Speaker 1: Ninety percent of the criticism of the United States GATS
Speaker 1: comes from only looking at the liability side of the
Speaker 1: balance sheet. They never look at the asset side of
Speaker 1: the balance sheet. We're the ones draining the LBMA. Right now,
Speaker 1: I turned to the ten year US Treasury bond. It
Speaker 1: is going to close this week under four percent. We're
Speaker 1: moving into a stagflationary environment. Is if the flation ers
Speaker 1: it inflation. It's both asset based deflation commodity price inflations.
Speaker 2: And I want to get back on the conversation of
Speaker 2: your plan that you laid down twenty nineteen. That's all
Speaker 2: coming true. Go ahead and lay out the rest of
Speaker 2: the plan for us from there. Well, all right, Tom Luongo,
Speaker 2: what a pleasure to have you back on the show.
Speaker 3: You know this has been scheduled for a while, and I.
Speaker 2: Would just say that there's probably no one else that's
Speaker 2: better to talk to today.
Speaker 3: On what's going on.
Speaker 2: So Tom, let me let me frame this up. And
Speaker 2: I want to see where you want to take this,
Speaker 2: because I had like one agenda and now the week
Speaker 2: we're recording this on actually nine to elevenst for recording
Speaker 2: this on nine to eleven, twenty twenty five, I feel
Speaker 2: almost like that moment in nine eleven and twenty twenty
Speaker 2: five where it's like, Wow, the world just changed. But
Speaker 2: I just got back from England. They're blowing out over there.
Speaker 2: The guilt market is blowing out, their bond market. They've
Speaker 2: lost control. The BOE keeps cutting rates, and yet the
Speaker 2: long end of the curve is running away.
Speaker 3: The political system.
Speaker 2: Is being completely overrun by immigrants. You have it's like
Speaker 2: a powder keg where they have this like operation raised
Speaker 2: the colors, so like Englishmen are raising the English flag
Speaker 2: and it's like racism, which is kind of crazy. On
Speaker 2: the other side, we have what I thought was really
Speaker 2: interesting in Nepal. Supposedly they banned social media. They burned
Speaker 2: the parliament building down. They're like killing the leaders over
Speaker 2: there in Nepaul. In France, you have I'm just framing
Speaker 2: this up for everybody and then we'll see who it's
Speaker 2: going to jump in. In France we have mccrone's government
Speaker 2: failed to survive.
Speaker 3: There's no confidence vote. I think it's the fourth PM
Speaker 3: in like twelve months. They've run out.
Speaker 2: They have this massive, growing debt crisis, and it's kind
Speaker 2: of the same thing as everywhere. You know, they wanted
Speaker 2: to try to bring austerity in. People aren't for that.
Speaker 2: Now they have this block everything movement left and right
Speaker 2: seemed to be joining together on that. So that's kind
Speaker 2: of like what's happening in maybe like the West. And
Speaker 2: then and then I just got back from China. I
Speaker 2: was there as they were preparing for this landmark military parade,
Speaker 2: and you have the leaders of Russia and North Korea
Speaker 2: there with g g Is saying that humanity is once
Speaker 2: again faced with critical choices peace or war, dialogue or confrontation.
Speaker 2: And then Trump goes on to say, you know, well
Speaker 2: I lost. I guess we lost Indian and Russia to China.
Speaker 2: You know, good regards to Kim Jong yu and Vladimir
Speaker 2: Putin conspiring against the USA.
Speaker 3: So this is like this whole world seems like a
Speaker 3: powder KEG. And then here in the United States we.
Speaker 2: Had this brutal, brutal killing that just happens way too
Speaker 2: often on in North Carolina on public transit. Yep, Irena,
Speaker 2: a Ukrainian woman who came here seeking safety and unfortunately
Speaker 2: didn't find it. And then we had Charlie Kirk yesterday.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: I mean, the world is just a powder cake everywhere,
Speaker 2: and I'm gonna I'm gonna do one more quote and
Speaker 2: then I'm gonna see where you want to jump in here, sure,
Speaker 2: because we mainly talk about finance, but finances related to
Speaker 2: all of this. And actually there was a there was
Speaker 2: a video clip I saw of Charlie Kirk saying that
Speaker 2: his number one focus was deradicalization. And he said, what
Speaker 2: do you think happens when you own nothing and there's
Speaker 2: no hope and your money's losing purchasing power? Mm hm,
Speaker 2: you turn to radicalization and he said that I that's
Speaker 2: my single focus. And so we typically talk about money here,
Speaker 2: but I'm gonna end with one more quote. You retweeted
Speaker 2: a post from vbl Ghost and you said, if the
Speaker 2: woke movement is a Marxist revolution, it is in parentheses.
Speaker 2: And if that's true, then we are in the process
Speaker 2: of approaching a nineteen sixty seven Shanghai Storm moment when
Speaker 2: the monster they've created on the left is out.
Speaker 3: Of their control needs to be put down.
Speaker 2: So these are these are these are political, these are societal,
Speaker 2: and these are financial revolutions that all seem to converge
Speaker 2: at the same time.
Speaker 1: Yep, yeah, I mean you you're picking out my uh
Speaker 1: my retweet of my good friend Vince Launchi. You know,
Speaker 1: gota like that because Vince has been it's interesting like
Speaker 1: it was. It was funny, Vince actually admitted the other day.
Speaker 1: And I whenever I do a thing with Vince, but
Speaker 1: I'll well, I'll read into all together stept you just
Speaker 1: talked about in a second. But you know, whenever Vince
Speaker 1: and I get together to do a podcast together, we
Speaker 1: chat for forty five minutes before we record, then we
Speaker 1: record for an hour and a half, and then we
Speaker 1: chatted forty five minutes afterwards. Yeah, and you know the
Speaker 1: Vince's cue because yesterday, yesterday day before on Twitter, he
Speaker 1: finally said, you know, somebody said, dude, it's really interesting
Speaker 1: that you're starting to talk.
Speaker 3: Like this and go right there. And he's like, yeah,
Speaker 3: well you got that.
Speaker 1: You got Tom Wata to think for that, because you know,
Speaker 1: we usually talk about this stuff behind the scenes, but
Speaker 1: he draws it out of me.
Speaker 3: I can't help it.
Speaker 1: I'm like, yeah, I know I do that to people,
Speaker 1: and I I just remember my heart on my sleep mark.
Speaker 3: You know you know how that is?
Speaker 1: Okay, So yes, you're not wrong that it feels like
Speaker 1: the whole world is trying to spin out out of control.
Speaker 1: And I'll be honest with you, as far as I'm
Speaker 1: concerned that that's a feature, not a bug of the
Speaker 1: system that we have that we're watching collapse, and it's
Speaker 1: it's collapsing, and they know it's collapsing. So they need
Speaker 1: to try and create as much chaos as possible because
Speaker 1: they really do believe that during the chaos, they can
Speaker 1: set all the people against each other, fighting amongst themselves, black, white, red, blue,
Speaker 1: you know, Iranian Is, you know, Israeli, I don't care, Brits, Muslims,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. Set everybody else in motion while the
Speaker 1: elite move you know, while the elite make movements, scott
Speaker 1: free in the background, create the next architecture for whatever
Speaker 1: they're going to put together next, and then you know,
Speaker 1: send in the then overpay the gendarme for all lack
Speaker 1: of a better term, to come in and assholes and
Speaker 1: elbows and take care of and whack everybody and restore order.
Speaker 1: Now at the same time, the reason that this is
Speaker 1: going on, and I firmly believe this, and you have to,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna stick to my guns on this, is
Speaker 1: because Donald Trump has told them no. Now is the
Speaker 1: United States going to be some bastion of libertarian freedom
Speaker 1: of No, it's not. But what Donald Trump has told
Speaker 1: them is absolutely not. We're not following that path. This
Speaker 1: is our independence from the old colonial powers of Europe.
Speaker 1: And if you look at the way he's treated the
Speaker 1: European leaders when they came to Washington and fortunim the
Speaker 1: struggle session for peace while they machinate for war. If
Speaker 1: you watch the way he's struggle sessioned everybody, I mean
Speaker 1: he invited and or sorry, he entertained here Starmer, the
Speaker 1: sitting Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in his castle,
Speaker 1: Trump's castle in Scotland on that is nominally owned or
Speaker 1: en ruled by Kir Starmer.
Speaker 3: I keep wanting to call him here Salom, because it's true,
Speaker 3: it's about the same.
Speaker 1: I have an even worse term for him than that,
Speaker 1: but I'll keep it relatively clean today. So and just
Speaker 1: remember that mister Starmer got off of Trump's US Navy helicopter.
Speaker 1: He pump wouldn't even allow the RAF to bring him
Speaker 1: to Scotland, okay, I And then that was right after
Speaker 1: he brought in Nursul of Bonderland and gave her terms
Speaker 1: of EU's financial surrender, which is what he forced him to,
Speaker 1: which is he forced her to sign. Of course, Bonderland thought,
Speaker 1: you know, sign whatever it is that she wanted to,
Speaker 1: because she's thinking to herself, like the rest of these
Speaker 1: Dabogian catamites, that well, we're gonna force Trump into war,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna waig him out, and we're just gonna
Speaker 1: do what we want in two years anyway, it doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: because we're gonna kill all the support system around him.
Speaker 1: They're acting exactly the same way they did last summer
Speaker 1: before they tried to shoot him, or where they did
Speaker 1: shoot him and missed, But they were all running around
Speaker 1: like not a care in the world right last summer
Speaker 1: and even this summer, watching Starmer on his government collapsing
Speaker 1: around him, and you know, home secretary resigns over something
Speaker 1: they bring, they bring somebody else and who's even worse,
Speaker 1: right losing in the polls. They don't care about any
Speaker 1: they don't care about public support, doubling down on every
Speaker 1: bad policy. This is not accidental. These people aren't incompetent.
Speaker 1: They're hyper competent at being vandals. If you and I've
Speaker 1: been saying this for years, as long as you and
Speaker 1: I have been, you know, chatting on and off for
Speaker 1: the you know what, three or four years we've known
Speaker 1: each other.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: I think it's the biggest, probably be four now, Christ
Speaker 1: it's been that long. They're vandals, they know exactly what
Speaker 1: they're doing, and so Vince's tweet that you quoted earlier
Speaker 1: is exactly correct. Right, They've been building this for years.
Speaker 1: They are now just in burn it all down mode.
Speaker 1: And they were in they were in maintain everything mode
Speaker 1: last summer, in the weeks leading up to Butler Pennsylvania, Right,
Speaker 1: Biden Trump debate. This is what we're gonna use as
Speaker 1: a cat as the inciting incident. They get rid of Biden,
Speaker 1: they called for snap elections. In France, they call for
Speaker 1: snap elections, and in the Great in Great Britain they
Speaker 1: get they put the people in power they want there.
Speaker 1: They start the process of liquidating book countries, and then
Speaker 1: we're gonna kill Trump and then we're gonna have Nicki
Speaker 1: Haley versus Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: That was their plan, and then Trump lived. Yep.
Speaker 1: Now they've been in scramble mode ever since then. So
Speaker 1: the reality of the situation is of course very simple.
Speaker 1: It's if we can't have it, nobody can. So No,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, you're not gonna come and save England and
Speaker 1: the rest of the Commonwealth. You're not gonna save Canada.
Speaker 1: We're gonna put our We're gonna put our high priests
Speaker 1: of Debogeian, ecumenically, environmentalism in charge of Canada, and then
Speaker 1: we're going to destroy what's the left of Canada because
Speaker 1: we can see you cutting us off from well, we
Speaker 1: cut ourselves off from Russian gas. We can see you
Speaker 1: cutting us off from Saudi gas and Azari gas in
Speaker 1: North Africa and everything else. So we cut ourselves off
Speaker 1: from British gas and British oil off the North Slope.
Speaker 1: This is why De liz Trust was deposed three years ago.
Speaker 1: Like they can see what's happening. So Canada is their
Speaker 1: last refuge. But Canada has always been their refuge. It's
Speaker 1: always been the antipode to undermine the United States from
Speaker 1: the north. As you know, my friend Matt Eric said
Speaker 1: to me the other day on a podcast we did together,
Speaker 1: Canada's is the insurrection against the United States from the
Speaker 1: north that won as opposed to the secession against the
Speaker 1: United States from the South that lost. Okay, when you
Speaker 1: think about the history of the nineteenth century, the whole
Speaker 1: world's being set on fire on purpose because Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has made it abundantly clear We're not going to fight
Speaker 1: a war for Israel in the Middle East, and we're
Speaker 1: not going to fight a war for the British and
Speaker 1: the French in Ukraine to destroy Russia. The problem for
Speaker 1: Trump is that he also wants to see Israel survive,
Speaker 1: and so what the British are now doing is allowing
Speaker 1: is Now they've turned on their their Israeli partners or
Speaker 1: you know, subsidiary, whatever you want to call them. As
Speaker 1: far as I'm concerned, they're cutting off Israeli subsidiary. Net
Speaker 1: Yahoo is going around and liquidating all the assets around
Speaker 1: the region that are a threat to Israel, because I
Speaker 1: think he realized after ten seven. I'm going back now,
Speaker 1: I reframing in the last couple of years of Netanyaha's behavior.
Speaker 1: And I feel dirty saying anything positive about that man,
Speaker 1: because I despise him.
Speaker 3: Okay, with the core.
Speaker 1: Of my being, I know he's a sinister, ugly man,
Speaker 1: but and I know that everything after the butt is
Speaker 1: what's true.
Speaker 3: This is what I'm getting at.
Speaker 1: That was the past, this is now the present, and
Speaker 1: the present is that ten seven was a Katari Hamas
Speaker 1: operation against Israel, probably created and organized by m I six,
Speaker 1: to radicalize the Israelis and start the conflict and to
Speaker 1: start the spiral down that we have, and to get
Speaker 1: the Israelis to go freaking bananas and want to wipe
Speaker 1: out every Palestinian on the planet. Of course, the reaction
Speaker 1: is over the top, of course the reaction is disgusting,
Speaker 1: But focusing on their reaction is missing the inciting incident
Speaker 1: and the causes belli and missing the modus operandee of
Speaker 1: the people that take, as my friend Alyx Craner likes
Speaker 1: to put it, take the two types. Take the black
Speaker 1: antswer the red ants, put them in their drummers, shake.
Speaker 3: Them up together.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, And the Israelis are part of that process, okay,
Speaker 1: And then that's gonna set everything in motion to then
Speaker 1: set them against Iran. Shake the antjar again. Now it's
Speaker 1: against Turkey. Shake the anjar again. But one of the
Speaker 1: things you can say about the kind of unfocused aggression
Speaker 1: that we're seeing in recent days from Natan Yahoo was
Speaker 1: that these are very targeted strikes against other British backed
Speaker 1: assets like Turkey and the and the radical Islamists that
Speaker 1: are in charge in Damascus, like the Kataris in Doa Okay,
Speaker 1: because that's where City of London wants to move to.
Speaker 4: Every day we see headlines about inflation and dead and
Speaker 4: diminishing control over our own money. That's why I always
Speaker 4: come back to bitcoin, because it's built for generations, it's
Speaker 4: built for legacy. But protecting your bitcoin legacy the right
Speaker 4: way it's not always simple. It demands discipline, focus and
Speaker 4: the right partner. Now, that's why I personally use Unchained Signature.
Speaker 4: It's a premium private client service for serious bitcoin holders
Speaker 4: who want expert guidance, resilient custody, and an enduring partnership.
Speaker 4: Now Signature, you're paired with your own dedicated account manager,
Speaker 4: someone who understands your goals helps you every step of
Speaker 4: the way. You're going to get white glove onboarding, same
Speaker 4: day emergency support, personalized education, reduced.
Speaker 3: Trading fees, and priority access.
Speaker 2: To exclusive events and features.
Speaker 4: Unchained Collaborative Custody model is designed to provide the same
Speaker 4: security as the world's biggest bitcoin custodians, but.
Speaker 2: For those who prefer to hold their own keys.
Speaker 4: Now, I've been using and recommending unchained for years.
Speaker 2: I even got my parents to set up with them.
Speaker 4: So if you want to get set up, check out
Speaker 4: unchained signature at unchained dot com, slash mark Moss and
Speaker 4: as a loyal listener, I got a discount for you.
Speaker 4: Just use code Moss ten at checkout to get ten
Speaker 4: percent off.
Speaker 2: Your first year. Because your bitcoin isn't just for life,
Speaker 2: it's for.
Speaker 1: So you you can almost see that, like at the
Speaker 1: last moment, Nat in Yahoo saw that Israel was going
Speaker 1: to be completely betrayed and said, oh no, we're not
Speaker 1: going there because like Netan, Yahoo don't like Netanyahu and
Speaker 1: I don't, but I can understand his mindset if you're
Speaker 1: willing to like put yourself into his mind for a minute,
Speaker 1: which is that this guy, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: remember his brother died at Antebbe. As my friend Dexter
Speaker 1: Lighteweaxer remind me all the time, he's got a certain
Speaker 1: ethos and that ethos is Israel for better or for worse.
Speaker 1: Right now, Israel has always been a British construct but
Speaker 1: you know, the last ten years worth of behavior in
Speaker 1: relations between Israel, the EU, Britain and the region have
Speaker 1: been very complicated, right, and there were forces in Israel
Speaker 1: and the Israeli government system and the Israeli political system.
Speaker 1: They're clearly against YAH and they're backed by Europe, all
Speaker 1: naphtally Bennett. So when you start getting into the things,
Speaker 1: and when I'm getting on here, so I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to absolve Israel of anything. Obviously they're committing whatever you
Speaker 1: want to call it genocide or whatever. I don't care
Speaker 1: call it what you want, the eradication of the Palestinians
Speaker 1: in Gaza, Okay, I don't care. And we can have
Speaker 1: and and and we can all feel horror a shame
Speaker 1: at all of it. But when you but you look
Speaker 1: at the why this is creating up while we're getting
Speaker 1: to the powder Keg moment is exactly this. Everybody's being
Speaker 1: radicalized on some irrational bit of violence that's being paraded
Speaker 1: in front of us on a day to day basis,
Speaker 1: whether it is Israel's you know, attacks on the Gosins,
Speaker 1: whether it's some whether it's that poor girl on the
Speaker 1: bus uh in Charlotte or Charlie Kirk or this or
Speaker 1: the insanity that's happening in the in the streets you know,
Speaker 1: all over England or in Ireland or in you know,
Speaker 1: in the United States, like it's happening everywhere, and all
Speaker 1: of this is a market is all this is policy?
Speaker 3: The question is whose policy? Who benefits from this?
Speaker 1: So you ask yourself the basic quite best, and who
Speaker 1: benefits from No, it's the people that who are literally.
Speaker 3: In the process of losing all their power.
Speaker 1: Because if Donald Trump, Vladimiprut and Ajijin Ping get together
Speaker 1: and recarve up the world, who does not see at
Speaker 1: the table it's the same thing I've been saying for
Speaker 1: four years, and I'm sorry, but that heuristic works better
Speaker 1: than everybody else. Is heuristic like it's all the Jews,
Speaker 1: or it's all this or none of that, Like it's
Speaker 1: fully explanatory. And for you know, then for people who
Speaker 1: want to see a better world, you have to understand
Speaker 1: the game board, understand the players and the motivations so
Speaker 1: you can see that where we're gonna wind up on
Speaker 1: the other side because we have to be able to
Speaker 1: predict their moves. It doesn't matter whether we hate the
Speaker 1: moves that were that they're making we hate the game
Speaker 1: that we're playing. Don't hate the play I hate the game.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, So who doesn't have a seat England and
Speaker 2: the EU?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean do they have any collateral?
Speaker 1: Do they have any energy? Do they have any innovation?
Speaker 1: Do they have any people? Do they have a birth rate? No,
Speaker 1: they have nothing.
Speaker 3: You know what they have? They have bureaucracy and shame. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's what they've got. And violence. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Now, obviously this is culminated right now, and you mentioned
Speaker 2: all these players from Trump and bb et cetera. But
Speaker 2: a lot of this seems to be decades in the making.
Speaker 2: So as I kind of started out by saying, you know,
Speaker 2: we're sort of at this maybe long end of this
Speaker 2: eighty year credit cycle where now the bond markets across
Speaker 2: the developed world are all blowing out. I mean, obviously
Speaker 2: with England, as I said, right, the guilt market's blowing
Speaker 2: out while the BOE keeps trying the lower rates. We're
Speaker 2: seeing this kind of across the board. So I mean,
Speaker 2: how much of this is just sort of this culmination
Speaker 2: of this long term destruction of the monetary system versus
Speaker 2: this game board catalyst of like or maybe they're they're
Speaker 2: realizing the game is almost up, so now we have
Speaker 2: to reshuffle the deck real quickly to kind of figure
Speaker 2: out who gets that seat next.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, that's what they're doing, like and they look
Speaker 1: the you know, every time the British Empire gets in trouble,
Speaker 1: they wanted to fault on their debt and sort over
Speaker 1: again or the or in Europe or whatever. Remember, as Martin,
Speaker 1: I'm Storing likes to point out all the time, and
Speaker 1: I've had the great pleasure getting the no marety over
Speaker 1: the past two months.
Speaker 3: So it's been fun.
Speaker 1: Bouncing a lot of these ideas off and then actually
Speaker 1: bouncing on a lot of his ideas back off of
Speaker 1: him and being which is to say that that what
Speaker 1: is the America?
Speaker 3: What is America's superpower? It's the fact that we've never
Speaker 3: defaulted on our debt.
Speaker 1: Sure, always paid our debts, even if we've gone to
Speaker 1: inflations and we've you know, paid it. We've never ever
Speaker 1: default on an acusip. We've always paid our posts, paid our.
Speaker 3: We did default on the gold. We did default on
Speaker 3: paying back the gold in nineteen seventy one.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, but but you know, did we or or
Speaker 1: where the fun or where the freaking French running an
Speaker 1: operation using our trade deficit and our our tax dollars
Speaker 1: that were going to France through the Marshall Plan to
Speaker 1: take all of our freaking gold because the gall hated
Speaker 1: us more than Matchrone does.
Speaker 3: Because that's what they did.
Speaker 1: Mark, I'm gonna reframe that whole argument by the Libertarians
Speaker 1: and who I used to be by saying, oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, that was our tax money, that was the
Speaker 1: Marshall Plan that created a trade that could have created
Speaker 1: a durable trade advantage to a trade positive trade flow
Speaker 1: towards France. Who then, the gall who hated the United
Speaker 1: States was then draining our money. Who's then, so we're
Speaker 1: rebuilding France and he's redeeming his trade sort of plus
Speaker 1: which we paid for by stealing our gold.
Speaker 3: Yeah. No, no, you don't get anymore.
Speaker 1: I'm over it, Like I'm over that whole argument, Like, yes,
Speaker 1: do we need to go back on a gold standardism
Speaker 1: form or another?
Speaker 3: Yes? And are we in the process of doing so? Yes?
Speaker 3: And you know who's gonna do that, Who's gonna lead
Speaker 3: that charge?
Speaker 1: It ain't the Chinese, it ain't the Russians, it ain't
Speaker 1: the Indians, it ain't bricks and anybody else, it's us
Speaker 1: because we're the ones draining in the LBMA right now,
Speaker 1: We're the ones knocking down city of London. They're the
Speaker 1: ones that ran the gold scam for fifty years to
Speaker 1: prop up the quote unquote prop up.
Speaker 3: The dollars of the world's reserve currency. And they did it.
Speaker 1: It's ninety percent of the of the of the entire
Speaker 1: gold manipulation system was run out of the LBMA and
Speaker 1: the COMACS. But it all starts at the LBMA and
Speaker 1: also there and being there in Zurich.
Speaker 3: That's interesting that you say that.
Speaker 2: I mean, to the point about the revaluing gold or
Speaker 2: going back to this gold system. I mean, certainly a
Speaker 2: lot of people see this. I like to follow Luke
Speaker 2: Grammin pretty closely, and he's been talking about this for
Speaker 2: quite a while. And how he says it's really China
Speaker 2: and the bricks that are starting to kind of course
Speaker 2: he to push push the price of gold back up.
Speaker 1: Of course he does because Lucas never met, Because Lucas
Speaker 1: never met a talking point about finance that has ever
Speaker 1: been positive towards the United States.
Speaker 3: I've told Luke this on Twitter.
Speaker 2: I'm like, dude, come on, well, he has told me
Speaker 2: in his defense, I mean, he's not here and I
Speaker 2: don't want to words in his mouth, and he has
Speaker 2: told me that he sees that there's the US also
Speaker 2: sees this coming to a head, and if they don't
Speaker 2: preempt the move by China, then they kind of have
Speaker 2: that last mover advantage. So you know, potentially he sees
Speaker 2: a chance or the.
Speaker 1: First mover advantage because we're the ones draining the LBMA,
Speaker 1: We're the ones. I said this four years ago when
Speaker 1: we started raising interest rates. I said, it's what's going
Speaker 1: to bake everybody's noodles, that the United States is going
Speaker 1: to be the one that wants to seize the gold
Speaker 1: price rise. And what's gonna make everybody's noodle is watching
Speaker 1: the Fed put bitcoin on their balance sheet.
Speaker 3: Well that didn't quite come true, but that the United States, like.
Speaker 1: Ice, crypto is a means by which to collateralize their debt.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's coming same thing. Yeah, Luke didn't say that
Speaker 3: four years ago. I did.
Speaker 1: Gluke goes on Tucker Carlson for forty five minutes and
Speaker 1: does nothing but complain no solutions to the problem. I
Speaker 1: gave you the broad pamp to the solution, and I
Speaker 1: hate the bike too, my own horny here, but I'm
Speaker 1: going to do so. I gave everybody the the ancherse
Speaker 1: I'm really angry about this this stuff, not because I
Speaker 1: didn't get the credit.
Speaker 3: Put the credit. I care about to fix the problem,
Speaker 3: and I gave everybody to the roadmap. They all called
Speaker 3: me crazy. Fine, I don't care about being called crazy.
Speaker 3: Next lay it about is.
Speaker 1: That the fact that like the roadmap is now being
Speaker 1: laid out in front of us, and people are still
Speaker 1: arguing like it's twenty nineteen, staring you in the face,
Speaker 1: that that is not what's happening. Brent Johnson is more
Speaker 1: correct about all of this in the long run, and
Speaker 1: we all kind of agreed, Yes, is there a problem
Speaker 1: in the United States in terms of the physical position,
Speaker 1: in terms of the debt, in terms of all these things.
Speaker 3: Yes, But has anybody looked as.
Speaker 1: I as I have at the end of the day, Mark,
Speaker 1: this is one of the things that really bothers me
Speaker 1: because and I've said it many times. I don't think
Speaker 1: I've said it to you personally in the life, because
Speaker 1: you know, and I haven't talked on this a year,
Speaker 1: But think about this, I always said, Look, ninety percent
Speaker 1: of the criticism of the United States gets comes from
Speaker 1: only looking at the liability side of the balance sheet.
Speaker 3: Sure they never look at.
Speaker 1: The asset side of the balance sheet. Okay, And the
Speaker 1: and the only ass and only asked that anybody ever
Speaker 1: wants to look at is of course the tax flow,
Speaker 1: because that's the system, right, This system is we issue taxes.
Speaker 1: We issued debt and pay for them, pay for the
Speaker 1: interest on the on it with taxes, and that's how
Speaker 1: we fund the liquidity system. And that's how this that's
Speaker 1: how the system is supposed to work, as other credit
Speaker 1: system says running right, Well, that's the British model of
Speaker 1: central banking, debt, feudalism, slavery, tariffs. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 1: and we were operating where everybody else was terriffing us,
Speaker 1: but we weren't allowed to tariff them back.
Speaker 3: Well, well this is not fear because you're got a
Speaker 3: better economy than us.
Speaker 1: Like shut up, loser, Yeah, like I think off, Like
Speaker 1: I'm serious, Like this is They've all been sitting here
Speaker 1: like freeom welfare quas for eighty five friggin years complaining
Speaker 1: about this, and we had the we we built their societies.
Speaker 3: But most people have.
Speaker 2: No idea that those countries tariff US or why those
Speaker 2: tariffs were given to them in the first place.
Speaker 3: I mean, and some of these terriffs, like the stuff
Speaker 3: between US and Canada, go back well before World War
Speaker 3: Two and the Marshall Plan. Right, Okay, So understand that.
Speaker 1: Understand that when you start to really think about the
Speaker 1: balance sheet of the United States, you start thinking about
Speaker 1: the assets, and you look at the way we've had
Speaker 1: to deal with environmental regulations and you know, cars and
Speaker 1: transportation and this and that, and all this managerial bureaucracy.
Speaker 3: That we all hate.
Speaker 1: What is that that's a means by which to write
Speaker 1: the assets down behind those regulations to zero, so that
Speaker 1: you can't bring them to bear and put them against
Speaker 1: and put them against the liability. So all you're doing
Speaker 1: is you're saying, well, yeah, I mean, the United States
Speaker 1: is thirty seven trillion dollars in debt and some number
Speaker 1: of unfunded liabilities and trillions in debt. But that's only
Speaker 1: if you take as good in everything else. The regulations
Speaker 1: aren't going to change the burden on the middle class,
Speaker 1: tax burden in the middle class, the regulatory burden on
Speaker 1: the middle class and all that stuff is not going
Speaker 1: to change. But now is it happening fast enough for
Speaker 1: the for the radicals in the audience. Of course not,
Speaker 1: because the radicals in the audience are not grown ups
Speaker 1: who wear pants. You know why, because they understand. They
Speaker 1: don't understand that they can look at see. Well, Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: you have he has a majority in the House.
Speaker 3: In the Senate, No, he doesn't.
Speaker 1: He won the biggest landslide and modern electoral history, but
Speaker 1: he only won a three seat majority in the House. No,
Speaker 1: he won a forty seat majority in the House. They
Speaker 1: stole thirty seven of them. He won a nine seat
Speaker 1: majority in the Senate and they sold six of them.
Speaker 3: Because they were still ballid. They were still ballad harvesting
Speaker 3: in December. Yeah. Crazy, that's all being rebrune, right.
Speaker 1: So he winds up in the same situation he has now,
Speaker 1: which is his biggest tail risk is a is a
Speaker 1: Congress that doesn't want to go along with his plans
Speaker 1: either because they're bought and paid.
Speaker 3: For, their corrupt or all of the above.
Speaker 1: So until that changes, he can only make certain moves.
Speaker 1: You know, he can only make certain moves at the
Speaker 1: edges of the process. Now, take that one step further.
Speaker 1: He also had to go tap th and verse through
Speaker 1: the entire process of reasserting the Article two powers of
Speaker 1: the President of the United States and the Article three
Speaker 1: powers of the Supreme Court. And you do that by well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna do this thing that we know. They're going
Speaker 1: to issue an injunction against some lower court and then
Speaker 1: it's gonna roll up to the Supreme Court and the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court's gonna knock it down. Okay, Well that part
Speaker 1: of the Article two has been re established. Okay, next thing,
Speaker 1: next thing, next thing, next thing, next thing. I saw
Speaker 1: something the other day. I think it was like Trump
Speaker 1: is won eighteen or nineteen times in the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: so far this summer. It was like Amy Coney Barrett
Speaker 1: finally came out and said, we're not rubber stamping his
Speaker 1: his agenda. We're just interpreting the Constitution as written. These
Speaker 1: judges are insane. Okay, So this is the art. This
Speaker 1: is what Article two means. And all of these lower
Speaker 1: courts don't really exist if the Congress says they go
Speaker 1: away tomorrow.
Speaker 3: So Congress is Trump's biggest tail risk. They know it.
Speaker 3: And so that's why. So that's why their whole extend
Speaker 3: to pretend thing has been running. So what I think
Speaker 3: is about ready to give way. This fall is going
Speaker 3: to be once the Supreme Court gets through the last
Speaker 3: few of these cases that are going to the big
Speaker 3: ones that are going to re establish that Donald Trump
Speaker 3: no can actually fire just about everybody under the purview
Speaker 3: of the executive branch with stroke of the penela of
Speaker 3: the land. Okay, same thing for all the money and
Speaker 3: everything else. And we're nearly there. We're about eighty five percent.
Speaker 3: There like three or four more cases that need to
Speaker 3: be settled. I think I believe something like that. And
Speaker 3: then once that happens done, you're going to watch it occur.
Speaker 3: I've been speaking to guys over like ONBA you have
Speaker 3: a couple other departments, and they're all like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 3: we're just waiting. When you saw when you saw John
Speaker 3: Thune the other day finally say hey, we're done. We're
Speaker 3: we're pushing through all of trump'upport evens it was like
Speaker 3: forty eight or yeah, I saw that.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are all important department heads and people
Speaker 1: that are necessary to run these agencies and to clean
Speaker 1: them up. And so when the totality of all that
Speaker 1: excuse me is to say Trump's writing up the value
Speaker 1: of these assets that are on the balance sheet. Once that,
Speaker 1: once that's been done, now let's recalculate what the United
Speaker 1: States fiscal position is. And if anybody has a question
Speaker 1: about whether or not they're being successful to write those
Speaker 1: assets up in value. I turned to the ten year
Speaker 1: US Treasury bond.
Speaker 3: You're the one who brought it up, Mark, Thank you.
Speaker 2: Just had a record a record auction, just had a
Speaker 2: record oction.
Speaker 1: Go look at it like the ten year is going
Speaker 1: to close today, is going to close this week under
Speaker 1: four percent.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: And Powell's probably only got a cut by twenty five
Speaker 1: do more because of the CPI that came out today.
Speaker 1: And this started well before Jackson Hole when he changed
Speaker 1: the monetary policy. He got rid of the two percent
Speaker 1: inflation mandate, which, by the way, Powell never liked.
Speaker 3: Oh by the way, he was a.
Speaker 1: Critic of it from the time that Bernaki put it
Speaker 1: in place when he was a junior member of the FOMC.
Speaker 1: So it was only the greatest thing that ever that's
Speaker 1: occurred in the last year other than Trump getting.
Speaker 2: Why would he only cut by twenty five though, because
Speaker 2: I thought, with the record jobs blowout that we just
Speaker 2: had the revision and the jobs report, the economy looks
Speaker 2: much worse than it is.
Speaker 3: And I thought, he's going to.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to complain, and I wanted him to
Speaker 1: coup by I literally as of this morning, before the
Speaker 1: CPI report. I have two reasons why I'm now moving
Speaker 1: back toward twenty five. And it's all because of the
Speaker 1: last six hours, because we're doing this in the day of.
Speaker 3: The CBI came out. And I'll explain why in just
Speaker 3: a second.
Speaker 1: So yesterday I said I was doing my market report
Speaker 1: for my patrons, which I do on every Wednesday and
Speaker 1: every Sunday, And on Wednesday morning, I said, okay, well,
Speaker 1: tomorrow's the CBI report. I've been charting the the monthly
Speaker 1: close of the price of gasoline futures price of gasoline
Speaker 1: versus the four month rolling average of the month of
Speaker 1: over month change in.
Speaker 3: The CPI.
Speaker 1: So take the last four months of the CPI, roll
Speaker 1: that up and and chart that against the same closing
Speaker 1: months reported, you know, the same months closing the.
Speaker 3: Price of gasoline. And I ran, you know, the last nine.
Speaker 1: Years of that and since COVID, since or really since
Speaker 1: Powell sort of tightening, we've been in a commodity cost
Speaker 1: pushing place and environment where the directionally the two move
Speaker 1: and lockstep. A couple of months here or there where
Speaker 1: that okay, they weren't quite in lockstep, but for the
Speaker 1: most part they've been in lockstep directionally. I mean, price
Speaker 1: of gasoline goes up, the CPI, the four month rolling
Speaker 1: average of the CPI goes up. So this month for August,
Speaker 1: the clos was like it you know, it was down
Speaker 1: fifteen cents over the year of the over July July
Speaker 1: I was like two eleven a gallon monthly closing aciline
Speaker 1: was like one ninety seven. Like my prediction CPI is
Speaker 1: going to come in at about point one percent, meaning
Speaker 1: it's gonna roll over, you know, proportionately with the with the.
Speaker 3: With the price of gasoline.
Speaker 1: Right came up point four. But I did say if
Speaker 1: it doesn't do that, two things. One, it's either removing
Speaker 1: into a stagflationary environment or potentially a demand pull environment
Speaker 1: or the price of electricity from all these data centers
Speaker 1: that are coming online to run AIS are now the
Speaker 1: commodity or now the component of commodity cost push inflation right,
Speaker 1: because gasoline prices year over year were down six point
Speaker 1: six percent, but electricity prices year over Europe thirteen percent.
Speaker 1: Piped natural gas was up nine percent. That was like
Speaker 1: nine That was like most of the CPI rise, whereas gasoline.
Speaker 1: So if it was just the gasoline story like it
Speaker 1: has been up for the last four years, yeah, I
Speaker 1: would have been correct. So because the CPI is blowing
Speaker 1: out and the price of gasoline is falling or at
Speaker 1: least is flat at around two dollars a gallon, that
Speaker 1: tells you that we're maybe if we get two or
Speaker 1: three months worth of data, that's that confirms this trend.
Speaker 3: It's not a trend yet, just a data point that
Speaker 3: we're in a.
Speaker 1: Different environment and we have much less likelation than we
Speaker 1: have forty five as opposed to fifty. Because when you
Speaker 1: said we're gonna play the they're just still gonna play
Speaker 1: the inflation game.
Speaker 2: When you say we're in a much different environment, does
Speaker 2: that mean that we actually have less environment than what
Speaker 2: the CBI tells us or we have more.
Speaker 1: What I mean is that we're moving into a different
Speaker 1: environment from the purpose, from the standpoint of the credit
Speaker 1: and and and in place meaning what I mean is
Speaker 1: I think the most likely thing. But again I can
Speaker 1: I can make two hypotheses here that we're moving into
Speaker 1: what I would call it a stackflationary define environment. Now
Speaker 1: I define staculation differently than the rest of the world does,
Speaker 1: because well, the Phillips curve was always bullshit, which is
Speaker 1: how we defined the cyclation of the seventies, high unemployment
Speaker 1: with high inflation, because that the Canesian model said that
Speaker 1: can't possibly be true because the Phillips curve blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. I'm like, the Phillips curve is always nonsense.
Speaker 1: We're in a different environment today. I've always said, whenever
Speaker 1: we get to a moment like this is like post
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, right, I remember, like Petership versus
Speaker 1: Harry Dent debates from that back time.
Speaker 3: Is if deflation or is it inflation? I'm like, it's both.
Speaker 1: It's a red asset based deflation. It's commodity it's commodity
Speaker 1: price inflation. The two are going to meet one. You've
Speaker 1: got You've got, you know, a reorganization of the economy
Speaker 1: out of the hyper financialized into the real economy. As
Speaker 1: you do that, you're now going to put upward pressure
Speaker 1: on commodity prices. Going to supply chains take time to
Speaker 1: build out. Therefore, you know, the commodity cycles were always
Speaker 1: out of phase with the price.
Speaker 3: Therefore, you should start to see both of these.
Speaker 1: You should start to see kind of a reversion, a
Speaker 1: mean reversion, and that period is best then, and because
Speaker 1: of that, you're going to have high unemployment. You might
Speaker 1: have rising inflation, price inflation overall for the things that
Speaker 1: matter to people. People will complain about food inflation and
Speaker 1: housing inflation and whatnot. But you know, but home prices
Speaker 1: may fall, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2: Or yeah, you know, I see on trueflation today they're
Speaker 2: calling inflation at two percent.
Speaker 3: And it was that's right over it seven a couple
Speaker 3: of weeks ago.
Speaker 1: I watched trueflation every once in a while, I check
Speaker 1: in with it so at interesting moments in time. So
Speaker 1: I think it's a good model, but I don't think
Speaker 1: it's perfect. But I think it's a better model than
Speaker 1: the CPI certainly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, So I want to take you back, and
Speaker 2: I want to get back on the conversation of your
Speaker 2: plan that you laid down twenty nineteen. That's all coming true.
Speaker 2: So if I'm recapping this plan. Part of this is
Speaker 2: all based off of we've only heard about the liabilities
Speaker 2: of the US government. We haven't heard about the asset base.
Speaker 3: So the first time I had heard that was.
Speaker 2: Howard Lutnik who came on the Trump administration on All
Speaker 2: In podcasts, and he was talking about how, you know,
Speaker 2: through his fund, he's you know, taken over all these
Speaker 2: different businesses, and when he comes and looks at these businesses,
Speaker 2: he looks at all the different assets and the balance sheets,
Speaker 2: and he's like, we all hear about the debt of
Speaker 2: the country, but we never once have heard about the
Speaker 2: asset base.
Speaker 3: And so I thought that was very interesting.
Speaker 2: And so what you're saying is since twenty nineteen, you've
Speaker 2: been sort of looking at this. Now this is coming true.
Speaker 2: I heard Howard Lutnik talk about it. You're talking about
Speaker 2: ways that they could start to revalue some of these
Speaker 2: assets and come up with whatever that valuation is. Sure,
Speaker 2: and so anyway, go ahead and lay out the rest
Speaker 2: of the plan for us from there, Well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's let's just start out there. Like you this
Speaker 1: is when you start to and this is when you
Speaker 1: start to open up federal lands for physical export exploitations
Speaker 1: when you used to rebuild the infrastructure of the country
Speaker 1: so that it's you improve the comparative our productive capacity of.
Speaker 3: Of individual workers.
Speaker 1: You also have to recapitalize the middle class, and you've
Speaker 1: got to do that by opening up the small and
Speaker 1: medium banking regime. And that's where I think stable the
Speaker 1: stable coin bills come in, and and the but the
Speaker 1: big one is that you've got to open up the
Speaker 1: cash flow of the middle class. And how you do
Speaker 1: that is you get you've got to get Fanning and
Speaker 1: Freddy A out of conservatorship.
Speaker 3: You've got to get them moving again.
Speaker 1: The libertarians are going to hate this, but unfortunately this
Speaker 1: is the truth. The thirty year more fixed rate mortgage
Speaker 1: is one of the greatest inventions in American history. The
Speaker 1: government back thirty year fixed rate mortgage is one of
Speaker 1: the great inventions of human history because what it did
Speaker 1: was it opened up the productive capacity of the middle
Speaker 1: class to get a fixed costs and however much their
Speaker 1: mortgage was going to be, and then use that to
Speaker 1: then build businesses that created a higher return on investment
Speaker 1: over the course of the life and the loan, and
Speaker 1: thereby they were paying them. They were paying back their
Speaker 1: mortgage with appreciating money because they were making five percent
Speaker 1: of their business, was growing five percent of the year,
Speaker 1: and they were paying three three and a half percent
Speaker 1: on their mortgages. Now, we could argue about the suppression
Speaker 1: of interest rates and risks and everything else, but the
Speaker 1: truth of the matter is is that Fanny and Freddie
Speaker 1: were an unbelievably successful project until the weirdness of the
Speaker 1: early two thousands. And I've gotten to the point now
Speaker 1: where I honestly believe.
Speaker 3: That that was an operation.
Speaker 1: That the entire financial crisis of the year of two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight was designed from the ground up to
Speaker 1: destroy the thirty year mortgage and strip people of the
Speaker 1: ability to be able to buy a home, and then
Speaker 1: create a massive inflation that raised the price of a
Speaker 1: home to way beyond what anybody could afford. And you know,
Speaker 1: the terms were so onerous, twenty five thirty percent down,
Speaker 1: massive changes to underwriting rules.
Speaker 3: I'm fighting.
Speaker 1: I've been fighting with Wells Fargo for a couple of
Speaker 1: months now, practically as a small business owner, because I
Speaker 1: don't because I'm not on a W two and so underwriting,
Speaker 1: you know, literally wants to sniff up my ass all
Speaker 1: the way back to you know, the time I was
Speaker 1: in my mom's womb and order to get a fucking mortgage,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, no, you know, I mean and I
Speaker 1: mean everything, and like it's I'm like, no, I make
Speaker 1: this much money, it's more than enough. I'm not asking
Speaker 1: for a lot. Give me the freaking note, and they
Speaker 1: won't do it. And some of that is because of
Speaker 1: the way Sarbine's Oxley was written and the way God
Speaker 1: Frank was written. It was all written with the purpose
Speaker 1: of making it nearly impossible for small business owners to
Speaker 1: get mortgages in a reasonable time frame if they had
Speaker 1: any kind of complications in their in their income stream, whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And so we overcorrect it to the point of creating
Speaker 1: this nightmare. And so the only way people and then
Speaker 1: let's not even get into the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: now we're talking about loan to value ratios and you
Speaker 1: know how much money they have to put down and
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah blah. When you start to really
Speaker 1: look at like all of this stuff, like who the
Speaker 1: hell's got twenty percent to put.
Speaker 3: Down on a house?
Speaker 2: If if I'm not mistaken, I believe it was Bill Clinton.
Speaker 2: Maybe it was under Reagan, but I think it was
Speaker 2: under Bill Clinton that they also really wanted to kind
Speaker 2: of push for this home ownership, which sort of led
Speaker 2: to that that housing bubble.
Speaker 3: But part of it was because they felt.
Speaker 2: Like Americans should own property and there should be that
Speaker 2: sort of pride of ownership there.
Speaker 1: I mean, pride of ownership is I mean ownership, property
Speaker 1: ownership is how you build generational wealth and expid about
Speaker 1: property taxes. So that's another thing that's that's nass in
Speaker 1: here that we finally get rid of property taxes in
Speaker 1: the the thousand year old feudalism brought in by William
Speaker 1: the Conqueror to England and to the West, Like.
Speaker 3: This is evil.
Speaker 1: We're still we're still like we should not be paying
Speaker 1: rent to the government when we own our own right
Speaker 1: like that. I mean, like, I mean, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: still libertarian enough to believe that taxes are theft. I'm
Speaker 1: not like you're not gonna lie idea, but like property
Speaker 1: taxes are still the original Senate government, Like you should
Speaker 1: not you should not have to pay rent to the government.
Speaker 3: That's feudalism, folks, Yeah, like it is. It's not paying
Speaker 3: for the fucking school system. It's feudalism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it takes me back to the video piece I
Speaker 2: was talking from Charlie Kirk where he said that happy people,
Speaker 2: grateful people, don't get behind Vladimir Lenin or Chavez or Castro.
Speaker 2: People that own nothing, that feel like their property is diminishing.
Speaker 2: They don't own property or their dollars diminishing value, they
Speaker 2: start to look for alternatives. And so that was Charlie
Speaker 2: Kirk saying that, and so kind of to your point,
Speaker 2: it's like giving them home, so they have that ownership
Speaker 2: and then the other side is taking that away. I
Speaker 2: want to continue with this plan that you've laid out
Speaker 2: because I have a couple questions about that, and so
Speaker 2: I want to talk about Trump's ability to get this done.
Speaker 2: You were talking about, you know, some of these things
Speaker 2: you do with the Supreme Court. But before I ask
Speaker 2: you that question again, this week China had this landmark
Speaker 2: military parade. A lot of quotes and stuff were coming
Speaker 2: out of that. One thing I saw in Political Magazine
Speaker 2: is said that the Pentagon's plan is now changed and
Speaker 2: now they're prioritizing homeland over the China threat.
Speaker 1: It's deeper than that. So is this the game board
Speaker 1: I believe fundamentally that the name change around the Department
Speaker 1: of Defense to the Department of War is in order
Speaker 1: to literally use the legalese to say, the Department of Defense,
Speaker 1: which no longer exists, no longer has to operate under
Speaker 1: the twenty eighteen National Defense Authorization Act, which was re
Speaker 1: uped in twenty twenty two. The name, the name change
Speaker 1: is important. It's like, you know, it's like all the
Speaker 1: contracts that were written against the golf of all the treaties,
Speaker 1: is that they were issued against the Gulf of Mexico.
Speaker 3: Well we changed the name of the Gulf of America,
Speaker 3: so you know what I mean. Like you two can
Speaker 3: play the legalese game, folks.
Speaker 1: And you know, and I hadn't thought about that this
Speaker 1: has like Stephen Miller written all over it, folks. Like
Speaker 1: I'm that serious when I say this is like Miller
Speaker 1: is like clear of the clearly the guy who's in
Speaker 1: charge of the chart over Trump Central, which is opposing
Speaker 1: the Gan chart over at Evil Corpse Central, right the
Speaker 1: you know Microsoft project files of all this stuff that
Speaker 1: you know, while they advanced their plans, the Trump is
Speaker 1: advancing is and you know, they're playing their games and
Speaker 1: every and you know, sometimes they win one and sometimes
Speaker 1: Trump wins one.
Speaker 3: This is the way.
Speaker 1: It's the way war works, folks. And if it's you're
Speaker 1: uncomfortable with it, oh well, like you know, it's a foxhole.
Speaker 1: Like you can dig it deeper if you want, but
Speaker 1: eventually you're gonna have to fight.
Speaker 3: What does the name change mean?
Speaker 1: So the main so the name change and it gives
Speaker 1: them the state they really they don't have to follow
Speaker 1: the NDAA and the NDA said the Department Offense must
Speaker 1: prepare to fight a two front war against Russian and China.
Speaker 3: That's not what we're doing anymore. Now.
Speaker 1: We are prioritizing walking down the Western hemisphere.
Speaker 3: Now. I said back in November when.
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio was nominated to be Secretary of State, everybody's like,
Speaker 1: ahy that Neo Conree's and Aralis first, they're not and
Speaker 1: they focus on all that stuff and they forget the
Speaker 1: phone party. Marco is really well liked around Central and
Speaker 1: South America.
Speaker 3: And that was.
Speaker 1: Quite an open political geopolitical statement to the Chinese and
Speaker 1: the Russians that we are getting prepared to extricate ourselves
Speaker 1: from the British mackinderesque tall poppy syndrome. Problem of keeping
Speaker 1: all of of of keeping all of a a mess
Speaker 1: so that nobody can rise and retrenching and refocusing our
Speaker 1: efforts to creating fortress North and you know, the western hemisphere.
Speaker 1: It's like, this is our area. Y'all have your area.
Speaker 1: I don't care what and we don't care what happens
Speaker 1: to Europe. We want out of NATO, we want out
Speaker 1: of the un Like, but we can't say any of that.
Speaker 1: He can't do that directly while you've got these old guards,
Speaker 1: when you've got Mitchell McConnell's and Lisa Murkowski's and the Senate,
Speaker 1: they will, they will get together and they will impeach him.
Speaker 1: They but they can't impeach him if he doesn't state
Speaker 1: the state that that's what he's gonna do. You know
Speaker 1: what I mean, Like you have to play the game
Speaker 1: of what's said or what's being done and what's said.
Speaker 1: That's politics. And there's no way that Chuck Shuwery company
Speaker 1: can impeach Trump over what not wanting to go to
Speaker 1: war with Ukraine, with Russia over Ukraine, not wanting to
Speaker 1: you know, make the American people unsafe and the targets
Speaker 1: of the potential in Russian nuclear weapon or seventy. Really
Speaker 1: you want to impeach him for that? How about No,
Speaker 1: it's what we voted for. They keep asking us over
Speaker 1: and over and over again, did you vote for this?
Speaker 1: I'm like, yeah, kinda, no, actually I voted really voted
Speaker 1: for that. And so that's the game. And when we
Speaker 1: when you understand the game. And I thought people understood
Speaker 1: politics better than this, but apparently not, Like I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I'm not This isn't this isn't bogus
Speaker 1: to you, Mark. This is like in general, I watch
Speaker 1: people on a day to day basis. I watch people
Speaker 1: who are supposed to be astute political commentators not get
Speaker 1: this basic concept. Like we used to have reasonable political
Speaker 1: debate in this country. I used to watch cross Talk
Speaker 1: with them, and I used to watch the maclauchlin group
Speaker 1: with Buchanan and the rest.
Speaker 3: Of them, and yeah, you know, half of them were morons.
Speaker 3: So especially that Elean or whatever the hell her name was,
Speaker 3: not Elbert.
Speaker 1: She was terrible, but at the very least they knew shit.
Speaker 1: Yeah right, she could hold her own against Buchanan even
Speaker 1: if she was hot. She was hateful, but you know,
Speaker 1: watching the Maconaqulin group today, We've got nothing.
Speaker 3: We've got a bunch of you know, talking monkeys.
Speaker 2: You know, so we get back if if we get
Speaker 2: back to the plan, we're talking about revaluing the US's assets,
Speaker 2: which would I guess potentially then lead to revaluing the
Speaker 2: gold talking about changing the structure of the game board
Speaker 2: of the U S sort of retrenching back to the west,
Speaker 2: the western hemisphere. You talked about Trump's sort of narrow
Speaker 2: margin of victory in the House, in the Senate. A
Speaker 2: lot of that could be maybe resolved through this new
Speaker 2: Senate census that's being pushed through and sort of redistish.
Speaker 3: Stream all those lines.
Speaker 2: But I guess my question is, I mean, that's a
Speaker 2: pretty tall order to get done in the next three years.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 1: It's a lot to get done. Because you think not
Speaker 1: everything is going to get done in next three years. No,
Speaker 1: you've got to get through the midterms. You get through
Speaker 1: the midterms with a durable with a real durable majority
Speaker 1: in the House of the Senate, and a lot a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff can get done in the next two years.
Speaker 1: You set what Trump can do before he leaves is
Speaker 1: to set the foundation in place bestin is clearly setting
Speaker 1: the foundation in place to overhaul bring the Treasury more
Speaker 1: central to the monetary transmission system, sidelining the FED to
Speaker 1: some extent. I think that I think he and Powell
Speaker 1: are both agreed in in the long run that the
Speaker 1: FED has to be returned to its pre Banking Act
Speaker 1: of nineteen thirty five routes right, or the very least,
Speaker 1: If not to that, then to a version of the
Speaker 1: FED that is not involved.
Speaker 3: It only safeguards the treasury.
Speaker 1: Market from the international person effective, but the domestic treasury
Speaker 1: market is under the purview of the Treasury and how
Speaker 1: the and how that demand is maintained. And then the
Speaker 1: Fed's job is to backstop the commercial paper market domestically,
Speaker 1: backstop the international value of the dollar internationally, and walk
Speaker 1: away from all of its other responsibilities.
Speaker 3: That would be a perfectly.
Speaker 1: Reasonable, you know, situation for the Federal Reserve for the
Speaker 1: next transition period, for the next decade or generation or
Speaker 1: whatever after that. You and I can have a conversation.
Speaker 1: But if I'm not dead of a heart attack, so
Speaker 1: you know, because I don't think that's I don't know
Speaker 1: how long much longer I'm going, we'll say I mean,
Speaker 1: I just don't. I don't see myself living the past
Speaker 1: seventy five, seventy seven years old.
Speaker 3: I just don't. So I think it's but that's the timeline.
Speaker 1: So what you're doing now is you're setting up the
Speaker 1: durable political advantage through two things. You redistrict like states
Speaker 1: left and right. The Democrats lose, you know, lose people
Speaker 1: left and right. This is I think, what's I think
Speaker 1: if Charlie Kerr and Arena Zarutzka, I think that's how
Speaker 1: you pronounce your name. If they have any staying power
Speaker 1: as symbols, it will be for everybody to stand up
Speaker 1: and go, Okay, that's enough, no more. We have work
Speaker 1: to do and it's time to move on. You know,
Speaker 1: yesterday when I was again when I was doing the
Speaker 1: market report yesterday, right before I sat down the hit record,
Speaker 1: so I was popping through my Slack server and somebody
Speaker 1: had posted this AI. I was clearly an AI picture
Speaker 1: of a mural of of Arena up on a tenement wall,
Speaker 1: and you know, imagine like Baltimore or whatever.
Speaker 3: Yep. And I took one look at.
Speaker 1: That, and it was in service of the tweet that
Speaker 1: went out by some guys that I'm gonna raise I
Speaker 1: want to raise five hundred thousand dollars to do block
Speaker 1: art block grants to paint murals of Irena all over
Speaker 1: the United States.
Speaker 3: And then Elon Musk comes in and says, I pledge
Speaker 3: a million dollars. Yeah, I saw that, and I went,
Speaker 3: that's how you handle this?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Oh no, No, you absolutely beat the living
Speaker 1: shit out of anybody that is going to treat another
Speaker 1: woman like anywhere close to what that animal treat how
Speaker 1: that animal treated her like. We have to step up
Speaker 1: as men and say we're willing to protect our women
Speaker 1: and we're not, and we're no longer going to indulge
Speaker 1: in the erasure of women and the erasure of men
Speaker 1: from our society by blending them into some you know,
Speaker 1: non binary milange of purple hairs and tattoos. Fuck off, No,
Speaker 1: we're not doing that. That is not the world that
Speaker 1: any of us want to live in. And what that
Speaker 1: means is it's like it's like that, I don't know,
Speaker 1: when's the last time you saw you watch shindlows List.
Speaker 3: You remember in the end of shindoors List, No tell.
Speaker 1: Me during the know as we get to the left
Speaker 1: after the movie is over, and we move forward into
Speaker 1: the future, and we move into the present, and all
Speaker 1: the surviving Shindler Jews come walking over and and they
Speaker 1: just still in them, you know, paying their respects it
Speaker 1: as a grave. There's one one old woman every freaking
Speaker 1: time I watch this, and I haven't watched it in years,
Speaker 1: because that movie like destroys me.
Speaker 3: She always walks by.
Speaker 1: I can just watch that scene over and over again,
Speaker 1: and she just walks by and she pats the grave
Speaker 1: a couple of times, and and it breaks me up
Speaker 1: every time. That's kind of what we have to do
Speaker 1: and acknowledge and use this. Like those murals of Arena,
Speaker 1: if they do get painted around the country.
Speaker 3: Gonna get some of the're gonna getainted over.
Speaker 1: But if we use those and we protect those and
Speaker 1: everybody and every day we take the we take the
Speaker 1: opportunity to say to ourselves, we walk by them, those
Speaker 1: who walk by them, take a moment, nod, say silent
Speaker 1: prayer or whatever you know that's between you and what
Speaker 1: for God.
Speaker 3: You may or may not worship Patta reverently once.
Speaker 1: Or twice, and they go, enough is enough, and you
Speaker 1: move and you're not gonna let that happen again.
Speaker 3: If we all do that, this fixes itself in the
Speaker 3: long run. Yep.
Speaker 1: It's we have to be both firm, be willing to
Speaker 1: put violence on the table, use the threat of violence,
Speaker 1: and to say that's it no more. Everybody's talking about
Speaker 1: this freaking communist Mandami in New York. Me. If I
Speaker 1: was in New York, I'd be voting for Curtis Sliwa
Speaker 1: of the Guardian Angels. I remember when that guy, I
Speaker 1: remember when we both had hair. That guy has done
Speaker 1: yeomen's work for New York for forty years. So you know,
Speaker 1: from my perspective, that's kind of our mindset. It's where
Speaker 1: it has to be. We have to be both. We
Speaker 1: have to be resolute, willing to forgive if necessary, and
Speaker 1: willing to beat people and put them now like a
Speaker 1: rabbit dog if they're not.
Speaker 3: That's where we need to be. We need to be
Speaker 3: prepared to do all of those things at the same
Speaker 3: time and do it this passionately.
Speaker 1: And then if it's Charlie, and if it's an image
Speaker 1: of Charlie Kirk, or if then it was Irena or
Speaker 1: whoever it is mine, whatever gets you, whatever motivates you
Speaker 1: to get up.
Speaker 3: For the game that day. I'm good.
Speaker 1: I'm good with it because they use George Floyd to
Speaker 1: burn our cities to the freaking ground and make us pay.
Speaker 3: For it as a humiliation ritual. Never forgive that ever. Ever.
Speaker 1: Now let's move forward. So you know the assets are
Speaker 1: right here, Mark, it's how we use those assets. But
Speaker 1: we got to get all of the bullshit out of
Speaker 1: our way so that we could actually go out there
Speaker 1: and and create.
Speaker 3: And they don't want us to create.
Speaker 1: They want us weak, they want us to bite it,
Speaker 1: they want us afraid, they want us angry at some
Speaker 1: other guy. I'm not angry at black people. I ain't
Speaker 1: angry at no. I know exactly who I'm angry at. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and they woke up a lot of people yesterday.
Speaker 3: Yeah they did. Yeah they did.
Speaker 2: And they're all going one direction. Yep, they're all going
Speaker 2: one direction. And so I think we're gonna wrap it
Speaker 2: up with that.
Speaker 3: Tom.
Speaker 2: That was a great way to sort of put a
Speaker 2: pin in it. He laid out the case. You gave
Speaker 2: us the catalyst, and uh yeah, hopefully this momentum will
Speaker 2: keep going. Tom, You're a wealth of information. Like I
Speaker 2: said when we first started, as fate would have it.
Speaker 2: You're probably the perfect person to talk to today. Gold Goats
Speaker 2: and Guns is your podcast. Everyone should go download that.
Speaker 2: You have the newsletter. We're gonna link to that down below.
Speaker 2: Anything else people should be paying attention.
Speaker 1: To, just my twitter feed. We're are the worst version
Speaker 1: of me will show up every day. I promise, because
Speaker 1: I'm in charge of it. T all right, Tom, We're
Speaker 1: gonna test the TfL seventeen twenty eight on Twitter.
Speaker 2: Yeah, TfL. All right, We'll link to that down the
Speaker 2: show notes down below. Thanks so much, Tom, Thank you, Mark.
Speaker 3: Have a great day. It was It was good catching
Speaker 3: up with you man.