Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Mark Mos Show,
Speaker 1: where we talk about the decentralized revolution. Of course, we
Speaker 1: talk about the way the world is changing right before
Speaker 1: our very eyes. As I say, the world we're going
Speaker 1: into is not the same as the one that we're
Speaker 1: leaving behind, and we like to look at it through
Speaker 1: the lens of of course politics, finance and technology, and
Speaker 1: the technology that is changing the world is of course
Speaker 1: bitcoin and the decentralized technology. And you know, I like
Speaker 1: to bring to you some of the some different ways
Speaker 1: to look at the world, and I try to expand
Speaker 1: your thinking so you can really understand these complex subjects
Speaker 1: that we're dealing with, some of the latest breaking news,
Speaker 1: and some interesting people to listen to as well, so
Speaker 1: you don't have to hear me talk all the time.
Speaker 1: But today I want to start off talking about something
Speaker 1: that's basically dominating most conversations today and I want to
Speaker 1: explain it to you in a way that you probably
Speaker 1: haven't yet heard. And so we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: this because this is actually what's changing the world, and
Speaker 1: it's really all about the money. So we said, I
Speaker 1: talked about it from politics of finance and technology and
Speaker 1: really this financial piece on about an eighty year timeframe,
Speaker 1: we have these financial revolutions, and that's exactly what we're
Speaker 1: facing right now. We can see where at the end
Speaker 1: of a long term debt credit cycle, potentially a hundred
Speaker 1: year sovereign debt bubble that's blowing up. And of course
Speaker 1: you see all over the news everything you know. You
Speaker 1: see inflation, and you see debt sealing limits increase, and
Speaker 1: money being printed and sent around the world to people, etc.
Speaker 1: And it's hard to really understand what's going on, especially
Speaker 1: when you have some intellectual mouthpieces like Paul Krugman talking
Speaker 1: about this and trying to explain to you. But it's
Speaker 1: all wrong. Now, if you watch my main YouTube channel,
Speaker 1: just the Mark Moss YouTube channel, like to start off
Speaker 1: the videos by saying, I'm trying to change the way
Speaker 1: you think about money because almost everything you've learned is wrong.
Speaker 1: And when you listen to people like Paul Krugman, they're
Speaker 1: lying to you. So of course everything you've learned is
Speaker 1: wrong because they're telling you the wrong information. We're going
Speaker 1: to talk about that specifically, but also what we learn
Speaker 1: in school is wrong. They don't teach you about the
Speaker 1: way money works. They don't teach you about the way
Speaker 1: the financial system works or the banking system works. And
Speaker 1: of course they don't tell you how to get wealthy.
Speaker 1: They tell you how to basically live within this system
Speaker 1: without disrupting it, without changing the way the system works,
Speaker 1: and without really getting ahead. Which is why, of course,
Speaker 1: today over about half of all people retiring today, that
Speaker 1: baby boomers, are broke. They have no money. About half
Speaker 1: of the people today couldn't come up with a thousand
Speaker 1: dollars for an emergency. And so how is that financial
Speaker 1: education you've been getting working for you? If half the
Speaker 1: people retiring have no money, and of the people that
Speaker 1: of the half that do, half of them have less
Speaker 1: than one hundred thousand dollars, which is not enough to
Speaker 1: retire off of. So how's that financial education been working?
Speaker 1: I saw I think sixty percent fifty or sixty percent
Speaker 1: of people making over one hundred thousand dollars per year,
Speaker 1: which most of you might consider that being rich or
Speaker 1: well off or something like that, about half of those
Speaker 1: people report living paycheck to paycheck. So how's that financial
Speaker 1: education coming for you? It's obviously not working very well.
Speaker 1: We saw, I've talked about it on the radio last
Speaker 1: week in Baltimore and then in Chicago. In Baltimore was
Speaker 1: more about reading. In Chicago, fifty five school districts, not
Speaker 1: one single student, not one could pass math or reading.
Speaker 1: So how's that education going for you? So let's talk
Speaker 1: about this a little bit and let's explain what's going on. Now.
Speaker 1: The Treasury, which is the United States government. So we
Speaker 1: have the Reserve and we have the Treasury. The Treasury
Speaker 1: is the United States government. The Federal Reserve is a bank.
Speaker 1: It's a collection of banks, and it's a private bank. Now,
Speaker 1: for some of you listen to this, you doubt that
Speaker 1: it was set up as a private group of banks.
Speaker 1: It is recognized and allowed by Congress. So it's semi
Speaker 1: quasi private, if you will. It's really private. It does
Speaker 1: maintain its autonomy, and they control monetary policy, so they
Speaker 1: control the banks. The United States government and the Treasury
Speaker 1: control the fiscal all right, so that's the money being
Speaker 1: spent in the government. The Fed just controls the monetary policy,
Speaker 1: which is interest rates, in the amount of the banks reserves, etc.
Speaker 1: So the United States government, the Treasury put out a
Speaker 1: report this last week. It's called the Financial Report of
Speaker 1: the United States Government. Fiscal year two twenty two. It's
Speaker 1: at Fiscal Treasury dot gov. If you want to go
Speaker 1: read this report. Now that's two hundred and fifty eight pages,
Speaker 1: so you probably don't want to read all that, but
Speaker 1: it's worth a read. So this is directly from the Treasury.
Speaker 1: This is their own report, and it starts out on
Speaker 1: the first page with a letter written by Janet Yellen,
Speaker 1: which of course is the head. She's the Secretary of
Speaker 1: the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury, which of course
Speaker 1: is the United States government. Basically in this document, surprising
Speaker 1: that they would actually put this document out because in
Speaker 1: this document they basically make the case that the government
Speaker 1: is bankrupt, insolvent, what we'd call a zombie company, and
Speaker 1: they make the statement that says the path that we're
Speaker 1: on is not sustainable. That's what it says. So it's
Speaker 1: pretty interesting they would put out this information. Now, like
Speaker 1: I said, everything you've learned is wrong. So typically they're
Speaker 1: trying to change the story, change the narrave show you
Speaker 1: information that maybe misleads you. But in this information, they've
Speaker 1: basically come out and told you, and like I said,
Speaker 1: even made the statement that it's not a sustainable path.
Speaker 1: I want to see the source of the information. I
Speaker 1: want to see what they have to say first before
Speaker 1: I start listening to other people's opinions of that data.
Speaker 1: Now back to Paul Kruegman. Paul Kruegman is, like I said,
Speaker 1: kind of the mouthpiece of the Fed, the Treasury. He's
Speaker 1: the cheerleader that basically says everything they do is correct.
Speaker 1: And of course Paul Krugman is not correct. He's never
Speaker 1: been correct. Paul Kruegman is the one who famously said
Speaker 1: the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater
Speaker 1: than the fax machines. That's what he said. Ten years
Speaker 1: from now. The phrase quote information economy will sound silly.
Speaker 1: So look, when somebody, when we have economists, we have forecasters,
Speaker 1: when they give us their information, we should take that
Speaker 1: and pay attention to it, and then we should then,
Speaker 1: of course, see if that information comes true. So if
Speaker 1: this is somebody we want to continue to listen to. So,
Speaker 1: for example, al Gore said in two thousand and nine
Speaker 1: that the North Pole will be ice free by the
Speaker 1: summer of two thirteen because of man made global warming.
Speaker 1: The polar bears would be gone by twenty thirteen. So
Speaker 1: he said this in two thousand and nine, so we
Speaker 1: have to take a look at that. We're to look
Speaker 1: at what Paul Krugman says, I want to come back.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna explain that even more, and then we're gonna
Speaker 1: dig into this Treasury report. I'm going to show you
Speaker 1: what they said, what the data shows, and then we're
Speaker 1: gonna look at some data points actually in the economy,
Speaker 1: in the markets, in real estate to see if this
Speaker 1: is true, so you can understand exactly what's going on
Speaker 1: how to better navigate this. If you're just tune in
Speaker 1: right now, you're listen to the Mark Moish show, we're
Speaker 1: talking about, of course, the decentralized Revolution, really kind of
Speaker 1: focusing right now on this eighty year financial revolution cycle
Speaker 1: that's being reset right now. I got a whole lot
Speaker 1: to cover at this show. You don't want to miss this.
Speaker 1: We're gonna break it down and it's gonna make sense
Speaker 1: to you. All right, So I gotta take a quick break.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be back in a minute. You don't want
Speaker 1: to miss this, don't go away. I'm gonna be right back,
Speaker 1: all right, Welcome back. If you just tune in, you're
Speaker 1: listening to the Mark Mos show, we talk about the
Speaker 1: decentralized revolution, how the world is changing as we look
Speaker 1: at it through the lens of politics, finance, and technology.
Speaker 1: Today we're looking at the financial revolution piece, and I
Speaker 1: was explaining how when we have experts and they make predictions,
Speaker 1: we should listen to those and then we should see
Speaker 1: if they got them right, to see if it's somebody
Speaker 1: that we want to continue listening to. So as I
Speaker 1: was saying with al Gore in two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: he told us that the ice would be gone, the
Speaker 1: polar bears would be extinct by summer of twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1: Here we are a decade later, and the ice caps
Speaker 1: are even bigger than they were before. Polar bears are
Speaker 1: flourishing more than they ever have. So Al Gore is
Speaker 1: someone we should not be listening to in regards to climate.
Speaker 1: And back to Paul Kruegman telling us about the economy,
Speaker 1: it's the exact same thing. He said that the internet's
Speaker 1: impact in the economy has been no greater than the
Speaker 1: fax machine, and that ten years from now the information
Speaker 1: economy would sound silly, but yet here we are in
Speaker 1: the information economy. The information economy, you're listening to me
Speaker 1: right now making my living in the information economy, and
Speaker 1: of course that doesn't sound silly. And so again, is
Speaker 1: Paul Krugman someone we should be listening to And I
Speaker 1: would say absolutely not. But of course the government needs
Speaker 1: someone to be out there shilling their data points, and
Speaker 1: that's exactly what Paul Krugman does. Now, there's an article
Speaker 1: that came out this week that thought was pretty interesting,
Speaker 1: and of course he's a Nobel Prize winning economist, but
Speaker 1: he recently wrote some articles in the New York Times, which,
Speaker 1: of course The New York Times is also a mouthpiece
Speaker 1: for the government. It's important to listen to the information
Speaker 1: and know where it came from, what their interests are,
Speaker 1: what their biases might be, and then you have to
Speaker 1: start to learn to separate the facts from opinion. And
Speaker 1: so we know that, for example, if I was reading
Speaker 1: RT Times, I would know, well, that's a Russian news
Speaker 1: outlet and it's probably biased towards Russia. If I listened
Speaker 1: to the New York Times or the Washington Post, well,
Speaker 1: I know that's like a CIA mouthpiece, and I have
Speaker 1: to know that it's biased from that potentially, at this point,
Speaker 1: maybe some of the most neutral news might be Al Jazeera.
Speaker 1: I'd like to get some news from there. I tried
Speaker 1: to look at it from both sides, so I'm going
Speaker 1: to be equally critical of both sides that are trying
Speaker 1: to spin this bias, but still fact check me as well.
Speaker 1: It starts to try to separate what I tell you
Speaker 1: as fact from what I tell you as opinion, so
Speaker 1: you can start to formulate your own ideas anyway. So
Speaker 1: he wrote this in The New York Times, and he
Speaker 1: claimed that the debt of the government is quote over
Speaker 1: hyped issue and isn't all that unusual from a historical perspective. Now,
Speaker 1: this article that came out said that his attempts to
Speaker 1: support these employ the kind of fraudulent accounting that would
Speaker 1: land a corporate executive in jail. So what he's doing
Speaker 1: is he's taking this data and trying to spin it
Speaker 1: to support his point. But it's such it's such a
Speaker 1: it's so much of a speculator, so much of a
Speaker 1: spin that it would literally land a corporate executive in
Speaker 1: prison if they try to do this. He says that,
Speaker 1: of course he's trying to say that taming quote the
Speaker 1: federal debt should be well down on the list of
Speaker 1: government priorities. So he's saying that it's not a problem.
Speaker 1: The debt's not a problem. We shouldn't even be worried about.
Speaker 1: A matter of fact, it should be way down the
Speaker 1: list of all the things that we worried about before.
Speaker 1: After we worry about things like climate change and child poverty.
Speaker 1: Because the debt projections have become quote much less dire
Speaker 1: over the past decade or so. In reality, the debt
Speaker 1: is far higher than projected, and Krugman's own words prove it. Now,
Speaker 1: let's again, let's see what these numbers are. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: give you the numbers directly from the Treasury's own report,
Speaker 1: not from Paul Kruegman, and not opinion based. We're going
Speaker 1: to look at what the Treasury put out now. I
Speaker 1: do want to just say, going back to Paul Kruegman,
Speaker 1: in two thousand and nine, under President Obama, they started
Speaker 1: racking up debt and they projected nine trillion dollars in
Speaker 1: deficits over the coming decades. Over that wou'd be from
Speaker 1: two thousand nine nineteen, Krugman wrote back then, quote, even
Speaker 1: if we do run these deficits, federal debt would be
Speaker 1: ninety percent of GDP in twenty nineteen, or substantially less
Speaker 1: than it was at the end of World War Two.
Speaker 1: So again the Noel Prize winning economist is telling us
Speaker 1: that no problem, no problem running these deficits. Even if
Speaker 1: we do, even if we do run a nine trillion
Speaker 1: dollars in deficits, it's gonna be way less than it
Speaker 1: would in World War Two. However, he said it would
Speaker 1: be ninety percent. However, it turned out to be twenty
Speaker 1: one percent higher than that one hundred and ten percent.
Speaker 1: So again he's wrong. He's wrong, he's wrong, he's wrong.
Speaker 1: I don't know why we continue to look at him
Speaker 1: or listen to him, But let's take a look at
Speaker 1: some of these things that the Treasury put out in
Speaker 1: their own data. Now, what we can see is that
Speaker 1: the US has a massive spending problem. So if we
Speaker 1: go back, Unfortunately I can't show you the chart because
Speaker 1: we're here on the radio. But if I showed you
Speaker 1: a chart, you can go onto the thread. So the
Speaker 1: FED puts out its own data, and you can go
Speaker 1: to Fred dot st. Louis, fed dot org and you
Speaker 1: can get all this data that the FED actually puts out.
Speaker 1: I like to go to the source. And so if
Speaker 1: we look at this, we can see basically a chart
Speaker 1: of lines which shows the debt, the amount of debt
Speaker 1: that we're building, and the amount of gross domestic product
Speaker 1: that we're producing. So remember wealth is not money, wealth
Speaker 1: is goods and services. So we want to look at
Speaker 1: the gross domestic product, the amount of goods and services
Speaker 1: that are being produced. Now it's a little bit of
Speaker 1: amis leading number because the amount of spending the government
Speaker 1: actually does that increases. The GDP has grown bigger and
Speaker 1: bigger and bigger. But that's a whole another topic for
Speaker 1: another time. But if we look at just the GDP growth,
Speaker 1: we can see that until about nineteen seventy, the GDP
Speaker 1: growth and debt we're growing at about the same pace.
Speaker 1: But since around nineteen seventy they really started getting off,
Speaker 1: really nineteen eighties where they just really took a drastic turn,
Speaker 1: and we can see that now the amount of debt
Speaker 1: we're growing is way outpacing the amount of growth. Now,
Speaker 1: the problem with this is that means it's not sustainable. Now.
Speaker 1: The scam is that they tell us that, hey, we
Speaker 1: took an economic hit, we're not going to get as
Speaker 1: much growth as we normally would because of whatever recession
Speaker 1: or whatever the pandemic or whatever it is, and so
Speaker 1: we should just take on a little bit of debt.
Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and spend more than we bring in,
Speaker 1: because we'll make it up later. It's sort of like
Speaker 1: if you lost your job and you're gonna live on
Speaker 1: a credit card for a little while. But it's okay
Speaker 1: because when you get another job, then you're gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and pay that debt back off. Or you're going
Speaker 1: to go into debt to build a new product or
Speaker 1: a business line, or a new business, and then when
Speaker 1: the business grows, you wible to pay that off. The
Speaker 1: problem is that the business doesn't ever take off, it
Speaker 1: doesn't grow, but yet you keep spending more and more
Speaker 1: and more and more debt, and eventually, eventually it's going
Speaker 1: to hit. Eventually it's going to hit. But the problem
Speaker 1: is all that debt bogs you down and doesn't allow
Speaker 1: you to grow. All the money that should be going
Speaker 1: into productive investments gets spent just to cover the debt,
Speaker 1: or what we call the interest coverage. Now you might
Speaker 1: have heard the term of a zombie company before. We
Speaker 1: have lots of zombie companies in the US and around
Speaker 1: the world. And a zombie company would basically be a
Speaker 1: company that that doesn't make enough money enough profit to
Speaker 1: cover even the interest on their debt. That's a zombie company.
Speaker 1: So no matter how much they grow, they just can't
Speaker 1: pay off the debt because the just to cover that
Speaker 1: the interest is more than the money they make. Now,
Speaker 1: could the government be in that position? Could the government?
Speaker 1: Could the United States government be a zombie company. I'm
Speaker 1: going to answer that question with some data and some facts,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna show you exactly what the Treasury said
Speaker 1: about where we're going. And I gotta be honest, it's shocking,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna understand exactly why we're arguing over debtsillion limits,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna understand exactly what is going to happen
Speaker 1: because there's no other option once you hear the data
Speaker 1: directly from them. So let's take into that. I'm going
Speaker 1: to take a break. If you're just tune and you're
Speaker 1: listening to the Markma Show talking about the decentralized rever
Speaker 1: we're talking about this eighty year financial revolution that we're
Speaker 1: focusing on right now. I'm going to cover a lot
Speaker 1: you don't want to miss this, I'll be back. Don't
Speaker 1: go away, all right, welcome back. If you just tune in,
Speaker 1: you're listening to the Markama Show. We're talking about, of course,
Speaker 1: each and every week, the decents realized revolution, the politics,
Speaker 1: finance and technology. We're focusing on just the financial revolution
Speaker 1: aspect today and we're going over this report that the
Speaker 1: US Treasury just put out. Now, I explained to you
Speaker 1: what a zombie company was. A zombie company is someone
Speaker 1: that doesn't have enough income to cover the interest revenues,
Speaker 1: must cover expenses plus interest, or your zombie. Now, the
Speaker 1: US government has a problem, and that is that they're
Speaker 1: entitlement spending, which is the mandatory This is money they
Speaker 1: owe to people, you know, Medicare and Medicaid, so security, etc.
Speaker 1: They have to pay this mandatory expenses. So just that alone,
Speaker 1: not all the other expenses. Just that plus the interest
Speaker 1: on the debt is more than the revenue, the tax
Speaker 1: revenues they bring in. That means there a zombie company.
Speaker 1: Now that doesn't take into consideration all the other long
Speaker 1: term contracts they're committed to, like defense contracts. But let's
Speaker 1: go ahead and skip past that. So just per the Treasury,
Speaker 1: the CBO Congressional Budget Office. This is the government estimates
Speaker 1: that for this year twenty twenty three, there will be
Speaker 1: four point eight trillion in tax revenue. But the mandatory expenses,
Speaker 1: which are the entitlements, also the defense budget eight billion
Speaker 1: for defense and seven hundred billion, which is the net
Speaker 1: interest on federal debt equals five point three trillion. So
Speaker 1: you have to be super good at math. Five point
Speaker 1: three trillion of mandatory expenses is more than the four
Speaker 1: point eight trillion of income. So that's a zombie company.
Speaker 1: Now that doesn't include all the other spending. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about, you know, all the other money that
Speaker 1: we're sending into Ukraine and all the other money we're
Speaker 1: sending to other country for gender studies. I'm not krying
Speaker 1: all the money for welfare and UBI. I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about any of that. I'm just talking about the mandatory,
Speaker 1: the entitlements, the money we owe to other people, medicare, medicaids,
Speaker 1: so security. I'm talking about the defense, and I'm talking
Speaker 1: about the interest on the debt. That's it. Now. You
Speaker 1: also know that the FED is on a warpath to
Speaker 1: fight inflation. They are raising rates higher, higher, higher, higher, higher,
Speaker 1: to fight inflation. But there's a couple of problems that
Speaker 1: lead that really lead to the zombie company really going overboard.
Speaker 1: And so as they continue to raise, as the FED
Speaker 1: continues to raise interest rates, the net interest on the
Speaker 1: debt goes up. So per the CBO Congressional Budget's Office
Speaker 1: estimates for this year, they estimated seven hundred billion in
Speaker 1: interest on the federal debt. However, you keep hearing about, well,
Speaker 1: the economy is still pretty good, the jobs markets so
Speaker 1: pretty good. The FED is going to keep hiking rates.
Speaker 1: Now they're talking about the FED getting to potentially a
Speaker 1: six percent rate, six per What does that mean, Well,
Speaker 1: that means at six percent, the interest of the government
Speaker 1: is now not seven hundred billion, it's about one point
Speaker 1: eight trillion, one point eight tit Now that's on the
Speaker 1: thirty one and a half trillion dollars a debt we
Speaker 1: have today. That's not including where it might be by
Speaker 1: the end of the year. So that's not seven hundred billion,
Speaker 1: it's one point eight one. That's that's an extra trillion dollars,
Speaker 1: an extra trillion dollars a year. Now, the CBO Congressional
Speaker 1: Budget Office, again they have these projections where they show,
Speaker 1: just like any business would, what their revenues are expected
Speaker 1: to be moving forward twenty twenty four, twenty five, six,
Speaker 1: twenty seven, all the way till twenty thirty three. So
Speaker 1: they show the revenues, how much they expect to get
Speaker 1: from income tax, perill tax, etc. And then they show
Speaker 1: their outlays and they break it down by mandatory, what's
Speaker 1: the mandatory expense they have to spend, and then what's discretionary.
Speaker 1: So mandatory for you personally would be like your house payment,
Speaker 1: your electricity bill, or your car payment. You have to
Speaker 1: pay those things or you get put on the street
Speaker 1: and you have no car. Discretionary would be like you know,
Speaker 1: going clothes shopping, going out to dinner, and things like that,
Speaker 1: going on a vacation, so you have the mandatory and discretion.
Speaker 1: They break that out and then they show the total deficits,
Speaker 1: so the shortcoming. So in twenty twenty three they're showing
Speaker 1: a deficit of one point four trillion. By the end
Speaker 1: of the decade, they're showing it to have a By
Speaker 1: twenty thirty, you have a deficit of two point one trillion,
Speaker 1: So basically adding in two trillion dollars of debt every
Speaker 1: single year, two trillion dollars of debt every single year. Now,
Speaker 1: first of all, this is based off of tax revenues
Speaker 1: staying the same, which they're not. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: tax revenues are down nine percent year over year, Wire
Speaker 1: tax revenues down. Well, turns out the FED is on
Speaker 1: a warpath. The Fed is on a warpath to stop inflation.
Speaker 1: They want prices to stop going up. They want prices
Speaker 1: to stay stable. They don't really want prices to come
Speaker 1: back down, but they want prices to stop going up.
Speaker 1: So what they're doing is they're crushing demand. And if
Speaker 1: we raise rates higher, that will bring asset prices down,
Speaker 1: your stocks, bonds, your retirement account, that will bring your
Speaker 1: real estate, your house value down. And if we can
Speaker 1: bring the value your assets down, people feel broke and
Speaker 1: they don't spend as much. That's their theory. The problem
Speaker 1: with that is that as asset prices come down, then
Speaker 1: there's no capital gains. Like I'm not selling stocks or
Speaker 1: real estate at a profit, there's no capital gains tax
Speaker 1: going to the governments. Now, tax revenues went down. Also,
Speaker 1: they want people to feel broke so they stop spending.
Speaker 1: But if people stop spending, then the tax revenue drops.
Speaker 1: So the CBO has this baseline projection, but they're basing
Speaker 1: it off of tax revenues going up, but in reality,
Speaker 1: tax revenues are coming down. They're down nine percent year
Speaker 1: over year. Now, if we have a recession, which it
Speaker 1: looks like we're going into, I'm going to have talked
Speaker 1: about some of the data here in a minute. If
Speaker 1: we have a recession, then we would expect tax revenues
Speaker 1: to dip by twenty percent. So now what does this
Speaker 1: due to the qualifications to calculations, So you can see
Speaker 1: we're in a really, really big problem. Now, the CBO,
Speaker 1: again directly from the CBO Congressional Budget Office, they show
Speaker 1: here in twenty twenty three, we have about one hundred
Speaker 1: percent of debt to GDP one percent ratio of GDP
Speaker 1: wrote debt to GDP. But they're showing this on a
Speaker 1: chart I wish I could show to you going straight up,
Speaker 1: almost like a hockey stick. And by twenty fifty, again
Speaker 1: the CBO projects by twenty fifty will be at two
Speaker 1: hundred percent debt to GDP. Well, that's not sustainable. They
Speaker 1: go on to tell us more. The Treasury goes on
Speaker 1: to tell us they actually published in this report I'm
Speaker 1: talking about, they titled it, well, this was an executive
Speaker 1: coming to the fiscal year for twenty twenty one, and
Speaker 1: they titled it quote an unsustainable fiscal path. And in
Speaker 1: this they showed that the amount of debt held by
Speaker 1: the public is going to go up by astronomical amounts.
Speaker 1: Like I said, by about the year, they showed about
Speaker 1: by the year twenty forty five, we've been two hundred percent,
Speaker 1: but they showed by the year like twenty eighty six
Speaker 1: hundred percent, what six hundred percent, So we are on
Speaker 1: an unsustainable path. Let me give you a couple of
Speaker 1: other data points then we'll move on. But what else
Speaker 1: was in the report or what else is relevant to
Speaker 1: the report? I should say, is that this is based
Speaker 1: off of the debt, right, the amount of outlay. So
Speaker 1: we again they're showing seven hundred billion dollars in interest
Speaker 1: being owed, but again rates are going up, which means
Speaker 1: though oh more. Now, a lot of the debt that
Speaker 1: the government has is locked in by timeline. So there's
Speaker 1: zero to one year maturities, there's one to three year maturities,
Speaker 1: there's five year, ten year, twenty year thirty year maturities.
Speaker 1: So not just as the FED continues to raise rates
Speaker 1: doesn't mean all of the rate goes up, which is
Speaker 1: why the FED is showing a seven hundred billion dollar
Speaker 1: amount even though I'm sorry, the Treasury is showing seven
Speaker 1: hundred billion oh, even while the FED is raising rates.
Speaker 1: It's because a lot of that debt is locked in.
Speaker 1: But that's part of the problem. So what we know
Speaker 1: is that all the US government debt, we can see
Speaker 1: what the maturities are, and what we can see is
Speaker 1: that fifty percent of the debt, of the thirty one
Speaker 1: trillion of that matures in the next three years and
Speaker 1: is going to have to be refinanced. Now the FED
Speaker 1: is telling us they're going to raise rates and leave
Speaker 1: them there, raise rates and leave them there. Now they're
Speaker 1: talking about maybe get into six percent. So what does
Speaker 1: that mean for the outstanding government debt and what should
Speaker 1: we expect. I'm going to tell you exactly what that
Speaker 1: looks like, and then we're going to look at some
Speaker 1: of this economic data to really back this up, and
Speaker 1: it is it's not good, not good now. And so
Speaker 1: when you have these Paul Krugman's of the world painting
Speaker 1: these rosy pictures as the article that I read to
Speaker 1: you from stated it's criminal. If a CEO did this,
Speaker 1: it would be criminal. And so I want you to
Speaker 1: understand this now. The reason why it's important to understand
Speaker 1: it is because it basically shows what's inevitable. So if
Speaker 1: you want to know what you should be thinking about
Speaker 1: with your business, or your retirement account or your house,
Speaker 1: then you want to stay tuned to what I have
Speaker 1: because it's going to show what is inevitable. If you're
Speaker 1: just tuning in, you're listening to the Mark Moa show
Speaker 1: talking about the decentralized revolution this week, talking about the
Speaker 1: financial revolution that's happening. I got a lot more to
Speaker 1: cover when I come back. Don't go away, I'll be
Speaker 1: right back, all right, Welcome back. If you just tune in,
Speaker 1: you're listening to the Mark Moa Show talking about, of
Speaker 1: course each and every week, the decentralized revolution. We're talking
Speaker 1: about right now, the financial revolution piece that's happening, and
Speaker 1: I'm telling you what's inevitable. All right. I was setting
Speaker 1: up the read new information from the Treasury report. If
Speaker 1: you're missed in this, don't worry. You can go catch
Speaker 1: it on the archives just go check out the Mark
Speaker 1: Moss Show on your favorite podcast player, or you can
Speaker 1: watch me and listen to me on YouTube under the
Speaker 1: Market Disruptors YouTube channel. Check it out, and while you're
Speaker 1: at it, follow me on social media at one Mark
Speaker 1: Moss at that's just the number one, Mark Moss. Shoot
Speaker 1: me a message, tell me you're listening, ask me some questions.
Speaker 1: I'd love to engage with there. All right, so let's
Speaker 1: keeping the treasury up at night. Remember the treasury the
Speaker 1: US government is that of the thirty one and a
Speaker 1: half trillion dollars of debt they owe, it's locked in
Speaker 1: on these different maturity dates. But fifty percent of the
Speaker 1: debt is maturing and is going to have to be
Speaker 1: refinanced in just the next three years. And so remember
Speaker 1: those CBO projections I was telling you where by twenty
Speaker 1: thirty where at two trillion dollars a year? Well, and
Speaker 1: how grossly misstated those are, because one, the income is
Speaker 1: going to continue to go down, but also the amount
Speaker 1: of interest expense is going to go up. And so
Speaker 1: we can see fifty percent matures the next three years,
Speaker 1: and it's going to be replaced at rates of wherever
Speaker 1: we're at for five six percent. So how's that going
Speaker 1: to work. It's going to take that seven hundred billion
Speaker 1: dollar number and that's going to push it through the roof.
Speaker 1: We're going to go to over a trillion dollars a
Speaker 1: year of just interest only. That's that's where we're headed. Fun, fun, fun,
Speaker 1: fun stuff. So that's why Paul Krugman is wrong. Now,
Speaker 1: if your Social Security or if you're on SO security
Speaker 1: or expecting to get so secured at one point, I
Speaker 1: have something to tell you that you may not like,
Speaker 1: and that's that it is set to start running a
Speaker 1: shortfall by the end of the decade. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, if the Sociecurity funds become insolvent and there's
Speaker 1: no change to current laws, beneficiaries would see more than
Speaker 1: a twenty percent reduction in benefits. So I'm not planning
Speaker 1: on getting any at all by the time I retire.
Speaker 1: And if you're on it, that's something to be paying
Speaker 1: attention to. You might start seeing a reduction there, a drawdown,
Speaker 1: which is going to be super important if you're depending
Speaker 1: on that all. But again they're based in all of
Speaker 1: this information on economic data. One the amount of revenue
Speaker 1: they're going to collect. But Again, if the economy continues
Speaker 1: to go downhill, then the amount of tax revenue to
Speaker 1: collect also goes downhill, which puts the deficit even higher.
Speaker 1: And we can see that the economy is seemingly barreling
Speaker 1: into a recession. No matter what they want to tell
Speaker 1: you with the data, the jobs data, the unemployment data,
Speaker 1: it's all wrong. Everything, everything you've learned is wrong. So
Speaker 1: we can see here if we look at some different
Speaker 1: economic indicators, we can try to find it ourselves. There's
Speaker 1: this conference boards Leading Economic Indicators. It's continued. It's declined
Speaker 1: in January, dropping zero point three percent month over month,
Speaker 1: so that's not good. We can see it's the tenth
Speaker 1: straight monthly decline in the LI Leading Economic Indicator. It's
Speaker 1: the longest streak of declines since Lehman, which was twenty
Speaker 1: straight months of decline, so we're currently in the longest
Speaker 1: streak since Layman happened. Among the leading indicators, we have
Speaker 1: deteriorating manufacturing new orders, so manufacturers aren't ordering, so manufacturing
Speaker 1: production is going down. Remember, wealth is not money, wealth
Speaker 1: is goods and services, So when manufacturers aren't producing goods
Speaker 1: and services, that's not good. Also, leading indicators are consumers,
Speaker 1: expectations of business conditions, credit conditions, and all of that
Speaker 1: combined more than offset the strength supposed strength that we
Speaker 1: had in the labor markets. The Conference Board expects high inflation,
Speaker 1: rising interest rates, and contracting consumers spending to tip the
Speaker 1: US economy into recession in twenty twenty three. So if
Speaker 1: that happens, tax revenues go down. It says this is
Speaker 1: on a year of year basis, the li is down
Speaker 1: six point zero three percent, which is close to the
Speaker 1: biggest year over year drop since two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: So we're on the longest streak since we saw in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight. It's the we're almost to the
Speaker 1: same size of drop that we saw in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight. It's not a good sign for GDP. And
Speaker 1: if it's not a good sign for GDP, what does
Speaker 1: that mean, that means tax revenues go down. We can
Speaker 1: also see subprime auto loan delinquencies just had a thirteen
Speaker 1: year high. All this money that got injected into the
Speaker 1: system through the COVID pandemic got you know, all these
Speaker 1: companies to expand very quickly, like Amazon started building out
Speaker 1: all these new shipping centers, started hiring all these people.
Speaker 1: All these people got hired on the new jobs, and
Speaker 1: they went out and bought cars with that stimmy. But
Speaker 1: now all the layoffs are happening, and now people can't
Speaker 1: afford those cars. Now I've been hearing stories and reading
Speaker 1: reading stories of all these cars at car auction lots
Speaker 1: that have never even been registered, meaning they're brand new,
Speaker 1: they're less than one or two years old, where people
Speaker 1: bought them, probably on their stimmy, and then never even
Speaker 1: got to the first registration where they had to pay
Speaker 1: for the tags. And now we're starting to see that
Speaker 1: the FED might start understanding this, because the problem is
Speaker 1: is that they are hell bent on getting inflation back
Speaker 1: down to this two percent supposedly I don't even know where. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a story this week I saw where did two
Speaker 1: percent come from? Supposedly New Zealand just pulled that number
Speaker 1: out of thin air. Oh, let's go with a two
Speaker 1: percent inflation rate, And apparently that's what stuck. But the
Speaker 1: problem is, as the FED continues to try to bring
Speaker 1: inflation down, they're pushing asset prices down and helm price
Speaker 1: down to make you feel poor. But as you feel poor,
Speaker 1: and as you have no cap gains, the government doesn't
Speaker 1: get the funding at the same time as their spendings
Speaker 1: going up. They're already a zombie company and solvent, which
Speaker 1: means they're only even more insolvent. So the question is,
Speaker 1: or the question or the question that I would ask myself,
Speaker 1: is what does all this mean? What does all this mean? Mark?
Speaker 1: I mean, okay, you've made a case the economy is
Speaker 1: going into recession. The Treasury itself, for its own report
Speaker 1: says that it's insolvent and it's only be going to
Speaker 1: come more insolvent. What does this mean. It means that
Speaker 1: money printing is inevitable. That's what this means. So what
Speaker 1: this means is that the federal government is insolvent. They're bankrupt.
Speaker 1: They haven't filed for bankruptcy, but they're insolvent. They're spending
Speaker 1: way more on just mandatory expenses than they bring in
Speaker 1: in income, and at the same time their income is
Speaker 1: going down, their expenses are going up. So we have
Speaker 1: to refinance all this dead at higher rates and all
Speaker 1: these things. So no government with a money printer will
Speaker 1: go bankrupt. So this means they're going to print money.
Speaker 1: So while we have all this posturing and the Fed says,
Speaker 1: they don't, you know, they want to continue to tighten
Speaker 1: the markets. They don't want to ease the markets. We
Speaker 1: know what's inevitable, and I believe the markets it's inevitable,
Speaker 1: which is why the markets aren't going down. Jerome Powell
Speaker 1: keeps one in the markets to go down, but they don't.
Speaker 1: I saw this article this week talking about how the
Speaker 1: Fed minutes appear to argue against what Powe was saying
Speaker 1: in the presser, and they wanted him to go back
Speaker 1: and reiterate again. But Powell declined to try to talk
Speaker 1: down financial markets, saying, we're just going to have to
Speaker 1: see seeing Look, I told them what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: Let's just leave it up to them. They're going to
Speaker 1: figure this out. But the markets don't believe what the
Speaker 1: Fed is saying. And the reason why they don't believe
Speaker 1: it is because they know what's inevitable. They know that
Speaker 1: the treasury is going broke and they're going to have
Speaker 1: to print the money. No government, the money printer will
Speaker 1: go broke. And so while we don't know exactly what's
Speaker 1: going to happen over the next two to three months,
Speaker 1: we do know what's going to happen over the next
Speaker 1: two to three years. Now, what's going to happen over
Speaker 1: the next two to three years is massive amounts of
Speaker 1: money printing. The US dollar is going to have to
Speaker 1: get weaker. When the US dollar gets weaker, it will
Speaker 1: push asset prices higher. There's no other way now, Like
Speaker 1: I said, the other way is the government goes bankrupt.
Speaker 1: But of course, as I said, no government with the
Speaker 1: money printer will go bankrupt, and so I think the
Speaker 1: chance of that happening is slim to none. Now, there
Speaker 1: are two types of defaults. Of course, there's the default
Speaker 1: where I don't pay you, and there's the default where
Speaker 1: I just pay you back with a bunch of made
Speaker 1: up money that's not worth as much as what you're
Speaker 1: actually owed. So I pay you back the million dollars
Speaker 1: I owe you, but it only buys you half a
Speaker 1: million dollars worth goods today. And that's exactly what's happening,
Speaker 1: and that's where we're going. And so if you're trying
Speaker 1: to plan what should I do with my business, my investments, etc.
Speaker 1: If you think long term, you know it's inevitable the
Speaker 1: money printer will burr again. If you're just tuning in
Speaker 1: you're listening to the Markmas Show. We've been talking about
Speaker 1: what the Treasury report said and the inevitability of money printing.
Speaker 1: The financial revolution is here and we're witnessing it. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much for listening.