저자: PeterSchiff·LukeGromen · 외국인
요약 보기
연준(워시 체제)이 물가안정 의지를 강화하면 금리 인상·유동성 축소로 주식이 크게 하락할 수 있다는 주장. 연준은 준비금 공급 유지와 물가안정을 동시에 약속하나 이는 모순이며, 결국 인플레이션 선택이 역사적 패턴이라고 봄. 금은 원화 기준 하락 중이나 장기 우상향, 주식은 달러 기준 상승 후 금 기준 하락 예상. 이란 전쟁·호르무즈 관련 금/석유 비율 상승은 비달러 석유결제 저지 실패 신호로 해석.
다듬은 글
On the other hand, he's saying, "But we're going to deliver price stability." Well, it's one or the other. You can't have both. If the Fed does not drain that excess liquidity, then we're going to keep having There is the potential that it's not business as usual, that there is no more Fed put. Warsh is actually going to put inflation as a higher priority than all these other things and accept the consequences of fighting inflation.
That's why the market sold off today. The Fed is actually serious about doing what Warsh is implying. The markets are going to go down a lot more. They should go down a lot more. You said you think Warsh will sell bonds, cut rates to offset, and then adjust bank capital requirements to soak up supply.
In gold terms, stocks are down 35% 40% since 4Q 21. 4Q 21 peak in the S&P 500 measured in gold terms down 35% 40%. That's going to be the deal, I think. I think stocks are going to go up in dollar terms, continue to, and they're going to go down in gold terms over time. If that's the case that that that the war to stop non-dollar oil sales of Iran failed, cuz otherwise the gold-oil ratio would be going down, not up.
Financial markets are entering a period of growing uncertainty as investors try to understand the Federal Reserve's next move. Inflation remains elevated. Geopolitical tensions continue to affect energy markets, and confidence in traditional policy tools is being tested. Peter Schiff, a long-time advocate of sound money and free market economics, and Luke Grommen, known for his macroeconomic analysis of monetary systems and global capital flows, argue that investors should focus less on short-term headlines and more on the structural challenges facing the US economy.
Their outlook centers on liquidity, inflation, government debt, and the long-term purchasing power of the dollar. A key concern is the contradiction between maintaining abundant liquidity while simultaneously promising price stability. Excess reserves in the financial system continue to support asset prices, but they also contribute to inflationary pressures.
Markets are increasingly questioning whether policymakers can truly control inflation without triggering painful adjustments in stocks, real estate, and government finances. That tension is becoming one of the most important themes shaping the investment landscape. Now, we present the clips from their interview.
Before we continue to discuss this, please hit the like button, subscribe to the channel, and ring the bell icon. Thank you, and enjoy the video. Here is what the Fed said. The Federal Open Market Committee approved the following statement for release by a 12 to zero vote. Unanimous. Finally, a unanimous decision.
Even the people that were voting for rate cuts in the past, they're they're they're okay with leaving rates the way they are. The committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 3 and 1/2 to 3 and 3/4%. In support of the Fed's dual mandate, the committee reaffirms its policy of maintaining ample reserves in the banking system.
Now, he then goes on to talk about the Fed's commitment to price stability. In fact, before I get there, let me finish reading the statement. Economic activity is expanding at a solid pace despite elevated uncertainty that owes in part to the conflicts in the Middle East. Productivity growth and capital investments are strong.
Job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has changed little. Inflation remains elevated relative to the committee's 2% goal, in part reflecting supply shocks that have driven price increases in certain sectors, including energy. The committee will deliver price stability.
That's it. End of statement. But, it ends with a commitment to deliver price stability. The committee will deliver price stability. But, that commitment is in conflict with the Fed's reaffirming that it is also committed to maintaining ample reserves in the banking system. What does that mean? A lot of money, a big balance sheet, artificially low interest rates.
The reason that inflation is so high, it's not because of the supply shocks, it's not because of the war, it's because of those ample reserves in the system. The ample reserves are the inflation. It's the liquidity that the Fed injected into the system. So, on the one hand, he's promising not to withdraw that liquidity, but to maintain it.
On the other hand, he's saying, "But we're going to deliver price stability." Well, it's one or the other. You can't have both. If the Fed does not drain that excess liquidity, then we're going to keep having inflation. It's a choice. The Federal Reserve has chosen inflation by by design. And the reason that the Fed chose to create inflation, the reason that Greenspan chose inflation, the reason that Bernanke chose inflation, the reason that Yellen chose inflation, the reason that Powell chose inflation is because if they didn't choose inflation, the opposite choice was something that in their minds was even worse.
The reason that the Fed has chose inflation is because of the alternative. The alternative to inflation is a stock market crash, a real estate crash, a recession. The alternative to inflation is to force the US government to be fiscally responsible, to force the government to slash government spending.
Either that or dramatically raise taxes. But neither of those is appealing to the government. So, in order to spare our politicians from making these difficult political decisions, in order to bail out stockholders, real estate owners, in order to prop up the banking system, and to prevent a financial crisis, the Fed chooses to create inflation instead.
It's very simple. They don't have to make that choice. The Fed can allow the bitter-tasting medicine. The Fed can allow the markets to correct all these problems, but it doesn't want to. The politicians don't want that. Donald Trump certainly doesn't want that. So, to the extent that this inflation task force actually recommends the actual solutions, there's there's no way anybody is going to support it.
In fact, the the Fed is posturing as if it's going to change the game, as if it's not going to choose inflation anymore, as if now the Fed is serious. This Fed under Walsh is actually serious about inflation. We're going to re-examine everything the Fed has done in the past. We're going to look at the pros and cons, the pluses and minuses, and maybe we're going to do something different.
That is what's scaring the market, that the Fed may decide that it's not going to choose inflation. It's going to fight inflation and choose a bear market in stocks, a bear market in real estate, recession, a financial crisis. Now, I think when push comes to shove, when it realizes or you know, it comes to the point where that is the choice, I believe that Warsh will make the same choice as all of his predecessors because politically speaking, that is the only viable choice he can make.
He will choose inflation. He will choose currency debasement rather than forcing a default or massive constant government spending, a big recession and stock market decline. It It's going to be business as usual. But right now, there is the potential that it's not business as usual, that there is no more Fed put, that Warsh is actually going to put inflation as a higher priority than all these other things and accept the consequences of fighting play.
That's why the market sold off today. That's why the Dow sold off. That's probably well, crypto sells off for whatever reason, but everything sold off. Gold too was down. Gold was down about 70 bucks on the day. At the low I saw was down about $110, but about a half hour before the FOMC statement, gold was up $45.
That was about the high of the day, but it was positive all day until the Fed came out even more hawkish than the markets had anticipated and stocks sold off, the Nasdaq sold off, the Dow, everything was down. But if the Fed is actually serious about doing what Walsh is implying, the markets are going to go down a lot more.
They should go down a lot more because the only way to restore price stability is much higher interest rates. 50 basis points aren't going to cut it. The Fed is going to have to get medieval when it comes to rate hikes. And that's something that hasn't been discussed at all. But if you want a safe haven, if you want a hedge against inflation, buy gold, buy silver.
Gold and silver were down today in reaction to a more hawkish Fed, which has been the knee-jerk reaction. You know, gold's around 4,250 and silver is around 68 bucks, 67.80, down over two bucks today. You want to buy this. The markets still don't get it. It's all talk. I Walsh could talk the talk about price stability and fighting inflation, but he can't walk the walk.
He's going to have to choose inflation because in his mind it's going to be the lesser of the two evils. You want to take advantage of this pullback in gold and silver. You want to take advantage of the pullback in the mining stocks. The debate increasingly revolves around whether inflation is a temporary challenge or the result of deeper policy choices.
Maintaining large amounts of liquidity may help stabilize financial markets in the short term, but it also risks preserving the very conditions that keep prices elevated. The alternative would require accepting economic pain through tighter financial conditions, slower growth, and potentially significant corrections in asset markets.
This creates a difficult balancing act. Policy makers must choose between protecting markets and restoring purchasing power. History suggests that governments often prefer policies that support economic activity and debt sustainability, even if inflation remains above target levels. As a result, many investors are beginning to reassess the long-term value of cash and financial assets.
Precious metals, energy-related assets, and other hard assets continue attracting attention as potential beneficiaries of a world where inflation pressures remain persistent. Now, let's get back to the interview. The balance sheet, I think you gave a short explanation in the last video I watched of why this won't work, but it might be kind good to kind of expand on that.
Uh I I would say it can work uh if they do the right things alongside it. Um so the the playbook that I'm hearing is is some version of the playbook is, you know, cut rates at the front end, sell bonds at the long end, that'll steepen the curve. Um then you deregulate banks, uh which would then uh give banks greater ability to buy Treasuries that the Fed is selling.
Um and so that's a version of what they did part of the solution during COVID, and it's essentially QE through banks, which purists will say is not true, but it effectively is. Uh and then you can drive uh growth while rates in theory don't run away from you. Uh cuz if you have non-inflationary growth, good for the dollar, too good for the dollar, drive selling of of of Treasuries and higher rates, and if it's inflationary growth, that drives higher rates as well.
So, uh I think if they marry that with, say, uh higher gold higher gold prices, uh, kept the cap on the dollar, kept the cap on 10-year Treasury yields, both of which are things they're trying to do. Uh, and then if you, uh, invest wisely, it can all work. Um, there's a lot of wood to chop between here and there.
So, that's the that's the plan, I think. You think Warsh will sell bonds, cut rates to offset, and then adjust bank capital requirements to soak up supply. If the SLR, supplementary leverage ratio, or capital requirements are changed to encourage Treasury ownership, what specific indicators can retail watch to know it's actually happening?
Uh, I would say weaker dollar, I would say higher stocks, I would say lower 10-year Treasury yields, I would say higher gold, and I'd say higher Bitcoin. From John, Luke, how can we reconcile expected 10-year stock market returns of near zero, according to Mike Green and others, with the inflate or default reality of 125% debt to GDP?
Uh, in my opinion, uh, I think Mike's math is right. And and Mike is when when Mike does math, my advice is take his word on it. That dude is smart and and and and thorough. Um, in my opinion, the difference will be the real. Uh, in other words, in gold terms, stocks are down 35 to 40% since 4Q21. 4Q21 peak in the S&P 500, measured in gold terms, down 35 to 40%.
In dollar terms, since the 4Q21 peak in stocks, stocks are up 59% S&P 500. That's going to be the deal, I think. I think stocks are going to go up in dollar terms, continue to, and they're going to go down in gold terms over time. Jim Bianco, who says it's been a, uh, Strait of Hormuz war for a war a while now, and also noting the news today that France and other European powers are eager to send ships and minesweepers to, quote unquote, open the Strait.
Could the conflict finally be over? Will the oil finally flow freely? With the caveat to that, when it comes to the Middle East, no conflict is ever really over. Thank you. Uh it looks like maybe looks like maybe this conflict is over or this round is over. Um I would say that the gold to oil ratio heading back towards highs uh is looking like a a a war what was in some circles advertised as a war to stop non-dollar oil sales.
Uh it looks like uh that failed. Uh that if that's the case that that that the war to stop non-dollar oil sales of Iran failed cuz otherwise the gold oil ratio would be going down not up. Uh from Douglas, uh I'm intrigued to learn whether Israel's interests were sacrificed in Trump's rush to sign a deal.
If so, do you think it plausible that Netanyahu sabotages any agreement through further military action? Are you trading on anything that's happening now or sitting tight? Uh in my opinion, uh yes, I do think those interests may have been sacrificed on some level. In my opinion, I do think it's plausible uh that uh that that uh Netanyahu may uh try to disrupt the peace agreement because it may be in his interests to do so.
Um and I am sitting tight and I'm not putting too much weight on really anything uh I'm seeing yet out of this just given uh the Charlie Brown and Lucy uh with the football nature of everything we've been watching around this war for over 3 months now. From David, the Duran is floating the idea that the US wants Hormuz to remain closed.
It wants to cause a worldwide recession. The idea is that it will derail the multipolar world of the BRICS uh of the CAGR inflation rate we've seen since '08. Uh from Sirius, your Fed saves the bond market not the dollar call assumes one Treasury plus one central bank. The Eurozone has one central bank plus 20 sovereigns.
Is the Euro is the ECB's TPI already that same choice? And who breaks first, the US or France? Or is the real axis gold versus all fiat not euro versus dollar? Great question and yes, I think the real axis is gold against all currencies. And I think that's why it's so important and so under why I think it's so underappreciated how the Eurozone set up its gold treatment on day one of the roll out of the euro in 1999, which is they mark Eurozone gold reserves to market quarterly.
So gold reserves rise and gold rises in price, the reserves of the Eurozone rise in price. Now, eventually that sup starts to support the euro versus the dollar, but it also again, in extremis, gives the European the EU, the Eurozone, a nuclear option, so to speak, of how to support the euro. If the euro is really at risk of failing and they don't want it to fail, they can print euros, go into the gold market, buy physical gold, bid up gold, and the price of gold will rise more than the dilution of printing the euros to buy the gold.
I've seen that called QE heavy by some in the FOFOA community. I I think that is a good way of describing it. But that would make the euro unsinkable. If they didn't want it to sink, they could do that. Political considerations aside, which I think are very important in terms of the level of control that the US still may or may not exert over key officials in the EU.
Another important theme is the changing relationship between financial assets and real assets. While stock markets may continue rising in nominal dollar terms, that does not necessarily mean investors are becoming wealthier in real purchasing power terms. Measuring assets against gold rather than dollars can paint a very different picture, revealing gradual declines that may otherwise go unnoticed.
The discussion also highlights growing concerns about the sustainability of debt-driven economic growth, large government deficits, expanding obligations, and the need to maintain financial stability limit the range of policy options available. If authorities remain unwilling to remove liquidity aggressively, inflation may continue to act as the preferred mechanism for reducing the real burden of debt over time.
Looking ahead, the outlook presented suggests that monetary debasement remains a significant risk. Under that scenario, hard assets could continue outperforming traditional financial assets on a relative basis. Gold, in particular, is viewed as a potential beneficiary if confidence in fiscal and monetary discipline weakens further.
While short-term volatility is inevitable, the broader expectation is that real assets will remain increasingly important as investors seek protection from inflation, currency depreciation, and long-term economic uncertainty. Share your thoughts about this interview in the comments section below. If you found this video helpful, please hit the like button, subscribe to the channel, and ring the bell icon. Thanks for watching.
Comments 0