPEAKER_01]: I forget them off the top. [SPEAKER_01]: You know, Knox versus Reed Lee, Hepburn versus Griswell, I forget them all. [SPEAKER_01]: You know, my dad went over all these with me years and years ago. [SPEAKER_01]: And I didn't look them all up before I did this podcast. [SPEAKER_01]: But paper, the US government did issue paper money during the war. [SPEAKER_01]: They're in the civil war. [SPEAKER_01]: And they called, they were the greenbacks.

[SPEAKER_01]: And [SPEAKER_01]: there was a constitutional challenge to the government issuing bringbacks, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Cause obviously, it can't do it. [SPEAKER_01]: And the Supreme Court ended up upholding the Constitutionality of the Greenback. [SPEAKER_01]: But in doing so, it did not look to the monetary part of the Constitution. [SPEAKER_01]: It didn't say that coin money, [SPEAKER_01]: includes issuing paper money. [SPEAKER_01]: It knew that wasn't the case, right?

[SPEAKER_01]: So it didn't even bother to look to that section. [SPEAKER_01]: Instead, it looked at the necessary proper section and said, look, it was an emergency. [SPEAKER_01]: We were in the middle of a civil war. [SPEAKER_01]: And because of this emergency, [SPEAKER_01]: The government could do in a wartime emergency what the Constitution would not authorize in peacetime. [SPEAKER_01]: So that first case only agreed that the government could directly print money.

[SPEAKER_01]: as a wartime emergency, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Not like it could just do it under normal, you know, peacetime conditions. [SPEAKER_01]: So it was an emergency, war power only. [SPEAKER_01]: It was like, hey, if we didn't win the war, the whole country was gone, right? [SPEAKER_01]: It was, so why can't the government do this as an emergency?

[SPEAKER_01]: You know, kind of like, you know, [SPEAKER_01]: they can put troops in your house, you know, they need something for a more army or stuff like whatever, there's sometimes in emergencies, they come and hear something, they can take your property, they can use it for the war.

[SPEAKER_01]: So if they can do that, they can certainly take your property and give you paper money, right? [SPEAKER_01]: That was it. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, the paper money was redeemable and golden silver. [SPEAKER_01]: It wasn't like fiat. [SPEAKER_01]: It was paper money that was eventually redeemable, right? [SPEAKER_01]: And in gold [SPEAKER_01]: the notes that they issued had a maturity date. [SPEAKER_01]: And a lot of these notes matured.

[SPEAKER_01]: And so the government reissued them, right? [SPEAKER_01]: The war is over. [SPEAKER_01]: And the government reissued these notes. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, somebody else challenged it and said, wait a minute, the war is over. [SPEAKER_01]: The Supreme Court said that you can only issue these notes during a wartime emergency, we're now at peace, what the hell you're doing? [SPEAKER_01]: You can't do this.

[SPEAKER_01]: And the Supreme Court said, well, because the notes were originally issued during the war, they could be reassured when they mature. [SPEAKER_01]: Like the government doesn't, you know, can keep rolling these things over because they already exist. [SPEAKER_01]: So the ones that already exist that were created during a war, make they could stay, right? [SPEAKER_01]: So now the court ruled that.

[SPEAKER_01]: Now if you try to say that paper money is on constitutional, that's the case they point to, right? [SPEAKER_01]: was that paper money, redeemable and gold, issued during a war, can be re-issued after the war. [SPEAKER_01]: There has never been a Supreme Court case that has said the federal government can issue irreduable paper money, right? [SPEAKER_01]: Paper money backed by nothing. [SPEAKER_01]: during peace time right? [SPEAKER_01]: It's never happened.

[SPEAKER_01]: Now, I don't expect the current court to recognize this and declare any paper money on constitutional and force us to go back to the gold standard that we had before the Federal Reserve. [SPEAKER_01]: They're not going to do that. [SPEAKER_01]: They're not going to disrupt all of that. [SPEAKER_01]: But I do think they are willing to disrupt to help Trump.

[SPEAKER_01]: I think they will disrupt the concept of Fed independence and say that the Fed needs to be part of the government, which totally destroys the purpose that it wasn't because had they tried to make the Federal Reserve part of the government initially, the act never would have passed. [SPEAKER_01]: And it wouldn't have been held unconstitutional, obviously, because the government doesn't have the power to do this. [SPEAKER_01]: So they had a crate this private bank.

[SPEAKER_01]: So it could do. [SPEAKER_01]: It had no authority to do because private banks are allowed to issue credit. [SPEAKER_01]: They're allowed to issue bills of credit. [SPEAKER_01]: In fact, before the federal reserve, there were bank notes that circulated from all kinds of banks that people used as currency that were backed by gold. [SPEAKER_01]: You know, the idea was just to centralize that. [SPEAKER_01]: So there was one note.

[SPEAKER_01]: So instead of, you know, people walking around in their wallet with notes from different banks, let's say I took the train [SPEAKER_01]: And I wanted to buy something, and I had a note from a bank in New Jersey, what if the guy in California never heard of that bank? [SPEAKER_01]: How do I know that's legitimate? [SPEAKER_01]: So the idea was that when I got a note from a bank in New Jersey, I would give it to the Federal Reserve.

[SPEAKER_01]: They would take that note and issue a Federal Reserve note that was backed by that note plus gold, 40% gold, and now I'd have a Federal Reserve note. [SPEAKER_01]: So when I went out the California with my Federal Reserve note, everybody recognized it. [SPEAKER_01]: Right? [SPEAKER_01]: That was the whole idea. [SPEAKER_01]: But all of this was private. [SPEAKER_01]: You know, another idea behind the Federal Reserve was to create an elastic money supply.

[SPEAKER_01]: That was like an important thing. [SPEAKER_01]: And what an elastic money supply meant was that when the economy expanded, the Fed could expand the money supply. [SPEAKER_01]: But when the economy contracted, the Fed would contract the money supply. [SPEAKER_01]: Now, that is the opposite of what they do now. [SPEAKER_01]: See what the Fed does now is when the economy is expanding, they expand the money supply.

[SPEAKER_01]: But then when the economy contracts, and we have recession, they expand it even faster. [SPEAKER_01]: So that hair-brain scheme had they talked about that, you know, when they were passed at the Federal Reserve, nobody would have voted for it, right? [SPEAKER_01]: because that would have just been inflation. [SPEAKER_01]: And also again, remember, the original Federal Reserve was not even allowed to buy US treasuries.

[SPEAKER_01]: That's part, if it was a government agency, obviously it could buy US treasuries. [SPEAKER_01]: It was banned, it couldn't buy him, it couldn't have him on his balance sheet, right? [SPEAKER_01]: I don't even think they would have passed the Federal Reserve Act had in its original form.

[SPEAKER_01]: it been allowed to own treasuries, because people would have seen through that and said, wait a minute, wait a minute, this could be too cozier relationship, if to Fed can buy treasuries, you know, they can kind of monetize debt, well, have too much debt. [SPEAKER_01]: So no, they probably wouldn't have passed it. [SPEAKER_01]: That is the example of the camel's nose under the tent, right?

[SPEAKER_01]: The slippery [SPEAKER_01]: Because once they get that inch, they're going to take a mile, right? [SPEAKER_01]: So we did a lot of damage by opening the window. [SPEAKER_01]: That's why, you know, this bank should have been shut down. [SPEAKER_01]: But the problem is where we are now having Congress or the president controlling the paper money supply is worse than having the Fed do it. [SPEAKER_01]: And you know, people think, hey, Peter, why are you defending the Fed?

[SPEAKER_01]: I'm not defending the Fed. [SPEAKER_01]: I'm the Fed's biggest critic. [SPEAKER_01]: I just think it'll be even worse when it's being controlled by the president, right? [SPEAKER_01]: As bad as the Fed has been, when it had a modicum of independence, imagine how worse it's going to be when it has none. [SPEAKER_01]: But this is the threat that is looming on the horizon. [SPEAKER_01]: This is one of the reasons that I am just super bullish.

[SPEAKER_01]: on on gold and silver and incredibly bearish on the US dollar. [SPEAKER_01]: The dollar index closed. [SPEAKER_01]: I think at 97.7. [SPEAKER_01]: You know, I think there's the weakest clothes of the year for the dollar index. [SPEAKER_01]: Look, it's going a lot lower. [SPEAKER_01]: But nobody is talking about this yet. [SPEAKER_01]: They will once the Supreme Court rules, right? [SPEAKER_01]: But nobody is really talking about it now.

[SPEAKER_01]: Other than me, I haven't heard anybody else [SPEAKER_01]: I think the Supreme Court is right that the current fed as constructed was unconstitutional, but what they are going to create is going to be even more unconstitutional than what they strike down, but they're not going to get that, right? [SPEAKER_01]: They're not going to go far enough. [SPEAKER_01]: And so the small right is going to lead to a greater wrong. [SPEAKER_01]: And that's why you got to load up.

[SPEAKER_01]: So as I said, go to shift gold. [SPEAKER_01]: buy your gold and silver this weekend. [SPEAKER_01]: My gold fund, you know, gold stocks doubling on the year. [SPEAKER_01]: Look, you know, it's still early. [SPEAKER_01]: I think I think, you know, they're going to double and double. [SPEAKER_01]: And double again. [SPEAKER_01]: So nobody's talking about it. [SPEAKER_01]: I watched the financial markets.

[SPEAKER_01]: You know, they mentioned gold once a while, but there's no enthusiasm. [SPEAKER_01]: They still talk more about Bitcoin. [SPEAKER_01]: They gold, even though Bitcoin is not what not going up in gold is. [SPEAKER_01]: And these gold stocks are making nothing [SPEAKER_01]: You know, it's still early. [SPEAKER_01]: So my goal fund, your Pacific goal fund, EPG, I actually forgot I got the symbol right that time, but that is the no load version.

[SPEAKER_01]: You could buy that at any discount broker, the your Pacific goal fund. [SPEAKER_01]: If you don't have a discount broker, you count.

[SPEAKER_01]: You know, you can call up our advisors or you can just go directly to the website, europack.com, and you can just buy the music by my fund right off my website, or you can call up the representatives at your Pacific acid management and set up a separately managed account, where we'll manage a portfolio of gold stocks, but also not just gold stocks, international stocks, foreign stocks, again, had a much better day today, going off, especially with the weak dollar in the face of a weakening US stock market.

[SPEAKER_01]: You know, the world is divesting of US stocks, the central banks are divesting of US dollars. [SPEAKER_01]: And this is going to accelerate once the Supreme Court destroys even the pretence of an independent Fed. [SPEAKER_01]: In the meantime, make sure and go to shift sovereign.

[SPEAKER_01]: If you haven't already signed up for our newsletter, go to shift sovereign. [SPEAKER_01]: Oh, and also, if you're not a subscriber to the shift gold, [SPEAKER_01]: YouTube channel. [SPEAKER_01]: I will be doing probably not today, but I will be doing a lot of separate Friday updates specific to the gold market on Fridays, maybe where we don't get a jobs report. [SPEAKER_01]: But make sure and go over to my YouTube channel for shift gold and subscribe separately.

[SPEAKER_01]: Because we only have about 18,000 subscribers there. [SPEAKER_01]: We have close to 600,000 here. [SPEAKER_01]: Uh, so a lot of you who aren't subscribed to the ship, gold YouTube channel need to go over there and subscribe me while have a great weekend everybody and if you're not subscribing to this YouTube channel, make sure and subscribe to that too.

[SPEAKER_01]: If you're listening on YouTube and if you're not, go to YouTube and sign up because I still haven't cracked through that 600 1000 subscriber barrier. [SPEAKER_01]: Bye for now.