Charlie Kirk Was Right - Ep 1041

[SPEAKER_00]: Make no friends in the pits and you take no prisoners. [SPEAKER_00]: One minute, you're up to a minute and soybeans and the next bull. [SPEAKER_00]: Your kids don't go to college and they've registered mentally with me. [SPEAKER_01]: The revolutions start now, staunch. [SPEAKER_02]: We have to pass the bills so that you can find out what is in it. [SPEAKER_02]: Turn those machines back off! [SPEAKER_01]: You are about to enter the Peter-Shift Show.

[SPEAKER_01]: If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. [SPEAKER_01]: This is the last stand on Earth. [SPEAKER_01]: The Peter ship shall resign. [SPEAKER_01]: I don't know when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness. [SPEAKER_01]: Your money. [SPEAKER_01]: Your stories. [SPEAKER_01]: Your freedom. [SPEAKER_01]: The Peter ship shall.

[SPEAKER_00]: Welcome everybody, so earlier this morning, we got the release of the highly anticipated August consumer price data and the reason that it's been so highly anticipated is because everybody is now betting on

[SPEAKER_00]: rate cuts starting next week and a benign CPI report was the last obstacle. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, maybe if this thing came out way hotter than expected, somehow it may have rained on the rate cut parade. [SPEAKER_00]: So everybody was anticipating eagerly this release just to make sure that the rate cut

[SPEAKER_00]: And we got the number, and it actually was slightly worse than expected, but not enough worse to to rain on the parade. [SPEAKER_00]: The forecast was for an increase of 0.3. [SPEAKER_00]: That's the headline number. [SPEAKER_00]: The actual increase was 0.4. [SPEAKER_00]: So one tenth hotter. [SPEAKER_00]: The rest of the report was in line with the year over year CPI up 2.9, but of course that's hotter than the 2.7 in the rear view mirror for the prior month.

[SPEAKER_00]: X food and energy month over month, 0.3 increase matches the prior month and as expected. [SPEAKER_00]: And year over year core 3.1 and that's what was expected and that's what we got last last month. [SPEAKER_00]: If the Fed is being honest about its 2% inflation target, they're clearly well above it. [SPEAKER_00]: They're more above their target than they ever were below. [SPEAKER_00]: If you look at when the Fed was doing QE with 0% interest rates, because they were below 2%.

[SPEAKER_00]: They were below it by less than they are above it now. [SPEAKER_00]: Yet now apparently, it doesn't matter, even though they're further away from the target [SPEAKER_00]: Now, if you analyze 0.4, that's 5% inflation, 5% some big number, shouldn't the Fed be afraid that maybe this 5% is going to turn into 6% instead of 2% plus it's the CPI. [SPEAKER_00]: It's not accurate.

[SPEAKER_00]: You know, I'm finally hearing in the mainstream media. [SPEAKER_00]: a lot of talk now about hey, maybe the data we're getting from the government on labor on jobs, maybe it's not accurate. [SPEAKER_00]: All these revisions that I'm going to get to that, but the number is unreliable. [SPEAKER_00]: They're saying maybe the labor market is actually weaker than the data suggests. [SPEAKER_00]: Well, duh, yeah, I've been saying that for years, right? [SPEAKER_00]: It is weaker, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: By design, the government data sugar codes everything. [SPEAKER_00]: So when it comes to the stuff that's supposed to be low, right, like unemployment, [SPEAKER_00]: uh, then you get low data. [SPEAKER_00]: So yes, the labor market has been and is much weaker than the data. [SPEAKER_00]: That's why Donald Trump is president. [SPEAKER_00]: I said that before it was elected. [SPEAKER_00]: It was a weak economy.

[SPEAKER_00]: That was the reason that people voted for Trump because Trump promised changed. [SPEAKER_00]: And it was a pocketbook election. [SPEAKER_00]: In fact, the exit polls were all about the weakness in the economy. [SPEAKER_00]: Right, so we didn't have a strong economy the way the Democrats or Wall Street were spinning it.

[SPEAKER_00]: We had a weak economy, but now you're actually seeing some people saying, yeah, you know, the labor market is actually weaker than we thought, so the Fed should be cutting.

[SPEAKER_00]: except they're only looking at one half of the equation. [SPEAKER_00]: On the other side, it's the inflation data. [SPEAKER_00]: Nobody is talking about the fact that this data is wrong too, except in the other direction. [SPEAKER_00]: The problem with the inflation data is that it's too low, right? [SPEAKER_00]: The CPI has been rigged. [SPEAKER_00]: It has been engineered to come out with a smaller number.

[SPEAKER_00]: then the actual increase of prices, which again, doesn't even measure inflation, which is the expansion of money and credit, it measures the effect of inflation, which is an increase in prices, but it deliberately understates the degree to which prices are going up by design. [SPEAKER_00]: So you're really kind of have to double whatever the official number is to get something close to the actual rate.

[SPEAKER_00]: So if inflation is right now, [SPEAKER_00]: on annualizing if 5%, then it's probably 10%, which makes a lot more sense to me than 5%. [SPEAKER_00]: But here's the point I'm making. [SPEAKER_00]: If you're gonna say that fake jobs data are used for a rate cut, because the jobs market is actually weaker than the data, well, inflation, that data is underestimating already high inflation.

[SPEAKER_00]: So that argues for a rate hike, inflation is being under-reported, just like the strength of the job market is being over-reported. [SPEAKER_00]: We have a weak labor market, but we have strong inflation. [SPEAKER_00]: Now, when you have those two things, [SPEAKER_00]: You know, the weak labor market doesn't trump the the strong inflation, although I guess if you're Trump, it does trump it, but politically speaking, the Fed has got no choice now.

[SPEAKER_00]: They're boxed in, they're cutting rates, they're on this trajectory, even though rate cuts are not supported by the data. [SPEAKER_00]: Because the Fed should be hiking. [SPEAKER_00]: Despite the weakness in the labor market, inflation is the primary goal.

[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, at one point, there was only one mandate. [SPEAKER_00]: I forget when they added the second mandate. [SPEAKER_00]: And if you talk to the Fed Chairman, even Powell has said this, the best way to achieve the mandate of full employment is to make sure they tackle inflation. [SPEAKER_00]: Because if inflation gets out of control, then the Fed admits they can't control the economy or employment.

[SPEAKER_00]: So they've always said the best way to achieve our second goal is to make sure we achieve our first goal. [SPEAKER_00]: So the primary goal of the Fed should be to fight inflation. [SPEAKER_00]: So if you've got a problem where inflation is too high, but the job market is too weak, you've got to air on the side of tackling inflation. [SPEAKER_00]: But that is not what this Fed is about to do.

[SPEAKER_00]: And in fact, I think the numbers that really help the market today, you know, the Dow is up about 600 points. [SPEAKER_00]: Everything was up today, especially the gold mining stocks, and I'll get to that.

[SPEAKER_00]: But the market's rallied not so much because the inflation numbers were so benign because they weren't it was because the job's data was so bad We got the weekly job was claims for the week a week ending September 6 [SPEAKER_00]: And the expectation was for 234,000 claims. [SPEAKER_00]: We got 263,000. [SPEAKER_00]: That's 27,000 more than the prior week. [SPEAKER_00]: And the moving average spiked up to above 240.

[SPEAKER_00]: But this is the most new unemployment claims in a month, in like four years. [SPEAKER_00]: That is a big deal. [SPEAKER_00]: And so this is what's creating the confidence [SPEAKER_00]: that the Fed has got to cut. [SPEAKER_00]: In fact, now it's a foregone conclusion that they're going to cut. [SPEAKER_00]: The argument is no longer will the Fed cut rates?

[SPEAKER_00]: next week, actually, because that's when they meet, it's not will they cut rates, but by how much will they cut rates? [SPEAKER_00]: Will they do 25 basis points? [SPEAKER_00]: Will they do 50 basis points? [SPEAKER_00]: Will they do 75, right? [SPEAKER_00]: It's all up on the table. [SPEAKER_00]: And a lot of people are saying, look, the Fed is in restrictive territory. [SPEAKER_00]: And they have room to ease and still be restrictive. [SPEAKER_00]: That is BS.

[SPEAKER_00]: They are not restrictive. [SPEAKER_00]: They've been accommodated the whole time. [SPEAKER_00]: They've claimed to be restrictive. [SPEAKER_00]: I pointed that out because they never got interest rates above the real rate of inflation. [SPEAKER_00]: And right now, they're not even above the actual rate. [SPEAKER_00]: If the CPI is now running at 5% a year and you've got Fed funds around four, how are you supposed to cut?

[SPEAKER_00]: How do you call a Fed's funds rate that's lower than the inflation rate restrictive? [SPEAKER_00]: It is accommodated by definition. [SPEAKER_00]: They've always been accommodative. [SPEAKER_00]: The minute they stop trying to be restrictive, was when Silicon Valley bank failed and signature bank failed. [SPEAKER_00]: That's when the Fed abandoned a tightening problem, a policy, and then eventually eased, it was because everything started to fall apart.

[SPEAKER_00]: Well, the Fed needs to let things fall apart. [SPEAKER_00]: That's what has to happen. [SPEAKER_00]: You have a credit bubble. [SPEAKER_00]: Right? [SPEAKER_00]: That's the inflation. [SPEAKER_00]: In order to break that bubble, right? [SPEAKER_00]: You're going to have to collapse all the stuff that was built on top of it. [SPEAKER_00]: So you can't fight inflation.

[SPEAKER_00]: Remember, Powell kept saying, we're going to be able to fight inflation, but we're not going to create any damage to the economy and he kept patting himself on the back. [SPEAKER_00]: Well, they did create the damage and then they backed off. [SPEAKER_00]: Then, Paul claimed, oh my god, we pulled off a miracle because we tightened and we didn't hurt the labor market.

[SPEAKER_00]: Well, they did hurt the labor market and they would have hurt it a lot more, had they continued to tighten which they should have done. [SPEAKER_00]: because of inflation. [SPEAKER_00]: Now, yes, during the years that the Fed inflated the bubble, you had all this malinvestment. [SPEAKER_00]: So we had a lot of things that had to be liquidated, a lot of mistakes that had to be corrected, a lot of jobs that never should have created, been created needed to be destroyed.

[SPEAKER_00]: not that people don't need jobs, they just didn't need those jobs. [SPEAKER_00]: They needed different types of jobs that we didn't create because of government interference that misdirected that labor and capital to places that it should have gone. [SPEAKER_00]: So the economy was really screwed up from all the years of 0% interest rates and quantitative easing. [SPEAKER_00]: We had a huge monetary hero in high.

[SPEAKER_00]: And when we started to come off that high, because the drug pusher stopped giving us as much drugs, the minute the fed saw that, okay, what we can't have this, we better keep maintaining the dosage. [SPEAKER_00]: And now they're about to up the dosage, I think, to a lethal overdose degree, because the other information that we got on the labor market came out earlier in the week. [SPEAKER_00]: And that was the downward revisions to prior months.

[SPEAKER_00]: So I think it was Tuesday of this week. [SPEAKER_00]: The government announced that from April of 2024 through March of 2025. [SPEAKER_00]: So mostly during the Biden administration but a couple of months for the Trump administration. [SPEAKER_00]: We over estimated jobs by 911,000 jobs. [SPEAKER_00]: 911,000, it was the biggest one month, I mean, one time downward revision to previously announced job creations in history.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now, that amounts to what is that, 76,000 jobs per month, 76,000 jobs over us the [SPEAKER_00]: That is a big, big number. [SPEAKER_00]: So again, that is also getting people to say the Fed needs to cut. [SPEAKER_00]: Because the Fed was basing is monetary policy on the false claim that we had a strong labor market. [SPEAKER_00]: Right? [SPEAKER_00]: The labor market is very strong. [SPEAKER_00]: The labor market is hot. [SPEAKER_00]: It's resilient.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's surprisingly strong. [SPEAKER_00]: All that was was wrong. [SPEAKER_00]: Right? [SPEAKER_00]: The actual labor market has been weak the entire time that the Fed was claiming that it was strong. [SPEAKER_00]: And it was only claiming it was strong because it was relying on bad government data.

[SPEAKER_00]: Well, now it knows the truth, and so the argument is, okay, well, now it's time to cut because you now know that the job market was in strong, but the question is, why didn't defend know this on its own? [SPEAKER_00]: Right? [SPEAKER_00]: They've got hundreds, maybe thousands. [SPEAKER_00]: I don't know of economists that work at the Fed. [SPEAKER_00]: Why couldn't they figure this out? [SPEAKER_00]: Why didn't they just, you know, do surveys?

[SPEAKER_00]: Why didn't they just look at the exit polls from the election? [SPEAKER_00]: Why didn't they just watch the Peter ship show, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Had they, had they listened to my podcast? [SPEAKER_00]: They would have known that we had a weak job's market. [SPEAKER_00]: How would they have known that? [SPEAKER_00]: Because I said so. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I'm one of the few people that can probably prove this. [SPEAKER_00]: But every single month.

[SPEAKER_00]: where the government came out with what we now know was a completely bogus jobs report, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Every time the first Friday of the month, they'd come out with a jobs report. [SPEAKER_00]: And it would beat of the 12 months that they just revised. [SPEAKER_00]: Initially, nine of those 12 months, nine out of 12, were reported as beats, where the jobs that were created exceeded what was expected.

[SPEAKER_00]: And so on every one of those nine Fridays, [SPEAKER_00]: The financial media was talking about, oh my God, look how strong the job's market is. [SPEAKER_00]: Another beat, this is fantastic. [SPEAKER_00]: The Biden administration came out and then trumped for a couple of months, taken credit, look how strong the job's market is.

[SPEAKER_00]: This is all because of my great economic policies, the Biden middle up, not top down, whatever the crap he was saying, Biden took credit for it. [SPEAKER_00]: The Fed came out when it met and pointed these numbers, strong market, strong market, what was I saying? [SPEAKER_00]: What was Peter's ship saying? [SPEAKER_00]: Peter's ship said every single time. [SPEAKER_00]: And you can go back and look at these podcasts that's still I'm not making it up every month.

[SPEAKER_00]: I said, hold the champagne. [SPEAKER_00]: These numbers are not real. [SPEAKER_00]: They're going to get revised down. [SPEAKER_00]: This is fake. [SPEAKER_00]: I said the job market is weak. [SPEAKER_00]: These numbers are wrong. [SPEAKER_00]: They are over-counting jobs that don't even exist. [SPEAKER_00]: They're making them up, whether it's the birth death model or wherever else they're doing. [SPEAKER_00]: I said the data is flawed.

[SPEAKER_00]: There is no way these numbers are accurate based on my anecdotal observations of what was going on in other government numbers and just in polls. [SPEAKER_00]: But I looked at other economic data. [SPEAKER_00]: that argued to me that that data was inconsistent with all the jobs that the government claimed were being credited, including inconsistencies between the establishment survey and the household survey, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: You kept getting all this weak numbers from the household survey, they ignored it. [SPEAKER_00]: So I kept saying, don't worry, wait for the revisions. [SPEAKER_00]: Well, there's now been so many revisions to these numbers, [SPEAKER_00]: jobs reports that were initially beats seven of those nine are now misses seven out of nine, right? [SPEAKER_00]: So Wall Street celebrated for no reason Biden took credit for nothing.

[SPEAKER_00]: They were actually bad reports, but they got to take credit for good reports because the numbers were wrong. [SPEAKER_00]: Now, some of the numbers were already misses. [SPEAKER_00]: So we now know, and I went back and looked. [SPEAKER_00]: So of those 12 months that were revised. [SPEAKER_00]: There were only two beats, 10 misses. [SPEAKER_00]: So 10 out of 12 jobs numbers were lower than estimates. [SPEAKER_00]: And they were a lot lower. [SPEAKER_00]: The two beats barely beat.

[SPEAKER_00]: And what I did when they came out with 911,000 jobs, they didn't attribute it to any particular month. [SPEAKER_00]: They just said for the entire year. [SPEAKER_00]: So I kind of proportioned it out over the months, because they didn't say. [SPEAKER_00]: But based on that, [SPEAKER_00]: Two months beat the original estimates, 10 were misses. [SPEAKER_00]: The beats were small, just by a few thousand jobs. [SPEAKER_00]: The misses were huge.

[SPEAKER_00]: So we actually had an entire year of horrible, horrible jobs numbers. [SPEAKER_00]: During that year, everybody was claiming credit for a great job's market, including pallet the Fed. [SPEAKER_00]: So I'll leave you with this question, the ponder, before we have this commercial break. [SPEAKER_00]: If the Fed was so wrong about the job's market and the labor market, because it put its trust in government numbers. [SPEAKER_00]: What if it's just as wrong about inflation?

[SPEAKER_00]: Because it's basing its benign outlook on inflation coming down based on the same unreliable numbers that it based its wrong assessment of the strength of the labor market on. [SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, we've got a quick commercial break. [SPEAKER_00]: We'll come in the right back, so stick around. [SPEAKER_00]: As a business owner, I know the challenge of navigating unpredictable markets, interest rates and inflation. [SPEAKER_00]: That's why having the right tools are essential.

[SPEAKER_00]: Next week's streamlines operations and scales with growth. [SPEAKER_00]: Over 42,000 businesses have already future proof their businesses with next suite by Oracle. [SPEAKER_00]: The number one week and the week's not over yet because this is just Thursday. [SPEAKER_00]: But as a result of horrific, you know, 80% of a week for jobs, we've had this big rally in stocks and the rationale is the Fed is going to cut so that's great for stocks.

[SPEAKER_00]: But people also think that the rate cuts are going to help the economy. [SPEAKER_00]: They're going to help the housing market. [SPEAKER_00]: They're going to stimulate because they look back at prior episodes where the Fed has started a rate cutting cycle, whether it's 2001, 2002, after the bursting of the dot com, mobile.

[SPEAKER_00]: Whether it's a 2008, 2009, with the financial crisis or 2020 with COVID, right, every time the Fed has slashed rates and printed a bunch of money, right, things have gotten better, at least they appear to have gotten better, and the markets went up. [SPEAKER_00]: So people are just hoping that it's going to work again. [SPEAKER_00]: But I think they're wrong.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now, admit it, I wasn't sure it was going to work as a result of COVID, and it didn't because we finally got the big pop in CPI measured inflation. [SPEAKER_00]: So I nailed that, right? [SPEAKER_00]: When everybody else was talking about how COVID was deflationary, I was saying it was the most toxic combination of or most inflationary combination of fiscal and monetary policy ever. [SPEAKER_00]: So we did get to break out an inflation.

[SPEAKER_00]: But we didn't get the breakdown in the economy or the bond market, which I think is coming next. [SPEAKER_00]: So I think that this time, this stimulus is gonna act as a sedative. [SPEAKER_00]: Now, the yield, if you look at the yield on a 10-year treasury, it's now back down to just about 4% even, you know, we had gotten as high as about 4.5%. [SPEAKER_00]: The yield on the 30-year treasury is about 4.65. [SPEAKER_00]: That had peaked up above five.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now this rally in the bond market is an anticipation of these rate cuts that we're about to get. [SPEAKER_00]: My forecast again is that when we get those highly anticipated rate cuts, it is a by the room or sell the fact, and the bond market goes down and long-term interest rates, including mortgage rates, go up. [SPEAKER_00]: And that is going to be very frustrating for the Trump administration and for the Fed.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now, some of you may say, well, you know, gold is rallying silver. [SPEAKER_00]: Silver hit a new 14 year high today. [SPEAKER_00]: Finally, gold didn't. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, gold has been a little subdued to last couple of days. [SPEAKER_00]: It's trading around 3,635. [SPEAKER_00]: Oh, by the way, just this week, gold finally hit an inflation adjusted all time high.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now, not not real inflation, but whatever the CPI adjustment is, we finally took out the $825 dollar high from 1980. [SPEAKER_00]: But this is not the end of something. [SPEAKER_00]: This is the beginning of something. [SPEAKER_00]: We are just getting started here in gold and silver. [SPEAKER_00]: But gold and silver are also rising into this rate cut.

[SPEAKER_00]: And you may say, well, Peter, if you think that it's going to be a buy the room or sell the fact, [SPEAKER_00]: For bonds, why wouldn't the same whole true for golden silver? [SPEAKER_00]: Maybe golden silver will sell off on the rate cut possible.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's possible, but I don't think it's that probable because even though golden silver have rallied, I don't think they rallied nearly as much as they should, but also there's a big difference between the gold trade and the bond trade.

[SPEAKER_00]: Rate cuts are bearish for bonds. [SPEAKER_00]: Rate cuts are inflationary. [SPEAKER_00]: It means the Fed is turning its back on 5% inflation. [SPEAKER_00]: That's probably going to become six or seven. [SPEAKER_00]: And is instead choosing to die on the hill of employment and fight that battle, to hell with inflation. [SPEAKER_00]: So once the Fed does that, that's a big signal to get rid of your bonds.

[SPEAKER_00]: Right, because the biggest destroyer of the value of bonds is inflation and of course rate cuts mean a weaker dollar. [SPEAKER_00]: So why should foreigners want to buy our bonds if we're going to repay them with dollars that are worth less in their own currency than the dollars they loaned us, especially when we're reducing the rate of interest that we're paying them. [SPEAKER_00]: So these rate cuts are bearish for bonds.

[SPEAKER_00]: So even though bonds have rallied on anticipation of the cuts, [SPEAKER_00]: the event they anticipated is actually bad for us. [SPEAKER_00]: So they shouldn't be rallied. [SPEAKER_00]: So that's another reason why they should sell off and why they probably will sell off. [SPEAKER_00]: On the other side, rate cuts alongside of rising inflation are the most bullish thing you could have for gold. [SPEAKER_00]: So gold should be rising in anticipation of these cuts.

[SPEAKER_00]: And it should keep rising following the cuts. [SPEAKER_00]: Because as people want to get out of their dollars and get out of their treasuries and mortgage back securities and whatever else has got a dollar coupon and a dollar principle payment attached to it, what are they going to buy? [SPEAKER_00]: Well, if you're a central bank, there's really only one choice and that's gold.

[SPEAKER_00]: So the central banks are going to be loading up on gold as they're unloading on US dollars and treasury debt. [SPEAKER_00]: So gold and silver should keep rising even even if there's a slight buy the rumor sell the fact. [SPEAKER_00]: Move. [SPEAKER_00]: on a recap. [SPEAKER_00]: But again, I wouldn't even wait for that. [SPEAKER_00]: Don't even try to be tricky. [SPEAKER_00]: As I've been saying, you got to buy gold and silver. [SPEAKER_00]: You don't wait.

[SPEAKER_00]: You just buy it. [SPEAKER_00]: If you don't have it, you need it. [SPEAKER_00]: And if you have some chances are, you need more. [SPEAKER_00]: So you got to go to shift gold. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I'm, I'm, I like a broken record. [SPEAKER_00]: And again, people could say, well, Peter, don't you make money when we buy some gold and silver? [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I make a little money.

[SPEAKER_00]: I got plenty [SPEAKER_00]: The reason I want people to go to buy shift gold is because they need to own it. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I've been telling people, you've got to own goal for 25 years. [SPEAKER_00]: Look, look, look, we're in it. [SPEAKER_00]: It started. [SPEAKER_00]: It was under $300 and ounce, when I started, look where it is, right? [SPEAKER_00]: There's a reason that I want my followers to own goal and silver. [SPEAKER_00]: That's why I set up shift goal.

[SPEAKER_00]: I set it up because I was telling people to go buy gold and silver and then they would go buy and get ripped off. [SPEAKER_00]: So, the reason I'm telling people to buy their gold and silver for me, it's not just because I make a little money. [SPEAKER_00]: But because I know you won't get ripped off, and you don't get ripped off because I do make a little money.

[SPEAKER_00]: I don't make much, but you know, I make it up on volume, but I don't make it on each individual transaction. [SPEAKER_00]: But I want my followers to own Golden Silver, because I don't want them to go broke. [SPEAKER_00]: Right? [SPEAKER_00]: I want the people that listen to me to have money.

[SPEAKER_00]: One day, we're going to need that money to help out the people who don't listen to me, which, you know, unfortunately, they far outnumber me, but also, [SPEAKER_00]: Look at gold stocks, right? [SPEAKER_00]: I've been talking about these stocks now, I've been pounding the table on these stocks. [SPEAKER_00]: So the GDX, right, which is the index of the biggest gold stocks is now up 103% on the year. [SPEAKER_00]: And the year ain't over, 103% this is September.

[SPEAKER_00]: We haven't even hit the fourth quarter yet, which I think will be the strongest quarter of the entire year. [SPEAKER_00]: And we haven't even gotten to it yet. [SPEAKER_00]: We're up 103%. [SPEAKER_00]: Now the GDXJ, which has some smaller mining companies, not the really tiny ones, like some of the ones that we got at my golf fund. [SPEAKER_00]: But now these ones are moving. [SPEAKER_00]: So now the GDXJ is outperforming the GDX. [SPEAKER_00]: It's up 111% on the year 111%.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now compare that to the S&P up 12 and a quarter percent. [SPEAKER_00]: That's nothing. [SPEAKER_00]: The goal, the GDX is GDXJ is up 10 times 10 times as much as the S&P 500 this year.

[SPEAKER_00]: Do you think they talk about that on C and B C? [SPEAKER_00]: No, they don't talk about that at all on C and B C. Now. [SPEAKER_00]: The 12% return on the S&P. [SPEAKER_00]: That's about the same as on my foreign bond fund. [SPEAKER_00]: So my clients this year, just buy and short term foreign bonds are making as much money as people taking a risk and buying the S&P 500.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now, if you look at my dividend payer strategy, my foreign dividend payers, conservative dividend paying stocks, it's up better than 43% on the year. [SPEAKER_00]: 43, close to four times, [SPEAKER_00]: to return on the S&P 500. [SPEAKER_00]: Now, this is the first time in many, many years that that fund has beaten the S&P. [SPEAKER_00]: But I think it's the beginning of a long trend. [SPEAKER_00]: But what's really significant about the goal stocks?

[SPEAKER_00]: I did the math over the past 10 years, 10 years. [SPEAKER_00]: The S&P has returned average annual compounded gain of 14.91%. [SPEAKER_00]: Now, that's a great return over 10 years, 14.91 percent. [SPEAKER_00]: It's much more than the historic average, but that's a big return. [SPEAKER_00]: Compare that to the GDX, which is up compounded over 10 years, 19.33 percent. [SPEAKER_00]: So about 25% greater return, compounded over 10 years in gold stocks.

[SPEAKER_00]: So during those 10 years, a lot of people are making fun of me. [SPEAKER_00]: Peter's his permabair. [SPEAKER_00]: He's telling people not to buy the US stock market. [SPEAKER_00]: That's correct. [SPEAKER_00]: I told people not to buy the US stock market. [SPEAKER_00]: I told them to buy gold stocks instead of the US stock market. [SPEAKER_00]: And now they're better off at least if they started 10 years ago.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now they're also better off if they started three years ago. [SPEAKER_00]: There are a lot of time frames where they're better. [SPEAKER_00]: In fact, if they started three years ago, they're way better off. [SPEAKER_00]: Even more so than if they started 10 years ago. [SPEAKER_00]: Now, of course, the problem is some people didn't have the patience to wait it out. [SPEAKER_00]: There were people who bought gold stocks on my recommendation 10 years ago who sold them last year.

[SPEAKER_00]: That was terrible. [SPEAKER_00]: They threw away a winning hand. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I tried my best to prevent it whenever one of the guys from, you know, your Pacific acid management or told me, hey, this guy is selling, I called him up personally to try to talk him out of it.

[SPEAKER_00]: And you know, the reason everybody gave me look, I'm waiting so long and now Trump is president and he's going to do all this, I'm tired of holding these gold stocks, you know, and you know, I had record withdrawals from the Europe Pacific gold fund, EP G I X. [SPEAKER_00]: in the fourth quarter of last year. [SPEAKER_00]: And then in the first quarter of this year, people sold the fund. [SPEAKER_00]: And they didn't just sell my fund.

[SPEAKER_00]: People were calling up the brokers that I work with and selling their individual gold stocks at the end of last year. [SPEAKER_00]: Stocks that have doubled some of tripled since people sold them against our recommendations. [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, we made a little commission when they sold, but we told them not to sell. [SPEAKER_00]: I told people not to sell. [SPEAKER_00]: But here's the bigger deal. [SPEAKER_00]: The stock market is up 14.91% compound of for 10 years.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's expensive. [SPEAKER_00]: The US stock market by any way you want to measure it is over price. [SPEAKER_00]: Now, that doesn't mean it can't get more over price. [SPEAKER_00]: In fact, if they create enough inflation, everything's going to go up in price, including stocks. [SPEAKER_00]: That's why I'm not short. [SPEAKER_00]: Other people say, oh, you know, Peter's this permaberry, you know, he's given a much short to market.

[SPEAKER_00]: None of my clients were short to stock market. [SPEAKER_00]: Right, so I haven't just been shorting the stock market and that's not how I've expressed my bearishness. [SPEAKER_00]: I've expressed my bearishness by buying gold stocks. [SPEAKER_00]: That's how I've been bearish by being bullish on gold stocks and the trade is working out. [SPEAKER_00]: But the point I'm just about to make is that why the S&P is up 14.91%. [SPEAKER_00]: It's expensive.

[SPEAKER_00]: The GDX, that is up 19.33% over the last 10 years, is cheap. [SPEAKER_00]: So even though Goldstocks have doubled this year, if you buy them now, you're getting them cheap. [SPEAKER_00]: Now, are they as cheap as they were? [SPEAKER_00]: Obviously not, but they're still cheap in the scheme of things. [SPEAKER_00]: They're still cheap relative to where they are going to go. [SPEAKER_00]: So don't get into the, oh, I can't buy him now.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's too late because they've doubled. [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, they'll double again and double again and double again. [SPEAKER_00]: Right, so you can't be stuck in the, I should have bought him a year ago, or I shouldn't have sold them. [SPEAKER_00]: You're right, you shouldn't have sold them, but now you should buy him back. [SPEAKER_00]: And if you don't buy him back, you're gonna be saying the same thing a year from now.

[SPEAKER_00]: Oh my God, I should have bought him back a year ago. [SPEAKER_00]: And I'll be saying you're right. [SPEAKER_00]: Buy him now. [SPEAKER_00]: Because this is a major, major bull market. [SPEAKER_00]: Now again, they hit in Jim in my gold fund, which is I think only up about 90% on the year. [SPEAKER_00]: And I say 90 like, you know, it's still a lot, but it's because we have some of the smaller companies that haven't really moved yet, plus we got a lot of private placements.

[SPEAKER_00]: We bought companies that don't even trade. [SPEAKER_00]: And so we carry them on our books at cost. [SPEAKER_00]: Well, if we bought these stocks two, three years ago, [SPEAKER_00]: obviously when they come public maybe next year they're going to be way more expensive I think than what we paid plus we got warrants and they're not even being counted as anything they're like on the books in zero.

[SPEAKER_00]: So there is some huge pent up firepower built up into this portfolio that I think is going to really explode by next year. [SPEAKER_00]: So yeah we've been underperforming because [SPEAKER_00]: that if anybody tried to buy them now, they couldn't do it. [SPEAKER_00]: So I think we've got a really good portfolio in my goal fund. [SPEAKER_00]: And we might have underperformed this year, but I think we're going to weigh outperform. [SPEAKER_00]: Again, that's just my opinion.

[SPEAKER_00]: But not that many customers are upset that we're only up 90% on the year. [SPEAKER_00]: Because it's still a great return. [SPEAKER_00]: But I think, well, more than make up for it. [SPEAKER_00]: Next year, but the bottom line is a year ago, my advice to buy gold stocks over the S&P was wrong until it's not because it took a while and that's where patience pays off. [SPEAKER_00]: I was confident in what I was doing. [SPEAKER_00]: I knew that my forecast would pan out.

[SPEAKER_00]: And so, it didn't bother me that it was taking a long time because I knew in the end, it would work. [SPEAKER_00]: You know, I use the analogy of a poker game, a lot of people play poker, and I said, look, sometimes you're in a poker game, and you know, you don't always have the biggest chat, a stack of chips, sometimes you lose a few hands, and sometimes there's some cocky players at the table that wins some early hands, and they have a lot of chips.

[SPEAKER_00]: But, you know, that doesn't count. [SPEAKER_00]: What counts is how many chips you have when you cash out when you leave the game. [SPEAKER_00]: And a lot of people that have a big stack end up busted. [SPEAKER_00]: And I was confident that as long as we stuck out the game, we would leave with all the chips. [SPEAKER_00]: And the game ain't over yet, right? [SPEAKER_00]: But it's now more obvious to people who weren't quite sure that we've done the right thing.

[SPEAKER_00]: Because now we are beating the S&P over 10 years. [SPEAKER_00]: Now we're not beating it over 20 years. [SPEAKER_00]: But in another year or two, I think we will be. [SPEAKER_00]: I think we'll be outperforming for 20 years. [SPEAKER_00]: Look, gold is outperforming for 25 years. [SPEAKER_00]: It's just the gold stocks that have been lagging.

[SPEAKER_00]: My recommendation to buy gold, [SPEAKER_00]: 25 years ago has given you a better return than buying the S&P 500, even with all the dividends. [SPEAKER_00]: That's how much the price of gold has gone up, or in other words, how much real value the US stock market has lost. [SPEAKER_00]: That's what gold is, is, is telling you, right? [SPEAKER_00]: It's, it's a, it's a real barometer, it's real money.

[SPEAKER_00]: And yes, [SPEAKER_00]: stock prices are going up in funny money but they're going down in real money and they're going to go down a lot further because what we're about to embark on now I think that this fed especially as it gets stacked by the Trump administration right this fed and this administration are going to pursue [SPEAKER_00]: the most inflationary, monetary, and fiscal policy combination since the 1970s. [SPEAKER_00]: Maybe even worse than the 1970s.

[SPEAKER_00]: But it doesn't even have to be worse. [SPEAKER_00]: The problem is our fiscal position is worse. [SPEAKER_00]: In the 1970s, we were still running trade surpluses back then, right? [SPEAKER_00]: We weren't fighting an unwinnable trade war because we have trillion dollar trade deficits. [SPEAKER_00]: We had surpluses. [SPEAKER_00]: Back in the 70s, the United States was still the world's biggest credit or nation. [SPEAKER_00]: Now we're not just at world's biggest debtor nation.

[SPEAKER_00]: We owe more money than all the debtor nation's of the world combined.

[SPEAKER_00]: So we are in a horrible fiscal position. [SPEAKER_00]: The national debt was measured in the hundreds of billions back in the 70s. [SPEAKER_00]: And didn't even get to a trillion until the early 80s. [SPEAKER_00]: Um, the operating budget is two to have three trillion a year. [SPEAKER_00]: Look, so, and we have this mountainous balance sheet of short-term debt that didn't exist then, so we're in a much worse position now than we were then.

[SPEAKER_00]: So I think that the implications of the policy that we're going to get. [SPEAKER_00]: is going to be much bigger. [SPEAKER_00]: So the average Americans are going to suffer more than they did in the 70s. [SPEAKER_00]: And it was a lot of suffering. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, people had the real value of their wages go down. [SPEAKER_00]: You know, the reason that so many women entered the workforce in the 80s, it was not because they felt liberated and they went and got jobs.

[SPEAKER_00]: They were liberated when they didn't need jobs. [SPEAKER_00]: What happened was their husbands paycheck lost so much purchasing power during the inflation of the 70s that he could no longer afford to support the family with his wife stayed in home. [SPEAKER_00]: So they had to go get jobs. [SPEAKER_00]: Right? [SPEAKER_00]: A lot of people that were planning on retiring couldn't retire because, you know, the cost of [SPEAKER_00]: But what's going to happen now is going to be worse.

[SPEAKER_00]: But also, people made a lot of money in the 70s if they bet right. [SPEAKER_00]: And betting right meant not betting on what worked during this go-go 60s, which was the nifty 50, which was the S&P 500, the one decision stocks, Xerox, Polaroid, right? [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, they had a bubble in the 60s. [SPEAKER_00]: And a lot of people didn't recognize that the game changed in the 70s. [SPEAKER_00]: What made money in the 70s, gold, silver, oil, commodities, foreign stocks.

[SPEAKER_00]: The exact portfolio that we have now for our clients. [SPEAKER_00]: Yes, I started creating these portfolios too early because I saw this train

[SPEAKER_00]: But because it's taken the train so long, they go off these tracks, it's gonna be a bigger wreck. [SPEAKER_00]: I think we're gonna make even more money than I first believed on our foreign stocks. [SPEAKER_00]: And in particular, our goal stocks. [SPEAKER_00]: People made fun of me because I predicted $5,000 gold back in 2010, 11 or whatever. [SPEAKER_00]: And it never got there.

[SPEAKER_00]: Right, although they forget that when gold was under 300, I was predicting a thousand dollar gold and people laughed at that and, you know, we went way through that, but when I raised my forecast to 5,000 and it didn't happen, people were, you know,

[SPEAKER_00]: from that initial 5,000 goal prediction to now and not just the inflation that's been created in the past but the inflation that is about to be unleashed in the future because my other prediction is after the Fed starts cutting rates they're going back to QE.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now I had thought that maybe they would have gone back to QE already that's something that I had been saying and you know they've been able to hold off on that [SPEAKER_00]: Um, but they're going to go back, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Yes, they were able to resist longer than I thought, but ultimately they're going to give in. [SPEAKER_00]: And what's going to be the pushing point is going to be when the rate cuts. [SPEAKER_00]: Don't deliver relief on the long end.

[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, when we get the reverse, when lower short term rates equal higher long term rates, that's when they crank up the presses with quantitative easing. [SPEAKER_00]: And then everything else that Trump is doing, the semi-fony privatization of fanny and Freddie is going to flood the economy with cheap money and credit for the housing market. [SPEAKER_00]: That's pure inflation.

[SPEAKER_00]: And also, I forgot to mention this, now that I thought about it, on the job's data, totally forgot about this, glad I remembered. [SPEAKER_00]: So after all these revisions to the job's data, the, um, the, um, [SPEAKER_00]: All of the jobs, all of the jobs created during those 12 months. [SPEAKER_00]: We're government jobs or government-related jobs like healthcare. [SPEAKER_00]: The private sector lost jobs every single month.

[SPEAKER_00]: So how do you describe a labor market as strong when every single month jobs are lost? [SPEAKER_00]: Real jobs, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Government jobs don't count. [SPEAKER_00]: Government jobs are not productive, right? [SPEAKER_00]: And government employees don't pay taxes. [SPEAKER_00]: Now, people might say, well, of course they do. [SPEAKER_00]: I know people that work for the government. [SPEAKER_00]: I work for the government.

[SPEAKER_00]: They take taxes out of my pay, but it's not really taxes. [SPEAKER_00]: They're just taking back some of what they gave you. [SPEAKER_00]: If the government hires somebody and pays them $70,000 a year, and then takes $10,000 back for taxes. [SPEAKER_00]: They really paid them 60,000 a year.

[SPEAKER_00]: They didn't get 10,000 in taxes. [SPEAKER_00]: They're net negative 60,000 dollars. [SPEAKER_00]: The only way the government gets real tax revenue is when the job is created in the private sector. [SPEAKER_00]: Because if someone in the private sector earn $70,000 and pays 10,000 in taxes, that's $10,000. [SPEAKER_00]: The government gets that it didn't have. [SPEAKER_00]: Right? [SPEAKER_00]: So we need private sector jobs because that's the tax base.

[SPEAKER_00]: Government jobs eat up the tax base. [SPEAKER_00]: So they cost us money. [SPEAKER_00]: If a private company hire somebody, I don't have to pay the bill. [SPEAKER_00]: If the government hire somebody, I do. [SPEAKER_00]: Right? [SPEAKER_00]: Because our taxes pay their salary. [SPEAKER_00]: Also, government jobs don't produce anything, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Other than paperwork, right, that comes up the works. [SPEAKER_00]: They produce red tape.

[SPEAKER_00]: Who the hell wants that? [SPEAKER_00]: But in the private sector, they produced stuff that I want to buy. [SPEAKER_00]: So now I do I not have to pay the salaries of the workers, but I get to buy the goods or services they provide. [SPEAKER_00]: They make my life better. [SPEAKER_00]: So private sector employment improves my life. [SPEAKER_00]: Government employment makes my life worse.

[SPEAKER_00]: So that's the only kind of jobs that we got, which makes the whole situation worse. [SPEAKER_00]: Oh, by the way, speaking about stuff I forgot to mention. [SPEAKER_00]: I meant to mention this on last week's podcast. [SPEAKER_00]: And so I'm going to mention it now. [SPEAKER_00]: So on Friday, last week, [SPEAKER_00]: Donald Trump renamed the Department of Energy. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, renamed the Department of Defense the Department of War.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now, that was the original name of the Department of Defense, up until I think maybe 1947. [SPEAKER_00]: And I guess they thought, you know, war sounded a little bit provocative. [SPEAKER_00]: And so they decided to make it, you know, the defense, right? [SPEAKER_00]: It sounded, we're gonna defend ourselves, right? [SPEAKER_00]: So, Donald Trump went back to the war department and now we have a Secretary of War, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Now, I mean, I mean, I mean, Trump likes to rename things, which I think is a distraction from the bad economic policies that he's pursuing and the unconstitutional power that he is you, you're surfing that I think will be wielded even more dangerously by the Democrat who succeeds him than by him. [SPEAKER_00]: But it reminded me of what I had been saying for years now.

[SPEAKER_00]: And that is the Secretary of the Treasury. [SPEAKER_00]: In fact, if you go back to my stand-up routine that you can see if you Google or YouTube Peter Schiff's stand-up, I did the stand-up routine. [SPEAKER_00]: And one of my jokes was that we should rename the Treasury Department or the Department of the Treasury the Department of the Dead.

[SPEAKER_00]: And so, as long as Trump is trying to find more appropriate names for the departments, he should change the Treasury Department to the Department of Death, and we should have a secretary of the debt, because that makes a lot more sense, because we don't have a Treasury. [SPEAKER_00]: The Treasury is bare. [SPEAKER_00]: All we have is debt.

[SPEAKER_00]: And what is the job of the Secretary of the Treasury is to sell our debt right to get people who own our debt to roll it over when it matures. [SPEAKER_00]: So that's really your job, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Your job is to go out around the world with your hat in hand, begging for money, right? [SPEAKER_00]: So Secretary of the debt makes a lot more sense than Secretary of the Treasury. [SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, I wanted to change topics and finish up this podcast.

[SPEAKER_00]: Today, we have the 9-11 terrorist attacks. [SPEAKER_00]: You know, it's amazing to me how fast the time goes by. [SPEAKER_00]: I'm sure we're going to have maybe a bigger remembrance next year when it's 25 years since 9-11 tragedy. [SPEAKER_00]: And again, one of the big tragedies of 9-11 were all the constitutional rights that we ended up surrendering mainly by the Patriot Act.

[SPEAKER_00]: uh... which was probably the most unpatriotic act ever passed that's why they had a label at the patriot act mean if you want to know what it bill does just read the name and it does the opposite right just like the inflation reduction act was an act to increase inflation the patriot act was an unpatriotic act which is what it was it really destroyed the fourth amendment uh... and uh... you know took away a you know all kinds of privacy the night the

[SPEAKER_00]: I wanted to recognize the fact that so many lies were lost and others were ruined by that terrorist attack. [SPEAKER_00]: But more recently, we've had some other acts of terrorism. [SPEAKER_00]: One in particular has hit my family very significantly, and that was the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk. [SPEAKER_00]: yesterday, just a horrible, a horrible thing. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I, I never met Charlie Kirk.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's kind of like amazing that that I never did meet him. [SPEAKER_00]: But I felt like I knew him because, I mean, next to me, I mean, he was my wife's biggest hero. [SPEAKER_00]: In fact, he, I mean, he, she talked about Charlie Kirk incessantly. [SPEAKER_00]: She listened to him every day.

[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, whenever my wife and I were in the car, [SPEAKER_00]: Um, we always heard Charlie Kirk, that's what she wanted to listen to and uh, so, you know, I listen to his podcast, you know, here we go and every, you know, every time we were in the car going, he was going.

[SPEAKER_00]: And you know, only 31 years old, I mean, just a phenomenal young man who had so much potential, he had already done so much, you know, and I, you know, not to be condescending, you know, because he's he, he, he achieved a lot more than I did at 31.

[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, [SPEAKER_00]: He I'm 62 and he's already achieved more than me or did at 31 when it comes to influencing people. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I've influenced my share of people and I influenced a lot of people with, you know, the Occupy Wall Street video and a lot of young people, but not nearly as many as Charlie Kirk did and I had a lot more time on this earth to influence people, but I did see a lot of myself

[SPEAKER_00]: And, you know, and so did my wife, and she had hoped that one day the two of us might get together, and, you know, I had been meeting to try to reach out for him to him, because I do think that he drunk a little bit too much of the Trump cool aid, and, you know, he's 31, so I would forgive that.

[SPEAKER_00]: Um, you know, and I wanted to help him have a better understanding of the monetary policy, uh, you know, of the Fed, uh, because he, you know, he was a big supporter of, uh, some of the stuff that Trump is doing that I'm have been a critic of, but all that aside, the amount of good that this young man did far outweigh the fact that he misunderstood. [SPEAKER_00]: some of these policies.

[SPEAKER_00]: I think he had the potential, the real potential, to grasp them, and to probably bring them to a much wider audience than I was able to do. [SPEAKER_00]: And my wife always hoped that one day Charlie would be president and maybe he would have one day. [SPEAKER_00]: I don't know. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, he had such a tremendous life ahead of him that was unfortunately stolen from him.

[SPEAKER_00]: uh... by this assassin uh... and hopefully they catch this guy and they still have the death penalty uh... uh... in uta and i i know one of the means is by firing squad and if they want any volunteers for the squad uh... you know all sign up i'll even bring the bullets myself uh... because this is a huge loss [SPEAKER_00]: In fact, I think we're doing a, my wife has got a candlelight visual going on tomorrow night.

[SPEAKER_00]: We're going to do on the beach because he had a lot of fans out here in Puerto Rico, as well. [SPEAKER_00]: But, you know, the other thing too about it, and it came, you know, really in the same week. [SPEAKER_00]: that we got more information on irina zirotska. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I forget how zirutska, I'm bad with names and I hate to miss pronounced names, but irina zirutska, I think as her name, she was the 23-year-old, beautiful young woman from the Ukraine.

[SPEAKER_00]: Ironically, she left the Ukraine because of the war. [SPEAKER_00]: She wanted to be safe, so she came to America, which is obviously not as safe as a country [SPEAKER_00]: and she went to Charlotte, North Carolina and you all know what happened, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: But what I think the video finally was released to show the horrific cold blooded murder where this man just slits her throat and just lets her bleed out and the whole train does nothing about at least in the video that you could see. [SPEAKER_00]: And then when she's [SPEAKER_00]: light bleeding the death on the floor. [SPEAKER_00]: He's walking around the train saying, I got that white girl. [SPEAKER_00]: Of course, it's a black man.

[SPEAKER_00]: And apart from the horror of witnessing that, and I wish I actually hadn't even seen it to be honest with you, because the division still [SPEAKER_00]: Imagine. [SPEAKER_00]: Imagine if the races were reversed. [SPEAKER_00]: Just imagine. [SPEAKER_00]: Imagine a white guy on a train. [SPEAKER_00]: There's a young black girl sitting there and this white guy just comes up and slits her throat and she dies.

[SPEAKER_00]: And then he walks around the train and says, I got that black girl. [SPEAKER_00]: What do you think would happen? [SPEAKER_00]: they'd still be riding. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, this would be the biggest story out there about how racist America is, I mean, they'd be blooting, they'd be burning down buildings, right? [SPEAKER_00]: There'd be massive protests.

[SPEAKER_00]: You know, in Charlotte, North Carolina, they had some pretty significant George Floyd protests, even though that didn't happen there. [SPEAKER_00]: They had not one of the biggest protests, but I think one of the most violent with a lot of, you know, arson and looting, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: They were pro-testing George Floyd, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Now, there was no racism in the George Floyd situation. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, they may have thought there was at the time. [SPEAKER_00]: But we know that there was nothing. [SPEAKER_00]: We have all the body cam footage. [SPEAKER_00]: And George Floyd's race was not mentioned once by any of the four officers on the scene, including Derek Chobin. [SPEAKER_00]: Nobody mentioned that he was black.

[SPEAKER_00]: So there's no indication that George Floyd was treating treated any differently by these officers because of his race. [SPEAKER_00]: And now regardless of whether or not you thought the jury got it right or wrong, personally, I think the jury got it wrong and I went over that. [SPEAKER_00]: I don't want to rehash that, but it's pretty clear that when Derek Chauvin and those other three policemen arrived on the scene, their intent was not to kill. [SPEAKER_00]: George Floyd.

[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, they called the ambulance to come get him. [SPEAKER_00]: In fact, when it was when it was taking longer to get there, they called again and said, you better hurry. [SPEAKER_00]: And in fact, the body cam footage revealed that they talked about putting him in a hobble. [SPEAKER_00]: And you know, but then they said, no, because that'll make it harder to get him in the ambulance. [SPEAKER_00]: We want to get him in the ambulance as quickly as we can.

[SPEAKER_00]: So even though Derek shows, you know, [SPEAKER_00]: He wasn't intending to kill him. [SPEAKER_00]: Certainly not with all these people filming it with their cell phones. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, who would murder somebody with all those witnesses?

[SPEAKER_00]: You know, so obviously you could say, maybe he was negligent, maybe he was reckless, maybe he should have known that when George Floyd said, I can't breathe that he couldn't breathe, even though he was talking and even though he said he couldn't breathe in the squad car when nobody was touching. [SPEAKER_00]: I don't get, I don't want to rehash that.

[SPEAKER_00]: But the bottom line is he didn't try to kill him, even if he didn't, you know, accidentally or was reckless in some way and he died. [SPEAKER_00]: That is in sharp contrast to the cold-blooded murder of this young woman. [SPEAKER_00]: When you slit someone's throat, their karate artery, when you slas that wide open, you know they're gonna die. [SPEAKER_00]: That is a, and then to say, I got that white girl, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: So it's clear why did he select her for execution because she was white? [SPEAKER_00]: So, I mean, that's a pure hate crime. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, what else could be more, right? [SPEAKER_00]: You would never hear the end of this if the races were reversed. [SPEAKER_00]: Instead, what does the left make excuses? [SPEAKER_00]: Always got, you know, bury it, it's no big deal, it is a shocking story.

[SPEAKER_00]: But then, to have Charlie Kirk, basically dies not in the exact same way, but it's the same thing. [SPEAKER_00]: He took a bullet to the throat and he bled out. [SPEAKER_00]: The same way she did.

[SPEAKER_00]: right he he gets he gets he gets shot and you know when there are people that are actually because the reason I even brought up joint Floyd was not because of these riots but I read people try to say well you know so this girl you know this is uh uh the white people's George Floyd right okay now son there is no similarity between these two incidents what so ever

[SPEAKER_00]: when somebody intends to kill somebody, and then they kill them, and then brag about killing a white person, right? [SPEAKER_00]: So this is actually racial, whereas the George Floyd incident, George was not racial. [SPEAKER_00]: This was racial, and this was an intentional murder, not an unintentional, you know, homicide, where somebody's negligence may have led to somebody's death.

[SPEAKER_00]: of somebody, and the same thing with Charlie Kirk, there's no looting, there's no protest imagine if a civil rights leader was gunned down at a civil rights talk, he had thousands of people there and he was black civil rights leader, got, got killed, again, there'd be [SPEAKER_00]: And yeah, there's a lot of coverage of this. [SPEAKER_00]: But, you know, it'll die out. [SPEAKER_00]: It's not going to stay here for months and months.

[SPEAKER_00]: I like it would be if the racers were reversed. [SPEAKER_00]: And I've talked about this. [SPEAKER_00]: This double standard that exists. [SPEAKER_00]: In fact, I saw on X, Elon Musk was pointing out how the New York Times, I never noticed this. [SPEAKER_00]: they capitalize the B, but when they refer to somebody as being white, it's a lower case letter. [SPEAKER_00]: And I was like, why is that? [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, why is black uppercase and white is lower case?

[SPEAKER_00]: If they're both describing your color, right? [SPEAKER_00]: He's a white guy. [SPEAKER_00]: He's a black guy. [SPEAKER_00]: Why does the black guy get a capital letter and the white guy gets a lower case letter? [SPEAKER_00]: And apparently, like the New York Times and these Republicans have decided that to show respect to the African-American community and some uniqueness of being black and some shared experience of oppression that they should have a capital.

[SPEAKER_00]: but that the white race shouldn't, because we're just a collection of what is white really mean. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, is anybody actually white? [SPEAKER_00]: And I mean, you could be your pin or you know, did different, you could be Italian, you know, you could be French, you know, you could be Australian, I mean, you know, like, well, so what? [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, how many different tribes are there in Africa? [SPEAKER_00]: It's not like all black people are the same, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, you have a lot of differences. [SPEAKER_00]: Uh, between the tribes in Africa, then you got blacks that aren't even from Africa that are from the Caribbean, right? [SPEAKER_00]: They're not all the same. [SPEAKER_00]: And not all blacks are black right there. [SPEAKER_00]: Some are brown, some are darker, some are lighter, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Just think as they say, well, you know, whites can be darker. [SPEAKER_00]: They can be a spad.

[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, it's all BS. [SPEAKER_00]: It's somehow it's got to be more important, right? [SPEAKER_00]: You know, it's black lies matter, course, black lies matter. [SPEAKER_00]: But what about Charlie Kirk's life? [SPEAKER_00]: What about I arena Zureska's life? [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, they matter, too, right? [SPEAKER_00]: They matter and they're white. [SPEAKER_00]: But, you know, the way the media does these stories.

[SPEAKER_00]: You know, they're not, they don't care about that. [SPEAKER_00]: They're looking for stories that fit their narrative, that we have a racist society. [SPEAKER_00]: where white people are just killing black people because they're black. [SPEAKER_00]: And even though that's not happening, they make it up if there's any situation.

[SPEAKER_00]: where somebody who's white happens to kill somebody who's black, they jump all over that, and they try to make it into something racial, even though it's not. [SPEAKER_00]: But then when you have something racial, where you have a black guy who actually kills a white, let girl, and says I did it because she was white, right? [SPEAKER_00]: There you have it. [SPEAKER_00]: And of course, I don't know.

[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, look, I'm sure most of the murders that are committed have nothing to do with race. [SPEAKER_00]: as just so happens, most of the murders where blacks are killed, they're killed by other blacks. [SPEAKER_00]: That's like 90's something percent of them, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Yes, sometimes white people kill black people, but they're not killing them because they're black. [SPEAKER_00]: They're killing them for whatever reason. [SPEAKER_00]: And no reasons are justified.

[SPEAKER_00]: But to the extent that there are these disproportionate killings, I mean blacks are like 13% of the population and they commit 50% of the murders something like that and and so proportionally there are more blacks killing whites than the other way around But the media doesn't care about it and what they don't really want to get into is the root cause why are [SPEAKER_00]: so many black men criminals, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: I forget with 20, 25% of young black men end up going to jail, why is that? [SPEAKER_00]: It's not something inherent in being black that makes you a criminal. [SPEAKER_00]: It's the welfare state that did it. [SPEAKER_00]: The welfare state robbed these young black men of their fathers when they were growing up. [SPEAKER_00]: And that was something that even slavery couldn't do is bad as slavery is.

[SPEAKER_00]: And I don't defend slavery and don't try to take this out of context. [SPEAKER_00]: But black families were more intact when they were slaves than they are today. [SPEAKER_00]: If you were born in America in 1800, if you were black man, black child born into slavery, you had a better chance. [SPEAKER_00]: of being raised by your father, then a black boy being born today. [SPEAKER_00]: Now what does that say?

[SPEAKER_00]: It doesn't say slavery was good, but it says, well, we got now has to be really, really bad.

[SPEAKER_00]: And all of us started in the 1960s with the great society and the war on program, war on poverty. [SPEAKER_00]: That was welfare, where the government said, hey, let's give mothers money if they have children without fathers.

[SPEAKER_00]: right because here's what the politicians thought oh you know these women single women with children they don't have a man they don't have a husband to go out and earn money for them they have to stay home with their kids [SPEAKER_00]: Let's be compassionate. [SPEAKER_00]: Let's give these single women money, so they can support their kids, right? [SPEAKER_00]: That's what they thought about, right? [SPEAKER_00]: It's the intention, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: This is well-intentioned program. [SPEAKER_00]: Single mothers, they need money, they don't have a father, there's no husband to go out and earn the money, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Back in the 60s, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Most women didn't work, because their husbands worked. [SPEAKER_00]: Well, what if you don't have a husband? [SPEAKER_00]: Well, you're screwed. [SPEAKER_00]: All right, the government's gonna help.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now, [SPEAKER_00]: Conservatives were rightly opposed to these programs, not because they were heartless, but because they were smart. [SPEAKER_00]: You see, on the left, it's all about the heart. [SPEAKER_00]: It's all about what feels good. [SPEAKER_00]: It's a motion, right? [SPEAKER_00]: But on the right, it's more intellect. [SPEAKER_00]: We reasoned, we look for the unintended consequences of well-intentioned programs. [SPEAKER_00]: So, smart people said, hey, wait a minute.

[SPEAKER_00]: if we give women money, who don't have children, we're gonna have more single women having children to get the money, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Because the more kids you had, the more money you got. [SPEAKER_00]: So if you pay single women to have children, what are single women going to do? [SPEAKER_00]: Have children. [SPEAKER_00]: If you don't give married women with children money, what are women going to do? [SPEAKER_00]: They're going to have their children without the father.

[SPEAKER_00]: Because if they have the father at home, they don't get the money. [SPEAKER_00]: So the government destroyed the family. [SPEAKER_00]: Now, it disproportionately impacted African Americans because they were at the time disproportionately at the lower end of the income spectrum and then getting welfare. [SPEAKER_00]: So they were disproportionately impacted.

[SPEAKER_00]: But before all this, if you go back before the 60s, [SPEAKER_00]: The chances of a white child being raised by an intact family were the same as a black child. [SPEAKER_00]: So even though an average blacks were less well off on the income, right, then whites, if you are a black child, you are just as likely to be raised by your father and mother together as a white child. [SPEAKER_00]: Right? [SPEAKER_00]: So you had that going for you.

[SPEAKER_00]: You take the fathers away from these young boys. [SPEAKER_00]: How do they grow up? [SPEAKER_00]: Right? [SPEAKER_00]: They grow up to be criminals. [SPEAKER_00]: You know, not this or I'm saying this, nothing, but it's the mother's fault. [SPEAKER_00]: You know, mothers do what mothers do, but you need a strong father figure in the house when these men are growing up to keep them in line. [SPEAKER_00]: The women by themselves can't do it. [SPEAKER_00]: This is not an accident.

[SPEAKER_00]: this is the intended result or the unintended result of these policies. [SPEAKER_00]: And that brings me to the conclusion about all this about why do you have these killings, like whoever it was that murdered [SPEAKER_00]: Charlie Kirk, not the guy on the train that that's slit. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, that I don't think that had anything to do with politics, right? [SPEAKER_00]: That guy was crazy and and and he didn't like white people, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: And that's still shouldn't, you know, I mean, it reminded me of, you know, when I saw that, it's like, you know, that guy needs, he needs to die the same way. [SPEAKER_00]: It reminded me of Braveheart. [SPEAKER_00]: That, and Braveheart is another fantastic movie if you haven't seen Braveheart. [SPEAKER_00]: That's a lot more recent than when I told you guys to go out and watch Cool Hand Luke. [SPEAKER_00]: But Braveheart with Mel Gibson is another great movie.

[SPEAKER_00]: And, [SPEAKER_00]: There's a, initially, there's a guy, one of the, one of the English soldiers slits this woman's throat, and then she dies, oh, it's not just a woman. [SPEAKER_00]: It's, it's, I hate to ruin the movie. [SPEAKER_00]: I haven't seen it, right? [SPEAKER_00]: But it's, you know, Mel Gibson's girl who he was going to marry, who he loved. [SPEAKER_00]: And so then when he caught the guy that slid it throat, he did the exact same thing to him.

[SPEAKER_00]: And so it was just as he died the same way that she did. [SPEAKER_00]: And I was thinking that that guy needs to die the same way, although we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment. [SPEAKER_00]: But sometimes you think that an eye for an eye. [SPEAKER_00]: But this guy was in politics. [SPEAKER_00]: But I'm sure that whoever it was that killed Charlie Kirk. [SPEAKER_00]: Thought he was doing a good thing. [SPEAKER_00]: You know, the ends justifies the means.

[SPEAKER_00]: That is the carrying card of the left of the communists, right? [SPEAKER_00]: That was the purges in communist in Russia, right? [SPEAKER_00]: It doesn't matter how many people we kill because the ends justifies the means.

[SPEAKER_00]: And maybe this person, [SPEAKER_00]: looked at Charlie Kirk and said he's some kind of fascist he's you know he he's destroying the country he's poisoning the youth right he because the way the left and not everybody because so nothing is just a blanket statement but a large percentage of people on the left right when they look at people on the right or like me and we oppose [SPEAKER_00]: their programs that they think are so compassionate, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: And that's also one thing about a lot of people on the left. [SPEAKER_00]: They're compassionate and charitable with other people's money. [SPEAKER_00]: So they're happy to steal money from a rich person to give it to a poor person. [SPEAKER_00]: They're not so happy to give their own money to that poor person, right? [SPEAKER_00]: So they think they're compassionate and generous when it's somebody else's money, that they're being generous with.

[SPEAKER_00]: But even to the extent that they're charitable themselves. [SPEAKER_00]: But they believe in these programs. [SPEAKER_00]: like, you know, aid to families with dependent children, like, oh, these poor women without husbands and children, they need government money, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Not recognizing the unintended consequences in the moral hazard of the program, right? [SPEAKER_00]: All the government anti-poverty programs create more poverty.

[SPEAKER_00]: They perpetuate poverty. [SPEAKER_00]: So when you are against the anti-poverty programs, it's not because your pro-poverty is because you recognize that the programs will make the poor [SPEAKER_00]: and prevent them from ever getting out of poverty. [SPEAKER_00]: But the left doesn't get that, because they don't connect the dots. [SPEAKER_00]: They don't think they feel, right? [SPEAKER_00]: And sometimes they just wanna feel good about themselves for supporting these programs.

[SPEAKER_00]: But when you have somebody who's on the right, who's against these programs, the person all left's like, well, that person must be evil, that person must be bad. [SPEAKER_00]: How can that person be in favor of poverty? [SPEAKER_00]: They're not, but the guy in the left doesn't know that, because it can't even dawn on him to think that his well-intentioned program actually harms the people that he thinks he's helping. [SPEAKER_00]: See, they can't even square that, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: So if somebody opposes what they want to do, they must be bad, they must be evil, right? [SPEAKER_00]: And so if you kill somebody evil, [SPEAKER_00]: Is that evil? [SPEAKER_00]: Maybe that's good because the end's justifies the means. [SPEAKER_00]: Yes, murder is wrong. [SPEAKER_00]: But if I don't kill this guy, how many more people will die in the future because he's preventing all these great programs? [SPEAKER_00]: So, I mean, that may be what goes on in the mind.

[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, and that's why, and it's not obviously not everybody acts on this hatred. [SPEAKER_00]: But I know that there are a lot of... [SPEAKER_00]: Uh, people on the left, whether they're Democrats or that this don't even, that think Republicans or people on the right are bad people, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Like they don't even, you know, they're bad.

[SPEAKER_00]: Like I can't, you know, be friends with you if you're a Republican or I can't date you or marry you because you must be bad because only bad people could be this way because if you were a good person, like I am, you would support all these programs. [SPEAKER_00]: Now on the other side, on the right. [SPEAKER_00]: most people on the right recognize that the people on the left aren't evil people. [SPEAKER_00]: They're not bad people. [SPEAKER_00]: They're just misinformed.

[SPEAKER_00]: They don't understand. [SPEAKER_00]: They're well intention, but they don't get it. [SPEAKER_00]: Right? [SPEAKER_00]: You know, that's why there's that old saying if you're not a socialist by the time you're 22, you don't have a heart. [SPEAKER_00]: And if you're not a conservative by the time you're 28, you don't have a head. [SPEAKER_00]: Because you have to think things out, to understand these conservative libertarian principles.

[SPEAKER_00]: So if you have thought it out, you don't think that the people who don't get it are bad people. [SPEAKER_00]: They're just misinformed. [SPEAKER_00]: They're uneducated and you want to educate them. [SPEAKER_00]: And that's exactly what Charlie Kirk was doing. [SPEAKER_00]: He was engaging. [SPEAKER_00]: these people. [SPEAKER_00]: He was engaging them in debate, but designed to bring out the absurdity of a lot of their positions.

[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, some of the time, the best way to make a, you know, I hate to say liberal, too, because my wife hates it when I call people on the left liberal, because that term has been co-opted, because the original term, liberal meant limited government, meant freedom from government,

[SPEAKER_00]: back, you know, when the women first got suffrage, the Democrats kind of started talking about liberalism, because liberalism was popular, but they kind of perversely redefined it to mean government charity, instead of [SPEAKER_00]: private charity, which is what, you know, the suffragettes, uh, uh, uh, believed in, uh, in liberalism. [SPEAKER_00]: Uh, so, you know, I mean, I always call myself a classic liberal, right? [SPEAKER_00]: That's what, you know, classic liberal.

[SPEAKER_00]: That's where the libertarian party came from. [SPEAKER_00]: Being a classic liberal, because the whole word got, got, got, got redefined as basically almost like a socialist. [SPEAKER_00]: Um, but the, the, um, conservatives, [SPEAKER_00]: recognize that these left wing individuals or the best way to expose them is just let them talk. [SPEAKER_00]: Right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Let, you know, because then they'll say the most ridiculous things, and you can end up winning an argument by just keeping your mouth shut, because there's so much logical inconsistency. [SPEAKER_00]: But that's what he was doing. [SPEAKER_00]: He was out there engaging with the left. [SPEAKER_00]: And the same way I did with occupied Wall Street. [SPEAKER_00]: Um, on a smaller scale, you know, when a lot of people, I was there in the park talking to these people.

[SPEAKER_00]: And I didn't necessarily convince the people that I was talking to in the park. [SPEAKER_00]: They were kind of so brainwashed that no matter what I said, you know, it kind of, you know, it didn't, it didn't sink in. [SPEAKER_00]: They were persuaded, they were convinced. [SPEAKER_00]: A lot of people have emailed me and told me, I was, you know, left wing, right? [SPEAKER_00]: Until Occupy Wall Street, that got me thinking and that changed my life.

[SPEAKER_00]: And I did that on a small scale. [SPEAKER_00]: Charlie Kirk was doing it on a much bigger scale, and I spent, you know, one day in Zikati Spark. [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, he spent, I don't know how many days of his short life going from college campus to college campus, right, doing much more. [SPEAKER_00]: And, you know, then what I did, and on a, and on a much much bigger scale.

[SPEAKER_00]: So, if I was able to influence the number of people that I was, [SPEAKER_00]: on that one video, I can only imagine the millions of young minds that Charlie Kirk helped help to shape. [SPEAKER_00]: And hopefully, you know, we get a lot more from his death than just the images of the gunshot and him falling, that his legacy lives on long beyond his years.

[SPEAKER_00]: And apart from the stuff that I disagreed with, that's small on Trump, but on the bigger stuff, on who he was as a man, on what he was trying to accomplish, I mean, it was a [SPEAKER_00]: that can continue what he was doing. [SPEAKER_00]: And in my own way, I'm doing the same thing. [SPEAKER_00]: I just don't have as many years left in me as he did. [SPEAKER_00]: And it's so sad, it's so unfortunate and so tragic that he's not here anymore.

[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, that's it for today's podcast. [SPEAKER_00]: I've already, this is probably one of the longest ones I've done. [SPEAKER_00]: I'm looking at the clock, but anyway, I will be back again next week with some more podcasts that if you like this one.

[SPEAKER_00]: uh... uh... uh... give it a give it a thumbs up uh... and uh... again don't forget to uh... if you're not reading our free newsletter uh... in fact uh... james a hickman uh... wrote a brilliant piece uh... today about Charlie Kirk in fact i tear it up when i got to the end of it [SPEAKER_00]: it was so well written. [SPEAKER_00]: And so if you're not getting our newsletter, you missed out on that, but maybe if you sign up now, you can still see that one.

[SPEAKER_00]: But you know, you'll get two or three fantastic newsletters coming into your inbox. [SPEAKER_00]: It's all free. [SPEAKER_00]: Just sign up at at shiftsovereign.com. [SPEAKER_00]: Bye for now.