Speaker 1: The Fed has their own plan for the Great Reset. Now,
Speaker 1: I am joined today by a returning guest to talk
Speaker 1: about this topic. Now, of course you know about the
Speaker 1: euro DAVS, e c B, the World Economic Forum, and
Speaker 1: Claus Schwab and their plan for the Great Reset. But
Speaker 1: my guest today says that the Federal Reserve is fighting
Speaker 1: against that. There's all types of warring factions, and the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve has a plan to fight back against that
Speaker 1: enforce their own Great reset by breaking the euro bond market.
Speaker 1: We talk about from what's happening in local politics, how
Speaker 1: the Treasury and Federal fighting in the geopolitical picture with Russia, Ukraine,
Speaker 1: China get involved, the North Stream Pipeline and Germany happening
Speaker 1: all of that, how this all plays out, what happens
Speaker 1: with the bricks nations with gold, with bitcoin, and how
Speaker 1: the Fed inevitably wins and creates an entire new financial
Speaker 1: system in the United States. I'm joined by returning guests
Speaker 1: everyone's favorite geopolitical strategies. I'm talking about Tom Luongo from
Speaker 1: The Gold, Goats and Guns Um. He's an amazing guest.
Speaker 1: I love having him on. It was a great conversation
Speaker 1: when I'm excited to share with you. Let's just go
Speaker 1: ahead and jump right in. All right, Tom, welcome back
Speaker 1: to the show. Uh longley and long anticipated. I'm ready
Speaker 1: to get into this. So thanks for coming by. Sure,
Speaker 1: thank you, Mark. I appreciate it. Yeah, we uh man,
Speaker 1: I threw it out on Twitter last night and we
Speaker 1: got I don't know, tons and tons of comments. Everybody
Speaker 1: wants to hear what Tom has to say, so I
Speaker 1: do as well. So I'm excited to jump into this.
Speaker 1: So you know, um, at the time of this recording,
Speaker 1: we're a day before the mid term, so we're gonna
Speaker 1: try and stay away from that kind of stuff because,
Speaker 1: I mean, who knows what's going to happen. But I think,
Speaker 1: you know, if you look at things from a geopolitical,
Speaker 1: macro geopolitical lens, I think the mid terms are the
Speaker 1: micro of the macro anyway. Right, It's almost like we're
Speaker 1: kind of controlling what we can control, but there's way
Speaker 1: bigger forces controlling the world anyway. Probably do you see
Speaker 1: it like that? Yeah, But I also see that these
Speaker 1: midterm elections are probably the most important in term elections
Speaker 1: that were had in the United States and of decades.
Speaker 1: I mean honestly, I think this is one of those
Speaker 1: moments where if things work out the way I think
Speaker 1: they're gonna work out and with the way everybody expects
Speaker 1: them to work out, um, you know, there's gonna be
Speaker 1: a sea change, you know, at this moment in time,
Speaker 1: as you know, as you you and I've talked about
Speaker 1: this a little bit, and um when I talked about
Speaker 1: it in other forms that you know, if I'm correct
Speaker 1: about my argument that the FED is at war with
Speaker 1: the bigger you know, the bigger group of oligarchs trying
Speaker 1: to you know, take over the world for lack of
Speaker 1: a better term, they run their their bond villans. Right,
Speaker 1: If I'm right about that, then what political changes happen
Speaker 1: here in the United States tomorrow or at the very least,
Speaker 1: are you know, pretended by tomorrow's election results are going
Speaker 1: to mark a sea change in the you know, the
Speaker 1: arc of I honestly, I do want to say the
Speaker 1: ark of history, but it's one more big p the
Speaker 1: foundation of of what the future is going to look like.
Speaker 1: So I wouldn't discount this, even though I do expect
Speaker 1: at a certain level for the results to be uh compromised,
Speaker 1: And you know, it's gonna be a it's gonna be
Speaker 1: a mess, and the Democrats are gonna cheat and the
Speaker 1: law fair and all and all the things we expect, right,
Speaker 1: we expect all of that. But I think they the
Speaker 1: final outcome tomorrow is going to be so overwhelming in
Speaker 1: one paricko a direction that the message will have been
Speaker 1: sent clearly to the quote unquote powers that be what
Speaker 1: I like to call the Davos crowd. That dude, you
Speaker 1: don't have the United States. You just don't have it.
Speaker 1: You're never going to get it, and you know that's
Speaker 1: the end of that, and you might as well stop.
Speaker 1: And of course they won't stop because there old arrogant
Speaker 1: European money and they can't help themselves and they don't
Speaker 1: recognize limits on their behavior. Um, and so we're headed
Speaker 1: towards something really ugly. I think beyond that, but I
Speaker 1: think we have to go through this process of just
Speaker 1: keep telling them though. Yeah, you know, like scares me
Speaker 1: about that. You you mentioned the word arrogant. Is that
Speaker 1: the arrogance that they have? And so I mean, what's
Speaker 1: seen what's going on in Pennsylvania. I mean they're like,
Speaker 1: we'll put up an eggplant and watch what we can do.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're literally going against a TV personality, right whatever,
Speaker 1: a celebrity, a well known person typically that goes a
Speaker 1: very long way. He's a doctor, right, he had his
Speaker 1: own show, like so that you would not only is
Speaker 1: he well known on TV, he's then trusted because he
Speaker 1: was on TV. He's a doctor, right, and he's losing
Speaker 1: to a guy that or whatever. It's a it's a
Speaker 1: close race whatever with a guy that can't even put
Speaker 1: a sentence together. And it's almost like ha ha, the arrogance.
Speaker 1: Back to that word, right, it's like watch well, yeah,
Speaker 1: they ran the mushroom Joe Biden. Yeah, but Biden wasn't
Speaker 1: quite the much join at the time, not as bad
Speaker 1: as he. I mean he hit out in the basement.
Speaker 1: Maybe we didn't know, maybe we could, maybe we could
Speaker 1: just chock it up too. We didn't know as much then,
Speaker 1: but we know now. They they're just able to dry.
Speaker 1: They're just able to manage. Biden's med's well enough to
Speaker 1: get him coherent for the fifteen minutes that they can
Speaker 1: stage management. But he's been this bad for years. So anyway,
Speaker 1: seeing the scene that they just they're running Federman anyway.
Speaker 1: I mean it just shows the arrogance, like half, we
Speaker 1: don't even need to try. We'll just put up anybody,
Speaker 1: We'll put up an egg plant, and we're just gonna
Speaker 1: beat you anyway. So it's pretty scary. Um it is, okay,
Speaker 1: So um, going back to the the war, right, So,
Speaker 1: the way that I kind of see it as being
Speaker 1: a bitcoiner is that everybody says, yeah, but the but
Speaker 1: the but the bankers, essential bankers, the governments will never
Speaker 1: allow that to happen. They don't want to lose control
Speaker 1: over the money, which I would agree, right, It's gonna
Speaker 1: be the battle for the faith of humanity. That's the
Speaker 1: way I framed it up. Um I did. I did
Speaker 1: a big show called titled that the Battle for the
Speaker 1: Faith of Humanity. But um, the way that you so,
Speaker 1: I agree, And so then then you're kind of extrapolate
Speaker 1: down down to well then, um, why does the FED
Speaker 1: want to give up control over money to the e
Speaker 1: c B? Or why do you commercial banks want to
Speaker 1: give up power over money to the Fed? The central banks?
Speaker 1: Or why does this any central bank when to give
Speaker 1: it up to the I M F or whatever? Right right? Yeah, um, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that's basically the argument right, I mean, and
Speaker 1: this is not to say that the like, you know, again,
Speaker 1: you know, a bitcoin guy, I love I love bitcoin,
Speaker 1: I love the idea of all of this stuff. And
Speaker 1: I just think that, you know, there's a particular order
Speaker 1: of operations that has happened. We live in a fallen world.
Speaker 1: We live in a world where you know, we're talking
Speaker 1: about people who are you know, turning, who are literal
Speaker 1: bond villains who think that they're gonna make us eat bugs, uh,
Speaker 1: live in pods and allows assistant suicide to be a
Speaker 1: better growth industry than oil exploration. And and that's just
Speaker 1: the way the We're just gonna have to accept that.
Speaker 1: And they don't think that there's going to be any
Speaker 1: pushback from the other factions that have also gotten fat
Speaker 1: and happy on the system that's in currently in the
Speaker 1: process of failing, and that you know, everybody has their
Speaker 1: idea how they can get out of this, and you know,
Speaker 1: klash Bob has his idea, and Jerome Powell and Jamie
Speaker 1: Diamond and others have their ideas and they're gonna fight
Speaker 1: it out, and they're gonna fight it out to the death.
Speaker 1: Guys like and then the British Crown has their ideas,
Speaker 1: and the Russians and the Chinese are saying, you know what,
Speaker 1: we don't have to play any of these games anymore.
Speaker 1: You guys fight it out amongst yourselves. Call us when
Speaker 1: you're done, you know, having a you know, having a
Speaker 1: having a cat fight in the backyard, you know, when
Speaker 1: somebody's finally got you know, no hair left because you
Speaker 1: pulled it all out, and you're all like, you know,
Speaker 1: bloody and battered. You know, hey, we stall boil, we
Speaker 1: still have gas, we still have cheap Chinese crap. You know,
Speaker 1: we're willing to sell you. Hey, let's do the thing,
Speaker 1: you know, and uh we in the Global South, they're
Speaker 1: gonna go do o our thing. And you guys can
Speaker 1: you know, continue to play play your games. And I
Speaker 1: think it's very clear from the way Powell has I
Speaker 1: can't I can't stress enough just how clear Jerome Powell
Speaker 1: has been about what he's prepared to do with interest rates.
Speaker 1: And everybody keeps saying, oh, we gonna pick it on,
Speaker 1: like it's like watching I've done this for years. I
Speaker 1: used to be a sports blogger and I used to
Speaker 1: follow hockey, and I used to remember everybody was always
Speaker 1: trying to parse whatever the GM was trying to say,
Speaker 1: when nine times out of the the tend the GM was
Speaker 1: just telling you, yeah, we're gonna trade this guy because
Speaker 1: he sucks. Okay, we're gonna do this because we suck.
Speaker 1: And this is the way things are. And everybody's like
Speaker 1: doing you know, the thirteen ways from Sunday, trying to
Speaker 1: you know, interpret the GM speak or in this case,
Speaker 1: the diplo speak of what's going on here, like I
Speaker 1: got news for you. He's not talking at central banker ease.
Speaker 1: He's talking in plain language for a reason, interest rates
Speaker 1: until we break something. And the question is that no,
Speaker 1: the question that nobody wants to face. It is the
Speaker 1: one that I've articulated. Daniel D. Martino Booth is articulated,
Speaker 1: and now other people are finally starting to realize, is
Speaker 1: that he's going to break the leverage off short dollar
Speaker 1: loan markets. What we not even know is what we
Speaker 1: called is the ear of dollar markets. And we've already
Speaker 1: gotten our big big shot across the out with the
Speaker 1: the UK pension system collapse that happened a couple of
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago, which brought which brought reci
Speaker 1: soon acted power and Liz Trust was thrown out, and
Speaker 1: you know, there was a coup. There was a central
Speaker 1: bank coup in the UK over this for the purposes
Speaker 1: of bringing a betraying breaks it and bringing the UK
Speaker 1: back into the European Uh, your union fold. And the
Speaker 1: battle lines are really clearly drawn once you see this stuff,
Speaker 1: and it's clear that the United States is like they're
Speaker 1: they're just very powerful forces in the United States going no,
Speaker 1: we're not doing that and breakdown that euro thing for
Speaker 1: a minute. So Trust comes in. She's all fired up.
Speaker 1: She's gonna balance the budgets, she's gonna drop the taxes,
Speaker 1: you know, all these different things and then the whole system.
Speaker 1: She's going to frap. Yes, she's gonna bring energy that
Speaker 1: they were going to bring oil production back online off
Speaker 1: the North Slope. Big deal. It was a big deal, big, big,
Speaker 1: big statement of British independence. And within forty five days
Speaker 1: she's forced to step down. Yep, it's gone no, that's no. Yeah,
Speaker 1: But I mean that's I mean, so it's easy to
Speaker 1: look at it from that lens. It's also maybe another
Speaker 1: way to look at it is that, um, there is
Speaker 1: no way back to austerity without massive amounts of pain,
Speaker 1: and so she was trying to do some sort of
Speaker 1: austerity basically trying to get the balanced budget, you know,
Speaker 1: bring taxes down, get the economy going again, bring energy back,
Speaker 1: which is gonna be a very painful process and nobody's
Speaker 1: gonna be willing to go through that pain. So could
Speaker 1: it have been that she was fired up to really
Speaker 1: affect real positive change but the pain wasn't able to
Speaker 1: be endured, or you think it was actually more of
Speaker 1: the conspiracy. No, no, this is very clearly that. Okay,
Speaker 1: So remember Mark that I have said this many I've
Speaker 1: said this before, and I've called the German austerity and
Speaker 1: it's the kind that the I m F always um
Speaker 1: imparts on the people that they want to colonize and
Speaker 1: take over. And what they do is they raise taxes
Speaker 1: and they raise regulations and they cut spending. Okay, now,
Speaker 1: the cut spending part is the one that you know,
Speaker 1: we Australia libertarians, Yeah, cut spending government spending, his government
Speaker 1: waste is terrible. But raising taxes at the same time,
Speaker 1: and then we expect that GDP is not going to
Speaker 1: continue to contract like it's always about protecting the bondholders.
Speaker 1: It's always about protecting the bond markets and the credit
Speaker 1: rating of the country. That's more important than the lives
Speaker 1: and welfare of the people. Do you see that? Do
Speaker 1: you see the messaging here? It's always the same story.
Speaker 1: What Trust was going to do was going to be.
Speaker 1: It's similar to what Donald Trump did and in many
Speaker 1: ways um actually did do, which is, yeah, he raised
Speaker 1: some spending and he cut taxes, and he was cutting
Speaker 1: regulations dramatically across multiple vectors as much as he was
Speaker 1: allowed to, which would free up capital and make the
Speaker 1: capital that's deployed, you know, more efficient by getting rid
Speaker 1: of a lot of taxes on shoring a lot of
Speaker 1: offshore capital that was sitting in bank accounts in Ireland
Speaker 1: and you know, tax havens around other tax havens around
Speaker 1: the world, and bring that money back and allow for
Speaker 1: a reinvestment cycle. Well at the same time, yeah, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to spend some money that we don't have.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so, like, I'm not crazy about that plan.
Speaker 1: I think that that Trump was Trump's plan is fatally flawed.
Speaker 1: But by the same token, you know, he's a Keynesian
Speaker 1: in that respect, he's a debt guy, and you know,
Speaker 1: Trust was running basically the same plan, and for the
Speaker 1: UK guilt market to react the way it did was
Speaker 1: clearly an operation from outside forces to bring her down,
Speaker 1: clearly in operation, because nothing she proposed was that catastrophic.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. And anybody who believes that, you know, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: like you know, still walks around with their mask on
Speaker 1: outside like I'm sorry. That's how that's done. What happened
Speaker 1: was the idea that there's one last the idea that
Speaker 1: the British pound would drop nine in two days over
Speaker 1: this is just ludicrous. It's just ludicrous. So um yeah,
Speaker 1: obviously that you know, the pound dropped, the yields went up,
Speaker 1: the pensioners were over levered, they couldn't cover, they couldn't cover, right,
Speaker 1: their margin calls. Um. But you're saying for the pound
Speaker 1: to drop that far that fast, there was probably some
Speaker 1: outside manipulation, sort of like when George Soros got famously
Speaker 1: rich in a day. Right, Oh you don't think Soros
Speaker 1: was not involved in this? Like, as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 1: is all they had to do was dropped twenty to
Speaker 1: fifty million dollars in the UK CDs market, and you know,
Speaker 1: the UK guilt CDs market and blow the thing up,
Speaker 1: which is kind of what they did, you know, I
Speaker 1: mean that's how they always do. It's like CDs IS
Speaker 1: or you know, credit, the false swaps, their their fictions. Dude,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Like they're not. They're not leading indicators of
Speaker 1: anything other than mouthfeasance by people with way too much
Speaker 1: money on their hands that they got, you know, from
Speaker 1: for free from the central banks to screw with markets
Speaker 1: and then right headline. So you don't think the CDs
Speaker 1: is needed, So you don't think that the CDs is
Speaker 1: a more free market that's a better indication of what's
Speaker 1: going on. Absolutely not, absolutely not. They are the most
Speaker 1: manipulated markets in the world. They're more manipulated than gold.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. The credit w sound great in theory, they're
Speaker 1: not used that way. Sure, if we have, if we
Speaker 1: if we didn't have completely captured markets, and we didn't
Speaker 1: have completely central bank and you know Ald Gark run markets,
Speaker 1: sure CDs IS would be a fine you know, market innovation.
Speaker 1: But please, like you know, I'm sorry, I just don't.
Speaker 1: I've seen this too many I've seen this game too
Speaker 1: many times. I don't buy it. So going back to
Speaker 1: Joan Powell in the last f f O MC meeting.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what he said, is that we're well, the
Speaker 1: danger is not doing The danger isn't The danger is
Speaker 1: doing too little. Uh, we'd rather go too far. We'd
Speaker 1: rather break things because we have the tools to put
Speaker 1: things back together again, right, we can put we can
Speaker 1: put Humpty Dumpty back together again. So he's willing to
Speaker 1: go too far. I mean, he he says he wants
Speaker 1: to go too far and break it. Um, break it,
Speaker 1: whatever it being most to most times we think of
Speaker 1: breaking it being the liquidity in the in the financial system. Um,
Speaker 1: you're talking to break inflation. Well, people think it's I
Speaker 1: think people think, well, people think he says, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: break inflation, and then you know, the more savvy among
Speaker 1: us go, yeah, but that's you're not breaking inflation. You're
Speaker 1: not breaking supply side inflation problems with the man side tools.
Speaker 1: You just ain't doing it right. Yeah, And I mean,
Speaker 1: I think he started to pick a fight that he
Speaker 1: realized maybe he can't win, which is trying to basically
Speaker 1: bring inflation down which is being caused by energy prices,
Speaker 1: and OPEC just says, well, we'll just cut production. You
Speaker 1: want to manipulate the prices down. We'll just cut production.
Speaker 1: We'll go a lot longer than you can. Like, you're
Speaker 1: not gonna win that war. Well, that's all Jenny Ellen. Jenny, Look,
Speaker 1: I think the Feds that were with the Treasury, I
Speaker 1: think I think Biden works for I think the Biden
Speaker 1: administration works for Domas. I think Jenny Yellen is a
Speaker 1: globalist who who her entire time has had the Chairman
Speaker 1: of the Federal Reserve. Along with Ben BERNACKI worked for
Speaker 1: work for European colonial powers to make sure that the
Speaker 1: United States monetary policy was subordinate to them. These are
Speaker 1: the guys that. Okay, so I've I've talked about SOFUR
Speaker 1: and the move in the past about the United States
Speaker 1: moving off of Library for debt debt indexing to SOFA,
Speaker 1: the secured overnif funding right, which by the way, is
Speaker 1: fully in effect now as of two all debt in
Speaker 1: the United States is is issued index to SOFA, and
Speaker 1: none of it is index of relative to Liebrary. It
Speaker 1: hasn't all been switched over, but all new debt is
Speaker 1: issued to that right. It has. I mean they took
Speaker 1: they took their time, and they rolled this out over
Speaker 1: almost five years, they started rolling this forward. They started
Speaker 1: rolling people into sofa. But here's the gig. Sofur was
Speaker 1: designed by the Federal Reserve back in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: The original white papers on sofa we're presented to the
Speaker 1: f o MC in two thousand seven before the financial crisis. Like,
Speaker 1: they knew what was coming, they knew what they want
Speaker 1: it to do. Greenspan wanted to do this like and
Speaker 1: then Obama comes into office, him Geitner, operann Ky and
Speaker 1: then subsequently yelling and all the rest. They just put
Speaker 1: it on the back of burner. They didn't do a
Speaker 1: thing with it for ten years. We got instead, we
Speaker 1: got shipped like Dodd Frank and and uh, the the
Speaker 1: CEO uh you know, all the all the stupid stuff
Speaker 1: that we got. We got the yeah, everybody complaining about
Speaker 1: class tego. I can never remember the name of the
Speaker 1: bill that where the CEOs are now responsible for their
Speaker 1: um uh for their their income statements with that one
Speaker 1: um the names escaping me. Now, all that stupid stuff
Speaker 1: is opposed to getting a real When if anybody looked
Speaker 1: at the two you know, it looked at previous financial crises,
Speaker 1: all right, there was always a if the fed raisers
Speaker 1: interest rates, it's going to break something overseas, and then
Speaker 1: it always then try is late over here because we
Speaker 1: have globalized markets well in the you know, once Trump
Speaker 1: was put into power, and once um Powell was made
Speaker 1: the chairman of the Federal Reserve and John Williams was
Speaker 1: made the head of the New York Fed, SOFUR was
Speaker 1: all of a sudden dusted off and they started they
Speaker 1: started moving it through almost immediately, and then you know,
Speaker 1: with a four year four and a half year rollout
Speaker 1: period in order to get everybody you know, in order
Speaker 1: to test it and make it, make sure it worked
Speaker 1: and everything else. And then you know, once that was
Speaker 1: in place, then the decoupling physical decoupling of American and
Speaker 1: US banks started, which is where it brings us to
Speaker 1: the REBO crisis, to where JP Morgan star of the
Speaker 1: market of US treasuries because they refused to reap repo
Speaker 1: um uh European sovereign debt okay, take European sovereignists collateral
Speaker 1: for REBO contracts that you know, the euro dollar system
Speaker 1: then started to employ. Jeff Snyder went over all this
Speaker 1: for years, telling everybody what was going to happen. He
Speaker 1: was right. He just was wrong about the fact that
Speaker 1: Sofur woke that link and now this time we can
Speaker 1: do the same. There ain't gonna be a eurodollar five
Speaker 1: like he thinks there's gonna be. There was the first
Speaker 1: four times we had an aversion of the eurodollar futures curve. Like,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, he's wrong. We can see it happening. He's
Speaker 1: wrong because the people who are screaming today about the
Speaker 1: FED raising interest rates are all the people who who
Speaker 1: are most vulnerable to the FED raising interest rates in
Speaker 1: ain't the New York banks. They were keeping their mouth shut.
Speaker 1: Has anybody have you seen anybody at JP Morgan or
Speaker 1: Golden Sacks or City Group or Wells and Wells, the
Speaker 1: biggest mortgage under in the world, is not complaining about
Speaker 1: the FED um pushing mortgage rates above seven Yeah, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's interesting. Well silence on this is definite. And Jamie
Speaker 1: Diamond's only talking about energy. He's not talking about rates,
Speaker 1: He's not talking about any of that, none of that stuff.
Speaker 1: What he's talking about is exactly when you what what
Speaker 1: policy is going to change? You know, Biden, Biden is
Speaker 1: gonna you know, he came out the other day and
Speaker 1: so there's not gonna be any new any new oil
Speaker 1: and gas or cold drilling, you know, while he's in office.
Speaker 1: Or Okay, we'll take you to your word. That means
Speaker 1: we're gonna get ridy of that, dude. It depending on
Speaker 1: what happens to Marrows. What tomorrow is so important? Like
Speaker 1: if the Republicans take seventy seats and five in the
Speaker 1: House and five to six seats in the Senate and
Speaker 1: thirty five state legislators and thirty five governorships, do you
Speaker 1: think there's a Democrat in the world that's up for grabs,
Speaker 1: that's up for re election in is gonna listen to
Speaker 1: a word Chuck Schumer has to say, I got Mark,
Speaker 1: I got news for you. I'm laying three to one.
Speaker 1: I'm only in one to not only odds that Schumer
Speaker 1: gets beat tomorrow, Schumer in New York because Kathy Hostel
Speaker 1: is gonna lose, and they lost. They lost. They had
Speaker 1: the vote harvest three seats in western New York in
Speaker 1: to really maintain their their majority in the House, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, everybody forgets about. But whiles while everybody
Speaker 1: was worried about what was going to happen in January six,
Speaker 1: and whether Trump was gonna, you know, I don't know,
Speaker 1: lead an insurrection against against the Biden's inauguration and the
Speaker 1: and the electoral College and all this stuff. These people
Speaker 1: were back there vote harvesting like three seats in Rochester,
Speaker 1: Buffalo and one other seat to get these people over
Speaker 1: the line when they had lost on election by four points.
Speaker 1: So don't kid yourself. The whole thing was stage managed,
Speaker 1: and and and and and uh so tomorrow the comment
Speaker 1: with seven, do you think anybody is gonna listen to
Speaker 1: what thing Jack Schimer says? If he squeaks by tomorrow?
Speaker 1: Even are you kidding me this? They'll be calling for
Speaker 1: his head this morning. Two hours ago, Elon Musk tweeted
Speaker 1: out to independent minded voters, shared power curbs the worst
Speaker 1: excesses of both parties. Therefore, I recommend voting for a
Speaker 1: Republican Congress, I mean the president of the Democratic Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I like you? When When when when a former progressive
Speaker 1: like Tulsea Gabbard sounds more based than ninety percent of
Speaker 1: the libertarians? Like I see Twitter? Anymore? You know that
Speaker 1: there's a massive political alignment. Realignment, um, I mean the
Speaker 1: going back to the FED. You know, tightening the screws,
Speaker 1: trying to break the zero dollar markets, you know, trying
Speaker 1: to defend the dollar, etcetera, etcetera. Um, you just mentioned
Speaker 1: briefly the war between the Fed and the Treasury. So
Speaker 1: now Janet Yellen saying, well, if you're not gonna help us, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, all the politicians are now jumping into
Speaker 1: the Fed. Hey, you're going too fast, too far. You
Speaker 1: got the u N dumping into the u n's like, hey, stop,
Speaker 1: you're going too fast, too far. Everybody's jumping in. And
Speaker 1: now the Treasury Janet Yellen is like, well, we'll just
Speaker 1: start buying. We'll just start buying the treasuries again. Then
Speaker 1: we'll just take we'll just do try and do yield
Speaker 1: curve control through the U. S. Treasury Department and and
Speaker 1: run around the Fed. Yeah, okay, good luck with that. Janet.
Speaker 1: You've got four hundred billion dollars in the two and
Speaker 1: a one point five trillion dollar deficit or whatever the
Speaker 1: number is. Have fun. Yeah, like, next year you're gonna
Speaker 1: have a massive deficit. You you've had the only reason
Speaker 1: she can talk that way now is because she just
Speaker 1: had the the big just um tax surplus and and
Speaker 1: you know, taxing, uh not increase your over your taxing
Speaker 1: um collections increase in the history history because of inflation,
Speaker 1: that's going to happen extra gains and because of all that,
Speaker 1: and that's certainly not going to happen. Best best case scenario,
Speaker 1: we just I mean, we already have a drop in
Speaker 1: the market. So best case scenario, we have a twenty drop.
Speaker 1: It holds here. Um that alone is going to crush
Speaker 1: tax receipts, right, I think, yeah, So they have to
Speaker 1: start cutting spending like you wouldn't believe. And now the
Speaker 1: Fed is losing money, right, So the Fed isn't gonna
Speaker 1: be able to pay the treasury. So they're gonna lose
Speaker 1: hundreds of billions of dollars on that as well. I
Speaker 1: mean it's it's well, they're gonna lose that. I think
Speaker 1: they're gonna lose forty billion dollars they made. I mean,
Speaker 1: they've always remitted somewhere between fifty and fifty billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year. I think this last quarter they were they
Speaker 1: were going to be short fifteen billion dollars. Like, it's
Speaker 1: not all I mean, it's not a lot. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: And the in the grand scheme of things that I
Speaker 1: I know that Judy Shelton makes a big deal about this,
Speaker 1: and I'm not disagreeing with her. Politically, it's gonna look
Speaker 1: bad for the politically, the Democrats are gonna make hey
Speaker 1: about this. Don't don't kid yourself. From a political perspective,
Speaker 1: it's a lot of money. From a budgetary perspective, it's
Speaker 1: not a lot of money. They can just stop. They
Speaker 1: can just stop sending three billion dollars a month to Ukraine. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but they don't want to do that. Let's let's talk
Speaker 1: about that. Let's let's look at the vapors the minute
Speaker 1: I mentioned let's let's let's jump up to that level now. So,
Speaker 1: and I think this is uh, you know, I try
Speaker 1: to think a little bit longer term, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not not micromanagers. If we think longer term, I mean,
Speaker 1: we can see the whole world is changing rapidly. I mean, certainly,
Speaker 1: certainly the threat is moving from this multipolar homogeney to
Speaker 1: uh you know or sorry, a singular polar to a
Speaker 1: multipolar world. Uh. And it seems that we have this
Speaker 1: rush of Ukraine thing kind of at the center of this.
Speaker 1: I know you've been talking about this a lot. We've
Speaker 1: had conversations about it. Um. Maybe it's a war of globalism,
Speaker 1: but it's like really accelerating. Um to your point, right,
Speaker 1: We're sending all this money over there, which is of
Speaker 1: course going into all types of different people pockets. But
Speaker 1: then we have we have this acceleration which you know,
Speaker 1: the nord Stream pipeline got bombed. News on the wires
Speaker 1: coming out that now everybody in the intelligence community supposedly
Speaker 1: knows who did it, Uh, NATO, we'll call it that,
Speaker 1: Alex Craner and I said three days afterwards, was the
Speaker 1: Brits and the polls. I mean, we've all grown up.
Speaker 1: We've all grown up watching murder mysteries and detective shows
Speaker 1: on TV. Like it's not hard, Like, Okay, who are
Speaker 1: the players? What are the motives? I've got? Motive means
Speaker 1: an opportunity, right, um. And now you you know, and
Speaker 1: and and if you look back through a long geopolitical lens,
Speaker 1: it seems like the strategy has always been to keep
Speaker 1: Germany away from Russia. Right in Germany, if Germany's manufacturing
Speaker 1: can get the cheap, cheap commodity inputs from Russia, like
Speaker 1: that's a good match, right, Um, Yeah, it is a
Speaker 1: good match. And it's clear. It's clear that the French
Speaker 1: and the and the British have always opposed, you know,
Speaker 1: traditionally always opposed to Germans, and the and the Russians
Speaker 1: are getting together. Um. American foreign policy is just downstream
Speaker 1: of British foreign policy because freaking Brits have infiltrated pretty
Speaker 1: much every level of our freaking government. UM. Our special
Speaker 1: relationship with the Brits is, you know, mostly they tell
Speaker 1: us what to do and we run around like Rambo
Speaker 1: without a drop strap and get it drawing. Um. And
Speaker 1: if not, then they meme it into existence and false
Speaker 1: flaget into existence. But I'm getting I'm getting done. I'm
Speaker 1: getting tired of this. And I think what happened with
Speaker 1: Liz Trust and everything else and and Boris Johnson, it's
Speaker 1: very clear like who actually, you know, quote unquote wears
Speaker 1: the pants and this uh in this relationship. Now that
Speaker 1: being said, UM, I think the situation in Ukraine and
Speaker 1: Russia bothers me because the Brits have motive means an opportunity.
Speaker 1: Why what's there? What's their motive? Not just because they
Speaker 1: can they have British intelligence. They all think they're James
Speaker 1: Bond blah bla blah blah. That's that's that's cartoon bird.
Speaker 1: The real thing here is that the europe and the
Speaker 1: European Union and the old European banking system. What I've
Speaker 1: already talked about that leveraged loan offshore dollar minonds, okay,
Speaker 1: which is the source of where a lot of their
Speaker 1: power comes from within their banking system and their ability
Speaker 1: to buy, you know, to manipulate currencies by favors, collect
Speaker 1: compromat and all the rest of it. That what they do,
Speaker 1: move elections, All of this stuff comes from that. Now,
Speaker 1: if the FED is taking the punch pole away and saying, look,
Speaker 1: we're gonna shrink our balance sheet, we're gonna raise interest rates,
Speaker 1: and there's nothing you can do about it because you
Speaker 1: can't get any spending through Congress to I don't know,
Speaker 1: build back Better or new infrastructure or any of the
Speaker 1: other stuff. Because, as Daniel de Martino Booth pointed out
Speaker 1: multiple times, both versions of those bills that finally got past,
Speaker 1: the Inflation Reduction Act, which is Built Back Better read,
Speaker 1: it's all kind of tax credits. It's classic stimulus. It's
Speaker 1: not U b I, it's not we're gonna print a
Speaker 1: ton of money and hand it out the people. It's
Speaker 1: more the hey, we're gonna give you a tax incentive
Speaker 1: to you know, fix a road or do this, or
Speaker 1: build a bridge or you know, get a refinery back online. Sorry,
Speaker 1: never mind, not not build together. Never never do that. Um.
Speaker 1: But it's that kind of thing. So if people don't
Speaker 1: use it, then it's not going to show up in
Speaker 1: the you know, then the Treasury is not gonna have
Speaker 1: to write the check. It's very different. It's a passive
Speaker 1: kind of of stimulus. Okay, So if the if the
Speaker 1: States are the you know, the agencies don't engage in
Speaker 1: this stuff, the people don't request the money, then the
Speaker 1: money doesn't get spent. All right, big difference between that
Speaker 1: and what Yelling and Biden wanted, which was six and
Speaker 1: a half trillion dollars. With the spending that the Fed
Speaker 1: would be forced to monetize a lot of cares act.
Speaker 1: So what's the replacement for that. If they can't get
Speaker 1: that done, well, it's obviously worth spending. So that's why
Speaker 1: the Brits bombed the North Gring pipeline. That's why they
Speaker 1: helped the Ukrainians bomb the kirt straight Bridge. That's why
Speaker 1: the attack on Sebastopol last week and the whole grain
Speaker 1: chord using the grain, weaponizing the grain corridor and humanitarian
Speaker 1: aid and everything else. Oh, it's not like the Brits
Speaker 1: have ever, you know, been involved in a false flag
Speaker 1: incident that you know killed civilians, Like I don't know
Speaker 1: the Lusitania, Like, so it's now the Graanitania, Like that's
Speaker 1: what we're dealing with now. Like you have to look
Speaker 1: at the the attack on Sebastopol is very similar to
Speaker 1: the Lusitania, a mechanism by which to try and get
Speaker 1: the United States and the rest of the world angry
Speaker 1: with Putin for you know, targeting civilians and humanitarian aid
Speaker 1: to the world. And at the same time, of course
Speaker 1: Putin's running around going, look, we have five tons of
Speaker 1: grain we're willing to ship out of you know, out
Speaker 1: of the c of A's off for free. We'll give
Speaker 1: it to you people, like we'll show you aren't in
Speaker 1: a run the up and up. But we're not going
Speaker 1: to allow Ukraine to import weapons from the West to
Speaker 1: then throw it's abassible. We're not going to do that
Speaker 1: because we're not stupid and we're not suicidal, and you
Speaker 1: can call us nasty names all you want, and we
Speaker 1: don't care. So the thing that worries me is that
Speaker 1: they're trying to mean us into uh an escalation that
Speaker 1: we can't come back from. That will then give Congress,
Speaker 1: the new Congress, the quote unquote warhawk Republicans, the cover
Speaker 1: to spend to go into a war footing to spend
Speaker 1: a whole lot of money. That will the force federally
Speaker 1: forced to monetize to reverse qi QT go back to QI,
Speaker 1: go back to the zero bound, and and all the
Speaker 1: rest of it. We're already seeing that in Europe they're
Speaker 1: doing increased military spending, in Germany they're doing increased they're
Speaker 1: talking about increased military respecting all across Europe. And it's
Speaker 1: really nothing more than a means by which to print
Speaker 1: a bunch of euros and then stuff the banks full
Speaker 1: of reserves, while the FED is raising interest rates and
Speaker 1: draining the markets. And you have to look at it
Speaker 1: that way. I heard from multiple people just like just
Speaker 1: see if I can try and put a fine point
Speaker 1: on this market before you. Is that during COVID right,
Speaker 1: a lot of the COVID relief funds that were sent
Speaker 1: out the hospitals, or that were reserved for hospitals. Right,
Speaker 1: we're not spent. And we heard all these hard these
Speaker 1: stories of well, you know, the hospitals got this money,
Speaker 1: but the banks didn't want the money back. Well, no,
Speaker 1: of course, somebody. The banks didn't want the money back
Speaker 1: because they wanted that money to sit on their balance
Speaker 1: sheet as reserves, because they were desperate for the reserves.
Speaker 1: They didn't want the money back. What they wanted was
Speaker 1: the to keep their balance sheets for imploding, so the
Speaker 1: credit markets wouldn't implode, and credit spreads wouldn't blow out,
Speaker 1: an interest rate you know, um swaps wouldn't blow out,
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. The currencies wouldn't collapse.
Speaker 1: And that's what this was all about. And the war
Speaker 1: in Ukraine is a is a similar type of operation. Okay,
Speaker 1: and you have to and once you see it that way,
Speaker 1: you can. Yeah, that's that's what I was trying to
Speaker 1: ask about. So, uh, if they can push the war
Speaker 1: and then they have wartime spending for more weapons, etcetera,
Speaker 1: then that will somehow then force the Fed to monetize that.
Speaker 1: Well they have to because they're gonna spend all that
Speaker 1: money the Feds. I mean, they'll put it out on
Speaker 1: the market, but you know there's no appetite in the
Speaker 1: market for six and a half trillion dollars with the
Speaker 1: U S truaguy and he's gonna buy. And and is
Speaker 1: there some mandate that the FED has to buy the treasuries? Yeah,
Speaker 1: the Fed has to buy if the Treasury spends the money.
Speaker 1: The primary dealers have to have to have to buy
Speaker 1: the debt, have to buy what the market doesn't buy.
Speaker 1: I e. They have that's the definition of a primary dealer.
Speaker 1: And then what do they do. They turn right around,
Speaker 1: they flip the treasuries over to the FED. Got it?
Speaker 1: And the FED has to buy them. So the FED
Speaker 1: feed is for the FED forced to ease to take
Speaker 1: on that debt, the force the FED is forced to
Speaker 1: eat spending that they don't want to eat. And that's
Speaker 1: what this is going. That's what this is all about.
Speaker 1: Jenny Yellen playing games when saying that she's going to
Speaker 1: do yield curve control through the US Treasury and cap
Speaker 1: the price of oil Russian oil are um. I didn't
Speaker 1: know Johnny Ellen was that stupid, But she's think that
Speaker 1: she could cap the price of Russian oil. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean both of those things that she can that she
Speaker 1: can do yield curve control for any length of time
Speaker 1: against the wishes of the Federal Reserve and the US
Speaker 1: banking system, and and do that, you know without you know,
Speaker 1: without the tax base of supportive for very long. She's
Speaker 1: got about four hundred billion dollars in US tresury um
Speaker 1: and you know, and that's gonna get eaten up over
Speaker 1: the It's gonna get eaten up in no time flat.
Speaker 1: And also understand that the capping of the Russian the
Speaker 1: Russian oil price, how are they going to actually do that? Well,
Speaker 1: they're gonna do that by subsidizing it, subsidizing, offsetting. Uh, well,
Speaker 1: they're gonna how are they going to how are they
Speaker 1: do that through subsidizing? Well, I mean, like think of
Speaker 1: it this way, like it's like it's not even that.
Speaker 1: It's like they're gonna cap the price of Russian oil.
Speaker 1: That's it's actually a little bit. What they're gonna do
Speaker 1: is they're gonna havep the price of electricity domestically by subsidizing. Sorry,
Speaker 1: they're gonna try and cap the price of Russian oil,
Speaker 1: but they're not gonna be able to so they're just
Speaker 1: gonna have to buy third party reblended fuel and pay
Speaker 1: the price. Right, But what they'll do what Germany is
Speaker 1: already talking about doing, aside from a nine percent windfall
Speaker 1: profit tax on on all energy profits, not above a
Speaker 1: certain level, but all energy profits. So they've been effectively nationalized,
Speaker 1: what they're also want to do is capped the price
Speaker 1: of electricity for the consumer. How are they gonna do that, Well,
Speaker 1: they're still buying electricity from the market at whatever the
Speaker 1: market rate is. They still they keep the electricity producers
Speaker 1: from going bankrupt if you know, you know they if there,
Speaker 1: if it's costing them twenty cents of kill a one hour,
Speaker 1: I'm just picking numbers out of my out of my head.
Speaker 1: I'm not these are not real. But they cost twenty
Speaker 1: cents of kill a one hour to produce electricity. But
Speaker 1: they have the price at thirteen, Well, then that seven
Speaker 1: cents has to be made up by what the federal
Speaker 1: treasury or the federal government's gonna have to pay it.
Speaker 1: Who's gonna who's going to print those euros? Clearly the
Speaker 1: bundes Bank, what is that doing again? Stopping reserves into
Speaker 1: the European banking and they're already doing it in the UK, right,
Speaker 1: They've already already done that, but they are there. That
Speaker 1: was part of Trust's plan was Okay, I'm gonna do that,
Speaker 1: but I'm also going to alleviate the supply shortage by
Speaker 1: allowing oil and gas exploration and investment into oil and
Speaker 1: gas exploration back into the UK at the same time.
Speaker 1: So that's the question, Tom, Like, it seems so obvious,
Speaker 1: um that the however you want to frame this up
Speaker 1: the euro Davis and ECB group or even the FED,
Speaker 1: if they're trying to fight inflation, if there it's really
Speaker 1: it's a supply side issue, as you've already made the case,
Speaker 1: which I agree, supply side issue. On the oil, they're
Speaker 1: trying to cap the price of oil, they're trying to
Speaker 1: beg or pressure OPEC to pump out more, all these things.
Speaker 1: If whoever really wanted to win that war, the obvious
Speaker 1: way would be to increase our own supply of oil
Speaker 1: and push the price down to bucks and they could
Speaker 1: bankrupt Russia and no pack that way. Yeah, yeah, of
Speaker 1: course why not that. If we're not doing that, then
Speaker 1: you have to ask yourself why it's not asking you
Speaker 1: why not clear, because they want to actually crash the
Speaker 1: entire system and they want us to starve, and they
Speaker 1: want to and they wanted to. They want to create
Speaker 1: the conditions for a justified defaulting on all of the
Speaker 1: sovereign debt. That's what they want. The Great George Soros
Speaker 1: has made it abundantly clear, and then he put those
Speaker 1: words into rieschi soon Act's mouth the other day. We
Speaker 1: want to default on the debt. There's too much of it,
Speaker 1: we can't pay it back. We issue perpetual bonds, consoles
Speaker 1: and then roll the the fiscal and political UH control
Speaker 1: up into the ECB and the European Commission and do
Speaker 1: away with NASH well UH national governments in national central banks.
Speaker 1: That's what they want to do. Choice being put in
Speaker 1: front of German middle class right now is that you
Speaker 1: can either starve and freeze to death, or you can
Speaker 1: be permanently surveilled in a Minority Reports style dystopia. Your
Speaker 1: choice and roll out the CBDC. It's like the perfect
Speaker 1: introduction of that. Well, that's that's how that's that's CBDCs
Speaker 1: are how they're going to default and still have a currency.
Speaker 1: That's the minority. That's the pillar of the Minority Report
Speaker 1: style social credit system in Dystopia. Of course, the thing
Speaker 1: that I don't understand about the CBDCs though, is that
Speaker 1: obviously it's just another form of fiat. I mean, already
Speaker 1: eighty percent of transactions are digital anyway. So whatever, it's
Speaker 1: a digital transaction and still a digital transaction, it's still
Speaker 1: a fiat currency. It's still whatever, right, And so like
Speaker 1: whenever we see currencies blow up around the world, which
Speaker 1: happens quite often, like in Zimbabwe has happened, you know,
Speaker 1: multiple times, they always have to repeg it back to something. Advice,
Speaker 1: they'd repack it back to the dollar. And so with
Speaker 1: the monetary theory of value or whatever the Austrian lynsays,
Speaker 1: I would say, you would have to pay it back
Speaker 1: to gold or something that has value. So they pay
Speaker 1: it back to the dollar. But if everything blows up
Speaker 1: in the dollar blows up, how do they reinstitute value
Speaker 1: back into a fiat currency, or more importantly, how do
Speaker 1: they put trust back into a FIA currency without pegging.
Speaker 1: I'm asking the same question. That's like, I feel like
Speaker 1: these guys are the underpants. No crash the system dot
Speaker 1: dot dot issue central bank digital currency that no one
Speaker 1: wants dot dot dot profit Like I don't get it,
Speaker 1: Like I think it's a monumentally stupid plan. I do.
Speaker 1: But you know, by getting rid of they're gonna say,
Speaker 1: but by we don't have we have a clean balance
Speaker 1: sheet now, we don't have any debt. You can invest
Speaker 1: in US now, Like why would I invest in you?
Speaker 1: You just you just stole trillion twelve trillion dollars with
Speaker 1: the fourteen trillion dollars of the wealth. Really really like okay,
Speaker 1: you really think that's what's gonna happen here. But the reason,
Speaker 1: the way they think they're gonna be able to pull
Speaker 1: this off is because they have um bankrupted the Russians
Speaker 1: in a war, right and gotten them to heal, and
Speaker 1: they've destroyed the United States. Then of course, you know,
Speaker 1: everything is so terrible that they come out smelling like
Speaker 1: the first ones to default. If they're like the first
Speaker 1: banks to to to go through bankruptcy during a financial crisis, right,
Speaker 1: they're usually the first ones to they're the first ones
Speaker 1: to go bankrupt, and they're usually the first ones to
Speaker 1: come back because they've already gone through the restructuring and
Speaker 1: everything else. That's what they're thinking they're just thinking in
Speaker 1: those kind of quote unquote I hate to say this
Speaker 1: when I'm talking about communists here, but creative destruction, uh well,
Speaker 1: controlled destruction is m for them, right, trying to get
Speaker 1: the building to fall into their lap, right, um, right now,
Speaker 1: It's always about It's always about it's always about selling you,
Speaker 1: you know, I've always about selling you freedom by um
Speaker 1: by you know, putting a new surrounding back and a
Speaker 1: shock coller, you know, and a shot and an electric
Speaker 1: shock of your grass. Like it's not hard here, it's
Speaker 1: the same thing. This whole thing is one big skin,
Speaker 1: this whole this whole thing that they've turned the entire
Speaker 1: world into. It's just one big skinner box. Now we
Speaker 1: have the we're all just addicted to, you know, the
Speaker 1: causing each other pain. We have the Rise of the
Speaker 1: Bricks Nations, which UM, on one hand, seems like a
Speaker 1: credible threat. We have more than half the people alive
Speaker 1: in the world today joining that UM. They want to
Speaker 1: break the l B M A. They produce over sixty
Speaker 1: percent of the gold in the world, where the UK
Speaker 1: produces none UM, and so it seems like it could
Speaker 1: be a credible threat there. However, the US has the consumers,
Speaker 1: and so without consumers that's difficult. But if they can
Speaker 1: break Russia and now they've knocked China back to the
Speaker 1: dark ages, China's stuck importing energy and food and everything
Speaker 1: basically for that matter, maybe they think, well, if we
Speaker 1: can get Russia knocked down and we can get China
Speaker 1: cornered where they they are forced to play ball, then
Speaker 1: we kind of break we break bricks and then we
Speaker 1: kind of get that under control. Well, they clearly want
Speaker 1: to break the bricks up. They obviously just did so,
Speaker 1: you know, with a major piece of it in Brazil, right, Um,
Speaker 1: they're clearly would be right. They clearly want you know,
Speaker 1: and they just realized that. They just think that they
Speaker 1: can break Brazil, Russia, and China then the swing states
Speaker 1: like India, because bricks has two eyes made Iran and India,
Speaker 1: so of course we're pressuring Iran at the same time.
Speaker 1: The problem is that the bricks also have two s
Speaker 1: is because there's another there's a new one now in
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia. Right, So they've got a lot of work
Speaker 1: to do here because everybody there is um not on
Speaker 1: board with this. And you know, the big question now
Speaker 1: is you know, can the Russians rejigger their their trade
Speaker 1: and there and their military and there in their internal
Speaker 1: structure and such a way that they can resist kind
Speaker 1: of ad infinitem right. And I don't know that that's
Speaker 1: the case. I, you know, I'd like to believe that
Speaker 1: it is. I'm you know, I I'd like to believe
Speaker 1: that Putin has this mostly under control. He's not acting
Speaker 1: like he doesn't, you know. And um, but you know
Speaker 1: these are these are titanic forces here, and everybody has
Speaker 1: to play their hand perfectly to get out of it alive. Okay, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: and no, but also you've also framed up a plan
Speaker 1: that doesn't seem like it will work. So um, Nietzsche
Speaker 1: says that that was just falling. Shall yasso push? Like
Speaker 1: the global sovereign debt bubble is bursting. Uh, the dollar
Speaker 1: bubble is bursting, and every other sovereign is bursting. The
Speaker 1: plan that they seem to have doesn't seem to work.
Speaker 1: How do you go back to a fiat currency? Probably
Speaker 1: doesn't work. How do you trust somebody who just stole
Speaker 1: the global wealth? And and like so like, uh, everyone
Speaker 1: has to play this. This is why, this is why
Speaker 1: the feed is raising interest rates, aggress sibilate to try
Speaker 1: and um get back lost credibility and to get rid
Speaker 1: of the FED put and get everybody back on the
Speaker 1: risk assessment. One of the interesting things about SOFA, and
Speaker 1: I haven't really had a chance to write a piece
Speaker 1: about this, but I talked about it a little bit
Speaker 1: here and there, is that when you really start to
Speaker 1: look at SOFA as a as a market driven collateralized
Speaker 1: um rate right contract, Right, it's got futures market and
Speaker 1: and you know, we now have a sofar futures curve
Speaker 1: for um UH anticipating where it's going to be in
Speaker 1: ninety days and what people are gonna help people are
Speaker 1: gonna need, domestic money markets and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: And this is all good. The interesting part about this
Speaker 1: is that the endgame or SOFUR domestically, after it breaks
Speaker 1: library or after it breaks the ear dollar system, is
Speaker 1: that we can have a re regionalization of interest rates
Speaker 1: in the United States. Remember that the FED or Reserve
Speaker 1: is originally conceived of as twelve regional banks City FED,
Speaker 1: the al NFD, the Dallas FED, San Francisco FAD, the
Speaker 1: New York Fed, blah blah of Minneapolis blah, blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: right a hundred years ago, hundred hundred five years ago,
Speaker 1: years ago. This was necessary because of the rate at
Speaker 1: which you know, information transmitted through the economy, because you know,
Speaker 1: we were still you know, we are not cars. Cars
Speaker 1: were just we're not even a thing yet, right, So um,
Speaker 1: having regional interest rates made sense and for the you know,
Speaker 1: so that the rate of the risk assessment rate, the
Speaker 1: foundational the rate in San Francisco should be different than
Speaker 1: it is in New York. Well, with a market driven
Speaker 1: rate like so far, you can actually have now a
Speaker 1: re regionalization of interest rates because you're gonna just have
Speaker 1: banks bidding locally for money markets and we're gonna get
Speaker 1: away from it. And then we can actually get away
Speaker 1: from a monolo thick FED funds rate. The Fed can
Speaker 1: just you know, and there's there's a there's a thing
Speaker 1: happening here that I think is you know, I mean
Speaker 1: really looking ahead here and now we're talking about looking
Speaker 1: five twelve years ahead here, and obviously we may not
Speaker 1: even have an election, but I want you to understand
Speaker 1: that the model, you can see, the foundations are in
Speaker 1: place for a move back to a monetary system, which
Speaker 1: created the United States that that we know it today,
Speaker 1: right that when we had the Federal Reserve, which was
Speaker 1: you know, this was a coup against the original concept
Speaker 1: of the United States. Don't get me wrong, I hate
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve. I'm not making I'm not shilling for
Speaker 1: it here. I would love for us to go onto
Speaker 1: some kind of you know, UM reserve, commodity money standard,
Speaker 1: real banking, and all the rest of it. But a
Speaker 1: market driven rate with the reregionalization of the FED funds
Speaker 1: rate to a set to put risk assessment back in
Speaker 1: the hands of private banks is a hell of lot
Speaker 1: better then the system we have now where we have
Speaker 1: one monolithic rate basically set by the New York Fed
Speaker 1: UM and everybody else has to eat it. And that's
Speaker 1: actually a crossed all sorts of internal problems here in
Speaker 1: the United States. In the same way that having a
Speaker 1: monolithic um EC beef funds rate deposit rate has advantaged
Speaker 1: Germany at the expensive say Italy or Spain or Greece
Speaker 1: or you know the other the quote unquote pigs, what's
Speaker 1: the same problem here in the United States having a
Speaker 1: monolithic rate and um in the United States advantaged California
Speaker 1: at the expense of you know, most of the South
Speaker 1: for decades, in the Midwest for decades. So it's the
Speaker 1: same problem written large and this is why and so
Speaker 1: this is the end of the Californization of the United
Speaker 1: States when you really start start to like think through
Speaker 1: how this is gonna work and why everybody why why
Speaker 1: the breakup of the European Union is effect I think
Speaker 1: inevitable because we need to have different interest rates across
Speaker 1: the EU space in order to properly assess risk and
Speaker 1: and labor efficiency. Well, the same thing should be in
Speaker 1: the United States as well, but with a market driven
Speaker 1: rate like SOFUR, we could actually do that because things
Speaker 1: can trade at a disc things can trade in Minneapolis
Speaker 1: at a discount or I premium. This SOF based on
Speaker 1: the demand for money, right, Whereas it's a lot harder
Speaker 1: for that to happen with a monolithic rate because it's
Speaker 1: not a market driven rate that's coming from the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 1: Whereas SOFA is actually determined by the market. And the
Speaker 1: problem with it can be once the once the entirety
Speaker 1: of the of the market, once the entirety of the
Speaker 1: market is working on that right. This is something that
Speaker 1: I've been spitballing with some people about for a couple
Speaker 1: of a couple of weeks now, but I just it's
Speaker 1: the first time I've actually actually tried to like put
Speaker 1: some some meat on those bones. And again, I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that I'm right about this, but it's something that
Speaker 1: we really want to start considering. And of course, because
Speaker 1: if that's the case, and those are the forces that
Speaker 1: play here in the United States to ensure that the
Speaker 1: reindustrialization of the United States that happens with the last
Speaker 1: dollar bull market that we're going to have, which is
Speaker 1: not going to buy a way to be a bull
Speaker 1: market against golden bitcoin, It's gonna be a bullmarket against
Speaker 1: every other freaking crappy seat OC currency. It's the one
Speaker 1: we're living through right now. And then once people really
Speaker 1: start getting real and we're starting to see that the
Speaker 1: FED rate seventy basis points the other day and gold,
Speaker 1: you know, initially traded down and now is back up
Speaker 1: in the sixteen eighties, and it's threatening sev dred you know,
Speaker 1: I think a weekly closing price on gold about seventeen
Speaker 1: thirty five, and we're off to the races back to hundred.
Speaker 1: The same thing with bitcoin. If we got a weekly
Speaker 1: closed about twenty two thousand. Watch out, baby, We're gonna
Speaker 1: be back at thirty before you even though it, because
Speaker 1: it's gonna pretend that you have people finally realizing that
Speaker 1: Europe has no way of of surviving this without forcing
Speaker 1: the FED to pivot and without forcing the FED put
Speaker 1: back onto the global market. And I just don't think
Speaker 1: that enough people believe that that the case yet. I
Speaker 1: just don't think we've gotten you know, enough people to
Speaker 1: the to the acceptance phase of the kuber Ross model
Speaker 1: about five stages of grief model about the end of
Speaker 1: the death of the FED POOT. I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people are still in denial and so and a
Speaker 1: lot of people clearly are angry and are bargaining. So
Speaker 1: you don't think the FED has one more put in him?
Speaker 1: I mean it seems like you do. That's why you said,
Speaker 1: or no, you think Golden Big Plan go. I think
Speaker 1: the FED wants to do away with the idea of
Speaker 1: the of the general FED put for the global market.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that. I don't think that at some
Speaker 1: point the FED may not pivot or you know they
Speaker 1: you know again, markets moving waves, right, policies moving waves.
Speaker 1: We could have the FED go to five and a
Speaker 1: half percent, break Europe, you know, see the dollar index
Speaker 1: go to one forty, back off, go back to three.
Speaker 1: Let that and then let that run for a while.
Speaker 1: That would be okay, I mean whatever, that would be fine.
Speaker 1: Like that would be normal minditary policy. And and then
Speaker 1: once and once we've internalized all that, we've worked out
Speaker 1: some of the the damage from those things, then if
Speaker 1: we need to move it back up to five or six,
Speaker 1: we do something we should never ever go back to
Speaker 1: the zero bound. Yeah, that's what I think. It seems
Speaker 1: like it's probably the most probable outcome here, you know,
Speaker 1: financial repression. So if they can bring the rates up
Speaker 1: to five percent, get them some room, drop it back
Speaker 1: down to three pin or maybe four, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: four is the new two or something. Hey or uh
Speaker 1: and then uh, you know, get up to five, get
Speaker 1: some room, bring it back down to four, keep the
Speaker 1: bond yields low, and let let inflation kind of run
Speaker 1: a little hot for a while, and maybe you know,
Speaker 1: try to bring GDP back down that way. Um, it
Speaker 1: seems like it might be a probable option or outcome,
Speaker 1: I should say, Um, jumping gears a little bit uh
Speaker 1: you mentioned you mentioned bitcoin, um, and so you know
Speaker 1: the final stage of every empire is capital controls. All right,
Speaker 1: we have to force you to stay in the party.
Speaker 1: If I'm having a party here at my office and hey,
Speaker 1: you're too noisy, get out, and I don't like you,
Speaker 1: get out, and I kick everybody out, eventually I have
Speaker 1: no control over anybody because no one's at my party
Speaker 1: and they've started their own party over there. And so
Speaker 1: when you look at like the fall of the USS,
Speaker 1: al right, everyone's kind of left and started these parallel
Speaker 1: markets and economies and then they had no more control.
Speaker 1: And so, um, if if people exit, which is why
Speaker 1: you hear people like Christine Leguard talking about having to
Speaker 1: close the exits, not just with taxes but also with
Speaker 1: currencies as well. Um, if we get enough people getting
Speaker 1: outside of the system, then they lose the power of
Speaker 1: that system. Now there hasn't really been a good option,
Speaker 1: but it seems like as the world is escalating very
Speaker 1: rapidly right now, especially coming forefront, which you know, two
Speaker 1: people all across the world, um, they understand. You know,
Speaker 1: we have about three billion people living under strict authoritarian
Speaker 1: regimes with double digit inflation, or greater, and so for them,
Speaker 1: you don't have to explain to them why they might
Speaker 1: need a different way to store money than this fiat
Speaker 1: currency they have. In the United States a little bit harder,
Speaker 1: but in Canada we found front and center. Hey, we'll
Speaker 1: just take your money. Town we want obviously, Russia we
Speaker 1: frozer fex reserves. And so it's starting to come more
Speaker 1: and more and more and more and um, it seems
Speaker 1: like as the world continues to break apart, which is
Speaker 1: my thesis, um, you know, probably move into this multipolar world,
Speaker 1: how does the world trust each other for common trade
Speaker 1: and good And it seems like it doesn't really work.
Speaker 1: And it's almost like we would need this decentralized ledger
Speaker 1: that nobody could control in order to bring some trust
Speaker 1: back into the world. Again, I agree, I agree. I
Speaker 1: just think that's this thing. I know that some people
Speaker 1: that when you asked last night, which is you know
Speaker 1: what you wanted to talk with me about now, a
Speaker 1: lot of people said, you know, hey, Tom, um, how
Speaker 1: do you justify gold in a world with bitcoin? I'm like, well,
Speaker 1: because a lot of people don't trust pickol and a
Speaker 1: lot of people still trust gold. It's just the way
Speaker 1: it is. And I think that, um, I'm not. I
Speaker 1: don't know that gold is going to survive as a
Speaker 1: global foundational asset beyond this cycle of history. Right beyond
Speaker 1: beyond this cycle, this might be the like the last one,
Speaker 1: the last um war cycle forth turning whatever you want
Speaker 1: to call it. Sovereign debt crisis saw the end of
Speaker 1: the silver of silver as a monetary medal. Right, All
Speaker 1: the central banks around the world divested the largest hordes
Speaker 1: of silver ever seen by humanity over the last seventy
Speaker 1: five years. Nobody has any silver left in their reserves.
Speaker 1: Was that? Was that a technology thing though, right, because
Speaker 1: we needed silver for lower for lower denominations. But once
Speaker 1: we had paper currencies, we didn't need silver anymore. So
Speaker 1: then we just kept actually in technology caught up to
Speaker 1: the fact that silver is one of the best you know,
Speaker 1: electrical conductors in the on the periodic cable and bab bla,
Speaker 1: A lot of the industrial demand for silver rise and
Speaker 1: the it just like there's like there's things we can
Speaker 1: do with these medals. Remember chemists as well, right, and
Speaker 1: and you know with a and for a while I
Speaker 1: worked you know in metallurgy, UM and encodings and and
Speaker 1: so it's given a lot of thought to this stuff.
Speaker 1: And like at some point, you know, it's a technology thing.
Speaker 1: Money is a technology. But but the way I meant
Speaker 1: like and the way I meant in technology is like
Speaker 1: gold was good for bigger denominations, silver was good for
Speaker 1: smaller denomination once week. And now we're when we when
Speaker 1: we when we got paper gold certificates, we didn't need
Speaker 1: the smaller denominations anymore. So what happened is basically, I mean,
Speaker 1: we had silver, we had service certificates in the United
Speaker 1: States all the way up you know, I was born,
Speaker 1: and I think about sixty eight. You can still turn
Speaker 1: him in up until you know, I know, I know
Speaker 1: people who turned him into the federal demonetized or something
Speaker 1: like that, right, yeah, I mean, but the point being
Speaker 1: is that silver eventually was no longer even held as
Speaker 1: a reserve asset to back the paper currency. Right, and
Speaker 1: at some point maybe we'll get to the point where
Speaker 1: gold is no longer used as a reserve asset. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I'm not going to live to see this day.
Speaker 1: Like we're gonna see that, We're gonna see the remond,
Speaker 1: We're gonna see treasury old actually re monetize in a
Speaker 1: way that is a better way of recapitalizing the central
Speaker 1: bank balance sheet than um default, which is what Soros
Speaker 1: wants to do. Soros wants to keep all the wealth
Speaker 1: that he's stolen, right, and then just have everybody default
Speaker 1: on the fiat debt, when the better thing to do
Speaker 1: is to um recapitalize the entire system using the treasury gold,
Speaker 1: but having to use it at a much higher price. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like and and so, and you know, again, this is
Speaker 1: not an original idea. I've talked about this a little bit.
Speaker 1: But the you know, the idea of being is that
Speaker 1: you know, you can recapitalize the United States. You've got
Speaker 1: three point five tons of gold sitting on the fat
Speaker 1: balance sheet. That's cents and ounced mark mark to say,
Speaker 1: not mark the market, but remember the Remember the World
Speaker 1: Gold Council, you know, puts that number out every quarter
Speaker 1: telling you what that is as a percentage in mark
Speaker 1: the market terms of US as actual reserves. News for you,
Speaker 1: of the total U reserves of the of the U
Speaker 1: S banking system, of the US banking system, now is
Speaker 1: that of a very small pile of of reserves on
Speaker 1: a massive pile of dollars. You bet your sweet bippy
Speaker 1: it is. But you want to recapitalize trust, it's easy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was your fifty or a hundred year bond with
Speaker 1: a five percent gold resemption clause at the end of
Speaker 1: the bond. Well, we know that central banks are buying
Speaker 1: more gold than any time in since nineteen seventy one,
Speaker 1: so there's certainly more than more than fifty last year
Speaker 1: was of total demand. Gold demand this year is going
Speaker 1: to be more than that, probably somewhere around seventeen or
Speaker 1: eighteen the And we have to wait for the Q
Speaker 1: four numbers because a lot of the smaller buyers of
Speaker 1: gold from the central banks like to just make one
Speaker 1: big purchase at the end of the year Hungary for example,
Speaker 1: last year, Japan a couple of years ago, right, um,
Speaker 1: And you know there are only there are only a
Speaker 1: few like Serbian Newsbekistan and Kazakhstan and others who just
Speaker 1: buy every month like it's you know, it's just part
Speaker 1: of their their buying program. By the way, it was,
Speaker 1: Bekistan is buying like eight point seven tons of gold
Speaker 1: a month. It's Bekistan. It's a lot of gold, eight
Speaker 1: point seven tons of gold. Why would they keep their
Speaker 1: money in the financial system. If freshly gets their accounts frozen,
Speaker 1: that what what hope do they have? Right? Right? And why?
Speaker 1: And and and and that's a number, by the way,
Speaker 1: where we don't know what the Russians have been buying
Speaker 1: this year because the Russians aren't telling anybody and needed
Speaker 1: us China, yeah, oh, the Chinese and the Russians. And
Speaker 1: seeing the thing about about a gold redemption clause for
Speaker 1: a just to make sure everybody understands that the mechanics
Speaker 1: of this, and it's just I have to have to
Speaker 1: run in a couple of minutes because they've got another,
Speaker 1: got another thing that I've got somebody waiting for me.
Speaker 1: But to remember this you can issue. This is why
Speaker 1: I say that at some point the FED is gonna
Speaker 1: want the price of gold to rise. Oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: I also think at some point that FED is gonna
Speaker 1: want the price of bitcoin the rise, because I also
Speaker 1: see bitcoin entering into the global reserve system as well.
Speaker 1: I think the Fed's gonna wind up putting bitcoin and
Speaker 1: its balance sheet in ten years. Baker Noodle, do you
Speaker 1: think you're gonna get rid of Do you think you're
Speaker 1: gonna get rid of the Fed, No, boys, I don't
Speaker 1: think that's gonna happen. But I can see the FED
Speaker 1: buying or at least part of the US banking system
Speaker 1: being backed by bitcoin, already seeing it. So there's no
Speaker 1: reason not that you know. And we're already seeing an
Speaker 1: investment at the investment level, you know, at the at
Speaker 1: the at the family office level, and whynot. Why wouldn't
Speaker 1: we see it somewhere else? I would see it everywhere.
Speaker 1: So but as far as like a gold redemption clause
Speaker 1: is concerned, you don't have to issue. You can keep
Speaker 1: the FED funds rate at six percent, but issue fifty
Speaker 1: year debt with a two percent coupon. Now, all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, your your budget crisis from a six percent
Speaker 1: FED funds rate isn't as bad as you think it is.
Speaker 1: Now you can roll over the existing data two percent,
Speaker 1: paying two percent coupon, but with a but with the
Speaker 1: net present value of the bond being linked to the
Speaker 1: gold price. Now you can let the price of go
Speaker 1: old find its new level and the investors will hold
Speaker 1: onto these fifty year bonds that they're only getting paid
Speaker 1: two percent dollars every year, but they're getting ten or
Speaker 1: twelve or fifteen percent in goal. And that way you
Speaker 1: can slowly allow the price of gold to to you know,
Speaker 1: rise to its commensurate level over ten or fifteen years.
Speaker 1: And at any point you just leave a clause and
Speaker 1: the thing that the bond is callable at the net
Speaker 1: present value in dollars based on the current market price
Speaker 1: of goal. So that if you bought a ten thousand
Speaker 1: dollar bond, you know, five of which is at the
Speaker 1: time of the sale is recoverable as redeemable as as
Speaker 1: a as treasury gold. That price is that five worth
Speaker 1: of gold rises to I don't know, you know, a
Speaker 1: fifteen hundred bucks, and you call the bond in the
Speaker 1: whole bond is worth now you know, twelve thousand dollars
Speaker 1: you pay, you pay the people off the you know,
Speaker 1: the bond holders back in those dollars. But if you
Speaker 1: were able to do that and fix the fiscal side
Speaker 1: of the equation by doing fiscal um you know, reasonable
Speaker 1: fiscal management along with a re regional nation, the federal
Speaker 1: words the FED funds rate with SOFA and all the
Speaker 1: rest of it, and and and risk being assessed by
Speaker 1: commercial banks and not being set at the margin really
Speaker 1: by the by the central Bank, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: we have a system that's a hell of a lot
Speaker 1: closer to like austral libertarian utopia. Then you think you're
Speaker 1: you think, um, you was ever possible. It's possible, but
Speaker 1: it's gonna require a dramatic amount of change, dramatic shift
Speaker 1: in thinking. Now here's the king, here's the big gig. Ready,
Speaker 1: what do you think the Russians in the Chinese are
Speaker 1: gonna do at some point if anybody thinks that we're
Speaker 1: gonna um that, you know, like if they could always
Speaker 1: just restate their gold reserves and then do this exact
Speaker 1: thing that I just talked about, and they will call
Speaker 1: capital away from the from the West very quickly. So
Speaker 1: it's going to be in the Fed's best interest that
Speaker 1: the FED wants to survive, that the Fed goes. If
Speaker 1: it doesn't go first, then it goes. This is why
Speaker 1: the midterms tomorrow or Sadam the board the theory, it's
Speaker 1: a great plan, tom I think the problem with that,
Speaker 1: The biggest problem I see with that plan is that
Speaker 1: it's you know, too much common sense, it's too practical,
Speaker 1: and it would work too well, So they probably would
Speaker 1: never want to go to night However, it's not that
Speaker 1: far fetched because we know what it was. After nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy one, the US was forced to issue bonds in
Speaker 1: other what other currencies right or other? Uh during so
Speaker 1: they were forced to do it, and they may be
Speaker 1: forced to do again. I know you gotta run, Tom,
Speaker 1: We went long as always. I appreciate uh being able
Speaker 1: to chat with you. Uh, you write an awesome newsletter
Speaker 1: which I recommend, Gold Goats and Guns. You got the
Speaker 1: podcast as well. Uh, we'll make sure to link down
Speaker 1: that below. Anything you want to shout out, no, just
Speaker 1: follow me on Twitter. We're on TfL se if you
Speaker 1: want to. You know, you want want some snark with
Speaker 1: your with your core inflection. Yeah, so we'll make sure
Speaker 1: to link of Twitter. Uh your newsletter in there, which
Speaker 1: is awesome. I recommend it, and uh with that, we'll
Speaker 1: we'll wrap it up. Thanks Tom, Thank you, Mark. You
Speaker 1: have a good day now. All right, that's a rap.
Speaker 1: Hopefully you enjoyed the conversation as much as I did
Speaker 1: having it. Make sure to check out Tom Luongo's Gold
Speaker 1: Goats and Guns. We're gonna link to that down below
Speaker 1: in the notes. Follow him on Twitter. Hopefully you take
Speaker 1: this information think about it, absorb it, and then go
Speaker 1: discuss it. Share this information. We're trying to wake as
Speaker 1: many people up. That's my only ask. I try to
Speaker 1: bring you as much fight as I can, and my
Speaker 1: ask to you is if you can share this information,
Speaker 1: discuss it, discuss these ideas, teach your kids, all right,
Speaker 1: That's what I got to your success amount