저자: PeterSchiff·AlasdairMacleod · 외국인
요약 보기
연준이 정치적 압력으로 인플레이션을 통제하지 못하고 정부 재정적자가 통화가치 붕괴를 부른다는 주장. 주식은 역사상 최고 수준으로 고평가됐고 외국인 보유 약 25조달러가 이탈하면 버블 붕괴 우려. 헤지펀드 마진부채 약 9조달러·브로커 대출 1.2~1.3조달러가 강제매도를 촉발해 1929~1932급 폭락 가능. 장기국채금리 10~20%+ 급등 시 모기지금리·부동산 타격, 좀비기업 위기. 최종적으로 법정화폐 이탈과 실물금·은 보유를 권고. 자산 가격 방향에 대한 구체적 1~3개월 예측은 제한적.
다듬은 글
We will see a collapse. We are already in a state of collapse in the value of these currencies. The only thing you can do is get out of them and into physical gold, and make sure that you're not storing your physical gold in a vault that's run by a bank, not in a vault, I mean if we're talking about America, not in a vault that's run by an American corporation, or, you know, owned by an American corporation, because the government can come back and say to an American corporation, "We're changing the law." You have to not only tell us who you're collecting, you know, gold and silver for, but also send it to us.
I think it's wrong for Varsha to even think that someone can just put the Fed out of sight. I mean, he's right to the extent that we shouldn't make decisions based on what we think the Fed will do. But unfortunately, we have to, traders have to, because what the Fed does moves the markets. And the Fed may have its own agenda that is different from what the data actually shows.
Peter Schiff and Alistair MacLeod have warned that a prolonged decline in the purchasing power of fiat currency could push investors into physical gold and silver as a monetary safe haven. Their analysis highlights the importance of understanding central bank policy, the impact of the Federal Reserve, inflation, and financial security as currency risks increase.
They argue that market participants cannot simply ignore the Fed because its decisions can significantly change asset prices. The discussion highlights growing concerns about currency depreciation, physical precious metals , government intervention, and monetary instability, making gold and silver increasingly important for investors seeking long-term wealth preservation .
We now present excerpts from the interview with Peter Schiff and Alistair MacLeod. Subscribe to Metal Moves now creation opportunities. Stay ahead of financial changes and never miss market movement alerts. Well, Varsh did take responsibility for inflation. In his speech, he noted that over the past 65 months, inflation has been well above their 2% target.
And he took responsibility on behalf of the Fed. Sure, he wasn't at the Fed for most of those 65 months, but he took responsibility on behalf of everyone else in the institution. But he said it was solely the Fed's fault. He said it was just the Fed. Basically, it is our responsibility. It's our fault and we have to do something about it.
But this is not true. It takes two to tango when it comes to performing the inflation dance. And the Fed's dance partner is the US government. This is Congress, and this is the president. because it is Congress that authorizes and spends money it does not have, leading to the inflationary policies that the Fed pursues to make this spending possible, in order to avoid a financial crisis or bond crisis that would occur if the Fed did not cover these deficits.
So, when you let your accomplice go and then declare that you are not going to commit the crime again, it will still happen. Because it is impossible for the Fed to really fight inflation, given what the government is doing now. So, one of the first things that Varsh talked about when he started his talk was forward guidance and how it had served its purpose.
And I don't think they ever had a real legitimate purpose. But he said they were created after the 2008 financial crisis. And that they were a little later than they should have been. And that we don't need them anymore. But what happened was that interest rates were at zero. And they're like: well, how do we soften the policy?
Our rates are zero. We are already conducting quantitative easing (QE). How can we lower, we are already at the bottom. And the way they did it was through these forward instructions . And the forward instructions were: hey, we're at ground zero and we're going to stay there for a long time. And we will continue to print money.
Is n't that right? Because they couldn't really do much once they were at the zero limit. So they wanted to keep talking about how long they were going to stay there to try to, you know, soften the policy when they really didn't want to go into the red, right? Like some central banks that have moved to negative nominal rates.
The Fed didn't do that. Although I think at some point Donald Trump campaigned for it. He was jealous. He said: hey, other countries have negative rates. Why can't we ? Truth? He thought it was a good idea, and that the Fed should try it. But, you know, Varsh says, " Listen, we don't need any more forward guidance ." And he said that markets should not be guided by the Fed.
Investors should not make their next trade based on what they think the Fed will do. They should look objectively at the data, at the economy, and then make their investments based on that, not based on what they think the Fed will do. But that won't happen. Because what the Fed does is very important.
Because if you were making decisions based only on the real economy, you would think: "Okay, rates will increase significantly, because we are facing inflation due to the real numbers." But the markets are trying to understand: "Well, the Fed won't do what it should. " You see, if I knew the Fed would act correctly based on the data, then I could follow the data.
But if you believe the Fed will do the wrong thing, then what does this data mean? If you know that the Fed will act politically, that it will only try to prevent the bubble from bursting to artificially support a fake economy and help politicians avoid difficult decisions, how can you ignore what you think the Fed will do?
Because the Fed will act based on political motives. And not just based on data. In fact, the data for the Fed may be irrelevant. As much as they like to say they depend on data, perhaps the data they are looking at is political polls or the popularity of the current administration . So I think Warsh is wrong to even suggest that someone could simply take the Fed out of the equation.
That is, he is right that we should not make decisions based on what we think the Fed will do. But, unfortunately, we have to. Traders are forced to do this because the Fed's actions move the markets . And the Fed may have its own agenda that is different from what the actual data would indicate. He also talked about the dual mandate and that they would continue to work on it, because these goals are not mutually exclusive: in the long run, high employment requires low inflation.
But of course, there is a trade-off: when you have high unemployment and you create inflation, and wages are not rising as fast as prices , you reduce wages. You are lowering the minimum wage. And to the extent that you do that, you are helping employment to some extent because you are making labor cheaper by lowering real wages.
So, essentially, you can help solve the unemployment problem if it was caused by wages that were too high. So inflation is a kind of hidden way of reducing wages because you're reducing the real cost of labor, which can lead to an increase in demand for workers. But in general, I agree with the idea that in the long run, low inflation and low unemployment should go hand in hand, but in the short run, any increase in unemployment creates political pressure on the Fed to stimulate the economy.
Peter Schiff argues that the Federal Reserve cannot be fully responsible for persistent inflation, emphasizing the role of government spending, budget deficits, and monetary policy. He criticizes the Fed's reliance on forward-looking benchmarks, explaining how this became a primary policy tool after the 2008 financial crisis , when interest rates fell to zero.
Schiff also argues that investors should continue to monitor the Fed's decisions, as markets react sharply to monetary policy. His analysis covers inflation, government debt, employment, interest rates, political pressure, and confidence in the Fed, highlighting the complex trade-off between economic growth and price stability.
Let's get back to the interview. First, the Fed will no longer be able to hold bond yields at 5%. They will grow significantly. This will cause the stock bubble to burst. Stocks are now more overvalued than at any time in modern financial history, as far as we know. There are so many loans that support the value of shares, as well as significant foreign investment in the stock market.
I mean, about $25 trillion of stocks in the US are actually owned by foreigners. At the first sign that something is wrong, they will immediately leave. They will not get this 25 trillion. I can assure you. If they're lucky, they'll take at least five. Then there are banks that have, let's say, if you look at hedge funds, their margin debt is about $9 trillion.
Approximately half of this amount falls on banks. The other half are repo agreements and similar instruments. Banks are going to, you know, the collateral they have, they're just going to sell it off. They will simply get rid of them because if the loans are not covered, they do not want to have bad debts, as their existence is at risk.
Their very existence is at risk, because banks, as we know, are highly leveraged structures. And, of course, there are brokered loans; if you look at the FINRA data, I haven't seen it in the last month, but it's about $1.2 to $1.3 trillion in brokerage loans. And all this is on bail. What will happen to this collateral?
It will be sold out. We have the potential for a market crash, at least on the scale of 1929–1932 . At least on this scale. The only thing that can offset this, perhaps at some point, and probably later, is, um, a drop in the purchasing power of the dollar, which will soften the blow somewhat, but you will still lose a lot of money.
Again, let's go back to how this affects individuals. I mean, they will own their own property, but the value of the property is determined by the cost of financing it. So, we look at mortgage rates. Mortgage rates depend on the 10-year US Treasury bond. So you will see mortgage rates rise along with US Treasury bond yields.
Personally, I believe that US Treasury bond yields could easily exceed 10%. It can exceed 15%. It can exceed 20%. The problem here is that you have to think about what this will do to mortgage rates? So, how will this affect residential property prices? I mean, we'll put commercial real estate aside.
This is already a disaster. And it will only get worse. So, you know, we're looking at a situation that is financially catastrophic. This is first. Now, what the Fed will do in these circumstances—it will do everything it can to try to save the zombies in the economy, because don't forget, you have a lot of zombie corporations that borrowed money on the basis that interest rates would never go up again.
Remember this? Remember the regional banks that went bankrupt because they never thought about it, they bought long-term bonds and financed it with short-term liabilities. And what happened before the Russians entered Ukraine, before their so-called " special military operation, " during it, and shortly after it.
I mean, a whole bunch of these banks went bankrupt. This, this will happen again, but this time with zombie corporations. So what will Bessen do ? What will, um, Walsh do ? He will try to suppress interest rates on the short end. And the long end will just get out of control. But suppressing interest rates effectively means that the purchasing power of the currency will essentially collapse.
There can be no other outcome. And the only thing we can argue about is how quickly it is likely to happen? Most people I talk to who understand my argument think, "Oh, we still have, I don't know, 5 years or so ." I don't think so. You know, my working assumption is that we have about 18 months. And what happens, again , if I can get back to the ordinary people, they will be the last to understand what is really going on.
They will be the last to realize that it is not prices that are rising, but their currency that is depreciating. At that point, once they realize this, they will start dumping their currency for anything they can get— anything they need or don't need, just to get rid of the money. This is called a "boom- bust," which Austrian economists will tell you about.
We have already seen this in Germany in 1923, in Austria in 1922, in Hungary as well, and in Russia a little earlier. So yes, we will see this scenario again. And where we will move next - we will have to wait and see. Alasdair MacLeod warns that rising US Treasury yields could expose serious vulnerabilities in equity, banking, real estate and high-yield financial markets .
He argues that about $9 trillion in hedge fund margin debt could exacerbate forced selling if the value of collateral falls, potentially triggering a market crash similar to the 1929–1932 period. McLeod also highlights the risk of sharply rising mortgage rates, sovereign debt stress and “zombie corporations” in policymakers’ attempts to contain the cost of borrowing. , be sure to update.
Comments 0