저자: PeterSchiff · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 피터 쉬프는 미국 부채·인플레이션 위기가 임박했다고 보며, 금·은은 단기 바닥권이므로 현물 매수 적기라고 주장한다. [거시 전망] 세계적으로 신용 수요가 공급을 초과하고 있어 금리가 상승할 것이며, 정부는 인플레이션을 더 만들어 부채를 해결하려 하지만 현재 인플레이션 자체가 문제이므로 통하지 않는다고 본다. 결과적으로 통제 불능 인플레이션, 초인플레이션, 통화위기, 국가부채위기로 이어질 것이라고 경고한다. [Fed 전망] 이번 주 FOMC에서 금리 인상 확률은 약 10%에 불과하며 동결될 가능성이 크다고 본다. 다만 시장은 12월 인상 확률을 약 80%로 반영하고 있어 12월 인상 가능성을 언급한다. 쉬프는 선거 전 정치적 이유로 Fed가 동결한다고 주장하며, Fed가 금리 인상이 필요하다면 회의를 기다릴 이유가 없고 금리를 언제든 바꿀 수 있다고 말한다. 또한 Fed 대차대조표 확대로 완화적 정책이 계속된다고 비판한다. 쉬프는 이번 주 뉴올리언스 투자 컨퍼런스 참석으로 Fed 발표 직후 팟캐스트를 하지 않고 일요일 이후에 다시 다룬다고 밝힌다. [브라질 대선] 볼소나루 당선이 유력하게 점쳐졌으나 룰라가 약 51.5 대 48.5로 승리했다. 이에 브라질 증시는 현지 통화 기준 약 15%, 달러 기준 약 23% 급락했다고 언급하며 1987년 블랙먼데이 수준이라 평가한다. 쉬프는 볼소나루를 중도우파로 보며 극우라는 언론 평가에 동의하지 않는다. 캐나다 사례처럼 트럼프와의 연계가 역효과를 냈을 수 있다고 본다. 쉬프는 정부 개입 확대는 장기적으로 노동자 생활수준을 낮춘다고 주장한다. [미국 농업 보조금] 트럼프 행정부가 디젤 가격 상승을 이유로 80억 달러 지원을 발표했으며, 2026년 농업 보조금 총액이 554억 달러로 2020년 기록(450억 달러)을 넘을 것이라 언급한다. 쉬프는 보조금이 농가 이익으로 흡수되고 식품 가격을 높여 SNAP 지출을 늘린다고 비판하며, 농업 보조와 담배 보조, 관세·쿼터를 모두 폐지해야 한다고 주장한다. 농업 보조는 지대추구(rent seeking)라고 규정한다. [AI·신용] 중고 컴퓨터 부품 가격이 신품보다 높게 거래되는 현상을 언급하며, 이것이 지속될지 의문을 제기한다. Anthropic이 약 1000억 달러 규모 IPO를 신청했으며 기업가치는 1.5~2조 달러로 거론된다고 전한다. 여러 기업·정부가 한정된 자본을 두고 경쟁하므로 금리가 오르고 부채 부담이 커진다고 본다. 미국 GDP 성장의 상당 부분이 AI 자본지출에 의존하므로 AI 거품이 꺼지면 경기침체가 온다고 주장한다. [금·은·금광주] 금은 한때 약 4200달러까지 올랐다가 4000달러 아래로 밀렸으며 방송 시점 약 4014달러다. 은은 약 54달러 수준으로 고점 대비 50% 이상 하락했고, 금 역시 20% 이상 하락해 약세장에 들어섰다고 진단한다. 금광주는 약 10%만 200일 이동평균선 위에 있다고 언급한다. 쉬프는 4000달러가 바닥일 가능성이 높으며 펀더멘털은 오히려 개선되었다고 주장한다. AI 거품 붕괴와 주택시장 붕괴는 금에 유리하고, 정부가 완화정책으로 대응할 것이라고 본다. 은이 50달러 아래로 가는 것은 놀랍다고 말한다. [출연·광고·기타] 쉬프는 Shift Gold 앱을 통한 실물 금·은 매수를 권유한다. 또한 Incogni 개인정보 삭제 서비스를 홍보하고, 구독·좋아요·공유와 X 팔로워 목표(180만 명, 약 2.5~3만 명 부족)를 요청한다.
다듬은 글
We are on the verge of a debt crisis. There are simply too many requests for credit in the world, and the supply cannot keep up with them. And all this will lead to an increase in rates. They need to create more inflation, but we are at the point where that won't work. We can't create more inflation, because inflation is now the problem.
As a result, we will get uncontrollable inflation, hyperinflation, currency crisis, and sovereign debt crisis. This is where we are heading . "The Peter Schiff Show." I'm recording today's podcast on Monday night, about an hour before the Monday Night Football game starts. I'm doing this today because tomorrow afternoon I'm flying to New Orleans for an investment conference and will be there all week.
This means I will be absent from the Fed announcement on Wednesday and the press conference following it. I plan to record a podcast about the Fed decision and press conference, but I'll probably wait until I get back from New Orleans, so the next episode will be later in the week, probably Sunday. So if I don't respond immediately, although I'm sure I will on X.
Be sure to follow me on X, because I'll be posting there even if I'm not recording the podcast in New Orleans, and I'll discuss everything in detail when I get back. For now, I'll comment a little on the situation. The meeting starts tomorrow. It is a two-day meeting and the decision will be announced on Wednesday.
The probability that the Fed will raise rates is only about 10%. And this means that the Fed will not raise them. Because the Fed depends heavily on market expectations, and they don't want to disappoint the markets for fear of their reaction to disappointment. So if the markets are 90% sure that the Fed will do nothing, they won't.
But markets are 80% confident that the Fed will raise rates in December. So, that's likely what will happen, at least if these expectations persist until the December meeting. This episode is sponsored by Incogni. Try to do something. Enter your name and the city you live in into Google. There is a good chance that you will find your home address, phone number and even the names of relatives.
This is the job of data brokers. Thousands of companies quietly collect your personal information, build your profile, and sell it to advertisers, lenders, and anyone willing to pay, including criminals. And now criminals are using artificial intelligence to turn this data into convincing scams, identity theft, and deception.
You can try to remove your data from these sites yourself, but it will take hundreds of hours, and many brokers will simply add your information back. Incogni takes care of the removal process. The service automatically sends deletion requests to over 420 data brokers and repeats them continuously. This way, they are forced not to publish your data again.
With an unlimited plan, Incogni's vulnerability scanner will show you where else your information is available online. Find a site that isn't on their list, send them the link, and their privacy experts will do the rest. Incogni's claims are independently verified by Deloitte, and each plan comes with a 30- day money-back guarantee.
They can't hurt you if they can't find you. Go to incogni.com/petershiff and use the code petershiff at checkout to get 60% off the annual plan. This is incogni.com/petershiff, the code is Petershiff. I think the only reason the Fed isn't raising rates this week is because there's an election next week.
Interest rates are obviously very politicized because they are another issue for most voters, because most Americans are in debt. And that's why they pay these higher interest rates. And that's part of the affordability crisis. Debt has now become less affordable. And Americans have a lot of debt. So this is a serious matter.
So I believe the Fed is not raising rates because they don't want to be accused of raising them before the election. Perhaps to influence these elections. To make voters even angrier at Trump and the current government . So I believe that for the sake of the appearance of apoliticality, the Fed is deciding to do nothing, which in itself is a political move, because if the Fed believes a rate hike is necessary and appropriate, then why delay it until December?
Just because there are elections. Do what you have to do. If the Fed is supposed to be apolitical, above politics, then why does this election even matter? If you need to raise the stakes, then raise them, and let the political consequences be what they will be . In reality, the Fed is very politicized.
And in fact, the main reason why interest rates aren't much higher is politics. And, really, why wait until December if you're just trying to wait for the election to be over? Just raise the stakes the day after the election. I mean, changing interest rates doesn't require a formal meeting. The Fed can change rates whenever it wants.
They are simply used to waiting for these scheduled meetings, but no law says they are required to do so . They could simply raise or lower rates whenever they felt like it. And they should raise rates because they are too low, and inflation will continue to rise not only because rates are low but also because of excessive money supply growth.
The Fed's balance sheet continues to grow, so we have a loose Fed policy, and while they claim to be fighting inflation, their actions are actually fueling it, but I'll go into more detail about the Fed's policies and their mistakes in my next podcast. So, I have other topics I'd like to discuss today, starting with the results of the Brazilian election last weekend.
Remember , the last time I talked about Brazilian politics , I mentioned Bolsonaro and the fact that he was predicted to win. He won the preliminary round, and then a second round was needed, where the main candidates competed, but he won in the preliminary round , and the markets took it positively.
We saw a big surge in support for Bolsonaro due to him being the frontrunner, and in fact, before the election weekend, bookmakers were betting on him at 80%. So it wasn't guaranteed. There was a 20 percent chance that he could lose, and things that happen, you know, only 20 percent of the time, happen exactly 20 percent of the time .
That's one in five times. So you can't say that it doesn't happen. But I think the markets have almost priced in that his victory is inevitable. And when he lost, the reaction was harsh. Markets in Brazil suffered a devastating blow today. In real terms, the Brazilian stock market fell by about 15%.
But the real fell by 8% against the dollar. So, in dollar terms, if you're an American investor and you own Brazilian stocks—I do— those stocks are down about 23%. In US dollars. In one day, in one Monday. This is roughly the same drop that the US stock market experienced on Black Monday in 1987. The Dow Jones index then fell by about 22.5%.
So it's a little less than Black Monday in Brazil today, or at least that's what it looked like from an American perspective if you had a portfolio of Brazilian stocks and they fell that much in one day. So, the election was actually quite close. I think it's about 51.5% versus 48.5%. I'm not sure how many votes that is.
I mean, Brazil is a big country. But in percentage terms, there is also a lot of controversy here, because it seems they extended the voting time. They kept the polling stations open for two hours longer, and Bolsonaro protests that there may have been some fraud. They kept them open to throw in ballots, I do n't know, but there are many accusations that the elections were somehow rigged, that they weren't fair.
You know, Lula is now president for the fourth term. The man is 80 years old. So he, you know, just like we have an 80- year-old president, we had Biden, they have the same thing there with Lula, who is 80 years old. And, you know, the way the media describes Bolsonaro— I read that all the time. They keep saying he's far-right.
He is far-right. And I can't understand what makes him far-right. I mean, I think he's center-right. He is more right-wing than Lula, who is a socialist. But being more right-wing than a socialist doesn't make you far-right or ultra-right. It seems like the media wants to call anyone who is center-right far-right, as if it's something truly radical.
Maybe it's about immigration policy, but he's definitely not far-right in the sense that he doesn't want the absence of government, like a libertarian. And he's not like Javier Millay in Argentina. Not even close to that radical. He's just not as left-wing as Lula. And, of course, it will be a problem for Brazil to continue this policy.
It would be positive to move in a different direction with less regulation, lower taxes, and less government spending. I'm not talking about some free market paradise. There were no expectations for this. But at least have an administration that is less hostile to business and capitalism than the current government.
But one of the reasons Lula could have won could also have been one of the same reasons Mark Carney won in Canada. Because he had to lose first. Is n't that right? The conservative candidate should have won that election. But his connection to Trump is what probably cost him the win, because Canadians were very angry with Donald Trump for everything he said about Canada joining as the 51st state, insults to Canada, and tariffs that were causing a lot of problems in Canada.
So, Pierre Poilievre's association with Trump probably cost him the election. And the same thing could have happened in Brazil, because Bolsonaro was considered, you know, an ally of Trump. Trump obviously wanted this guy to win. Just like he wanted Pierre Poilievre to win in Canada. And this probably backfired and tilted the election results in Lula's favor.
The same thing could obviously happen in the United States, right? Because Donald Trump's unpopularity will put a lot of pressure on local races for the United States Congress and Senate. But look, this shows again the dangers of democracy , because Lula wins by playing on the ignorance of the typical voter, making him think that he will get something for free from the government.
Everything is for the workers, and we need a government that cares about the workers, and we need policies that will benefit the workers, the people. But what people don't understand, what workers don't understand, is that the economy that provides for them best, gives them the highest standard of living, the highest quality of life, the highest real wages, is capitalism.
The more capitalist an economy is, the more workers benefit from that capitalism. When the government steps in and tries to give workers something extra that they think they're entitled to, something that they think the free market isn't providing, and then one of these demagogues in politics comes along and says, "We'll give you this, the government will give you everything that you deserve, but that you're not getting in this free market because you're being exploited, you're being taken advantage of," that's all complete nonsense.
The government comes in and undermines economic opportunities that would otherwise be created in a more capitalist economy, so workers who believe they are voting in their own best interests are actually acting to their own detriment by voting for politicians who will ultimately lower their standard of living.
Yes, they will get more things from the government, but at the cost of losing what they could have gained through capitalism. And government is great at doing this , because when the government gives you something, you see it giving you something, but you don't see what it's taking away from you, because the consequences of regulation and taxation are not so obvious.
What you get is quite visual, and once you get it, you don't want to lose it. Look at what's happening in the United States, here's a perfect example—these farm subsidies, agricultural subsidies, and one of the reasons I want to talk about this is that Donald Trump just last week announced a new $8 billion aid package for farmers, supposedly to help with the high prices of diesel, because farmers use a lot of diesel and pay more for it , and now Trump says, "We're going to give farmers $8 billion to offset the high cost of diesel." Of course, why is Trump making this promise?
Well, because he wants farmers to vote for him. He's looking at Iowa, is n't he? Where perhaps Republican candidates will lose in Iowa because of the problems facing farmers. So, obviously, Trump wants to buy these votes. So, he promises $8 billion, which will be divided among farmers. Now, if you add that $8 billion to what farmers have already received this year, 2026 has every chance of breaking the record for the amount of government aid to farmers in a single year.
Farmers are on track to receive $55.4 billion. This surpasses the record set in 2020 , during COVID, when $45 billion was paid to farmers. So, $55.4 billion has been given to farmers simply because they are farmers. Why should the US government treat one profession differently than others? Why do people who choose to become farmers—people make a choice, no one is forced to be a farmer if they don't want to—but if you choose to be a farmer, why should you get a bunch of government benefits just because you're a farmer?
First, regarding diesel prices, all farmers are forced to deal with higher diesel prices. There are no farms that do not use diesel. So, all farmers pay a higher price for diesel, and therefore all farmers charge more money for their produce. Therefore, food becomes more expensive. Farmers don't eat this diesel.
They raise the prices of their agricultural products. Their crops are more expensive because they pay more for diesel. So they don't necessarily suffer. It is the people who consume this food who ultimately pay the high cost of diesel when they buy groceries. But they don't receive subsidies. Subsidies will be paid ex post facto to farmers who have already raised food prices to offset the cost of diesel.
This is essentially a windfall profit, because farmers are not going to share it with their buyers. No, they will keep the money for themselves . And besides, you know, not all farmers are poor. These are not just any family farms . There are large agribusiness corporations. They still receive these subsidies.
In fact, I am confident that the average farmer who receives subsidies has higher net worth and earns more than the average citizen whose taxes fund these subsidies . But why are they even eligible for subsidies? Well, the main reason is that they are organized and have political influence. They force politicians to redirect funds to benefit this interest group.
Farmers. And, you know, one of their arguments is, "Well, farming is very risky." You know, the poor farmer is completely dependent on the weather. There may be a drought and you will get a bad harvest. So, since farming is risky, the government should pay farmers. Well, again , if you can't handle the stress, quit farming.
Yes, farming is risky, so don't become a farmer. If you want a job without any risks, then look for something else. Farmers must be people willing to take risks. They are hardened, aren't they ? They know how to overcome difficulties. Yes, of course, just plan everything in advance. Of course, you can also take out insurance .
It's not like it's impossible to insure against drought or anything like that. I'm sure there are many ways farmers can smooth out these cycles with insurance. But look, there are many professions that are affected by the weather. For example, you may have a ski resort, but in a certain season there is no snow.
You're not asking for a government subsidy because there wasn't any snow for your ski hotel. All types of tourism businesses depend on the weather. Things go better when the weather is good than when it is bad. If you can't handle the vagaries of the weather, then farming is not for you. Do something else.
Don't say, "I want to be a farmer, but because it's risky, I want the government to take money from other people and give it to me, compensating me for the risks I voluntarily took." Another thing they say is, “If we don’t subsidize these farmers, right? There will be a shortage of farmers because people will not go into farming due to the high risk.
Therefore, there will be less competition and prices will actually become higher. So by subsidizing farmers, you actually keep more people in the agricultural business, which keeps prices low,” which is actually complete nonsense. This is not true at all, because farmers will be there anyway. This does not mean that there will be no more farmers if the government stops subsidizing them.
Of course, there will be farmers. In fact, the goal of agricultural subsidies in general is to keep prices higher. And this is part of their argument. They say, "We have to keep prices higher so that farmers can make a good living, because if they don't make a living, they will leave farming and prices will go up even more." Which, again , is selfish nonsense.
In fact, most of these subsidies are not even just payments. The government is effectively paying farmers not to cultivate their land. Part of the goal is to reduce the supply of agricultural products. So there is less wheat, less soybeans or corn. We reduce supply to make prices higher . This is the goal.
So why is the government pursuing policies that increase the cost of food ? Because, on the other hand, we have SNAP social benefits. We pay people money, the poor receive funds so they can afford food. Well, if we didn't have all these subsidies, food would be cheaper. So the poor wouldn't need as much money to buy food.
The government, on the one hand, has a program to support food prices so that farmers can earn more by selling more expensive food than they would on the free market. But at the same time, we give people money so they can pay these high prices. Although if the government just eliminated farm subsidies and prices were lower, we wouldn't have to spend so much on SNAP benefits.
The situation becomes even worse if you look at tobacco subsidies, because we also subsidize tobacco, right? And since farmers argue that these subsidies are necessary, because without them—even though the purpose of the subsidies is to raise prices—prices would fall so much that farmers would go bankrupt, and those who remained would simply raise prices, right?
Because they would have a monopoly or something, which again is complete nonsense. But this is a political argument they make to justify this policy, which obviously increases the cost of food. Well, if that's the case, why are we subsidizing tobacco farmers? Because, on the one hand , the government spends a lot of money to convince people not to smoke.
Yes? Because smoking causes cancer, so you shouldn't smoke. And you know, the government is going after tobacco companies. Sometimes, you know, for their marketing and for encouraging people to smoke. But on the other hand, we subsidize tobacco farmers. And if tobacco subsidies actually lead to lower tobacco prices, then we encourage people to use it.
Because the cheaper it is, the more you will smoke, right? In fact, we have taxes on tobacco. We have taxes on cigarettes. And the rationale for these taxes is that we're raising the price of cigarettes, and so people will smoke less, and that's a good thing, right? This is what we want. We want less smoking, so we tax cigarettes.
This will increase the price. But tobacco farmers actually claim the opposite when it comes to tobacco. They even admit that tobacco subsidies lead to higher tobacco prices. And they say, "See, that's good. Because by subsidizing tobacco farmers, you raise the price of tobacco, and therefore fewer people will smoke." So they say, " See, this is good." But they say one thing and mean another, because tobacco farmers say that tobacco subsidies raise prices, while corn, wheat, or soybean producers say , "No, these subsidies lower prices." They simply make up any arguments to justify state aid.
Because that's really all it is . This is the amount of state social benefits. This is rent seeking. If Donald Trump were truly a conservative, if he truly wanted to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, he wouldn't be increasing the federal money going to farmers. He would completely abolish agricultural programs.
We should not have a Ministry of Agriculture. We shouldn't pay farmers. We should not subsidize their businesses. We shouldn't pay them to take land out of production. We must have a free market in agriculture. And we don't need protectionism. We don't need to protect our farmers from foreign competition.
Another thing they say is, "Oh, we should have agricultural quotas." We have to keep foreign agricultural products out because, you know, if we're going to be at war, we need to be self-sufficient. We cannot rely on foreign farmers. Which is complete nonsense. I mean, look, we're not going to war with any of these South American countries where we import a lot of goods.
We are not going to war with Canada, despite what the president says. We don't need to subsidize our farmers because we might need them in wartime. Again , this is all part of the delusion they spread to justify these profits that are paid to farmers because they are politically organized. Because they vote as a group.
And they donate money to politicians who will support these handouts. But, you know, there's nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that says that if you're a farmer, you're entitled to any government assistance or that you even have the right to be a farmer. They say, "Oh, farmers, some people won't be able to stay in business ." "Okay, then shut up." Now there are some things we do that hurt farmers, like inheritance tax.
This is bad. We have to get rid of this too. You know, if you have a big enough farm, but most modern farms probably have such little value that they are exempt from inheritance tax, even though there should n't be any inheritance tax at all . So, if you are a farmer and suddenly die, your children should be able to inherit your farm, but they should run it without any help from the state.
Especially since the average buyer of farm products probably earns less than the farmer himself. However, he is taxed to subsidize another person's career choice. And, of course, I believe that if we had a pure free market in agriculture, it would be definitely more efficient. If farms were not efficient, they would close.
And the most efficient farms would be the ones that would continue to operate. And those things that we can import more efficiently than growing ourselves, we will import. I mean, we have a lot of land in the United States , so there are a lot of crops that we can produce at very low cost, and we don't have to import them.
But there are many other things that are produced much more efficiently outside the United States, and in those cases, we should buy those products abroad. Why grow something yourself that someone else can grow cheaper? Because the money you save if we're going to buy imported sugar, right? You have a lot of sugar subsidies to keep foreign sugar out of the US market.
Well, if we can buy foreign sugar cheaper than domestic sugar, why are we wasting our resources growing sugar? Why don't we just buy cheap sugar overseas and then take the money we would have used for sugar and invest it elsewhere? If you can save money by importing something, then you import it. And you direct your resources where they can be put to better use.
If the government forces us to use resources to grow sugar and spend more money to obtain that sugar than it would cost us to import, it undermines our standard of living. Because, again, it's a matter of what you see and what you don't. Yes, you see we protected these sugar farmers, right? Now they're still in business because we, you know, protected them from competition.
But what you don't see is what we're losing. What would the Americans do? What other jobs could be created with all the money we didn't spend growing our own sugar when we could just import it? And you know, this is just one specific culture, but it applies to everything. And this also applies to industrial goods.
But when you force Americans to buy a certain product from an American when a foreign product could do just as well or better and cost less, you are hurting the economy. You are not helping her. But the benefits that winners receive from a government program are easy to see, and the people who receive them know about it, are very grateful, and will vote for politicians who give them it .
However, the losses are more dispersed across the entire population. No one knows for sure how much they lose because of one specific subsidy provided to someone else. So you don't have a large organized lobbying group that would oppose these programs. And that's why these programs continue to exist.
I talked about them, like the Jones Act. Look at all the people who are suffering from the Jones Act. However, the Jones Act has been in effect for about 100 years. I forget exactly how many, but why does it exist? It exists because there is a small group of shipowners who make a fortune on the Jones Act.
And they share this achievement with a bunch of congressmen and senators to ensure it is never repealed. Although the best thing they could do for the country regarding the Jones Act is to get rid of it. But he lives on through politics. And I started this whole discussion just by discussing what's happening in Brazil.
Because again , it's a shame that Brazil is voting for socialism when the best path to prosperity is capitalism. And I think that, unfortunately, Americans will make the same choice in the upcoming midterm elections and vote for Democrats. You know, I get a lot of criticism from people who don't like that I'm constantly criticizing Republicans and criticizing Trump, as if that makes me a Democrat just because I criticize Republicans.
I mean, one of the reasons I criticize Republicans more is because I'm closer to Republicans than Democrats, and I'm very disappointed. I expect bad things from the Democrats. But I expect better from Republicans. And when I don't get that, yes, I will be very critical. And what I don't like is when Republicans make excuses when other Republicans make bad economic policies.
I don't like it. I mean, I don't want only Democrats to criticize Republicans, because that criticism is inappropriate right now. Democrats criticize Republicans for the wrong reasons. I criticize Republicans for the right reasons. And there 's a big difference here, because you have to understand why Republicans are wrong.
In fact, they are wrong because they are too similar to Democrats. You see, Democrats say, "Oh, those radical right-wing Republicans." No, they are not radical right-wing. They are left-wing, just like the Democrats. They're just not as left-wing as the Democrats. The fact that Donald Trump is pushing these huge agricultural subsidies is socialism for farmers.
This is not free-market capitalism. The fact that Donald Trump is leading the largest single- year handout to farmers in US history. And the other biggest giveaway was in 2020, when he was also president, during COVID. Well, at least there was an excuse then, right? During COVID, everyone received money.
It wasn't just farmers. But why are they singling out farmers now? Again, as I said, of course they have to pay high prices for diesel fuel, but everyone pays. All farmers, right? No one is at a competitive disadvantage because diesel prices are higher. But they obviously feel it, and they are also being hit by fertilizer prices.
But then again, look at your grocery store bill. Farmers don't cover fertilizer costs out of their own pockets, right? They pass it on to others. Yes? The consumer pays for everything, and the consumer will also pay for this subsidy. Where do you think the money is coming from to give farmers that extra $8 billion ?
Where does the government get this money from? Yes? They come from the public. The public pays for it, whether your taxes go up or not, the public pays for it. Oh, and there's one last point I wanted to make about the idea that the government should give people money to help pay for higher energy costs.
Because this happens all the time. You even hear Republicans say, "We should lower the federal tax on gasoline because gasoline prices are high , so we should lower the tax on gasoline, and that will help ." In fact, it is wrong to do this when prices are rising due to a shortage of supply. You want consumers to reduce their consumption.
And that's exactly what higher prices do in a free market. People will respond to higher prices by consuming less. And that will take the pressure off prices because you will reduce demand. But if the government compensates for this by simply giving consumers more money to pay for high prices, they will continue to buy, not reduce consumption, which will put even more pressure on those prices, and as a result they will become even higher.
So by giving consumers money in the form of tax cuts or direct subsidies so they can continue to buy energy, fuel, or whatever , you end up with even higher prices than if you did nothing. And if the government simply allowed high prices to reduce demand, which would keep prices down, it instead fuels demand, like pouring gasoline on a fire.
So, the government always does the wrong thing . There's a lot of political pressure, because of course, "Oh, fuel prices are high , the government has to give us some money so we can pay for these higher fuel prices." The result of this is that fuel prices continue to rise, and not just for fuel, but because the government has to create inflation to provide these subsidies, prices for everything rise.
So it's not just your gas that's getting more expensive , everything is getting more expensive because they've created additional inflation to provide you with cash to pay for higher fuel prices. That's why I'm so upset when I listen to Sunday talk shows again, where all these Republicans are saying that Democrats opposed tax cuts, that we're the party of tax cuts, we have no tip taxes, no overtime taxes, no Social Security taxes, and the Democrats want to tax all of that.
Actually, that's not true, but the fact that Republicans supported these superficial tax cuts doesn't mean they're cutting taxes, because they're not. They raise taxes, just in a different way. Because if Republicans really cared about taxpayers, they would cut government spending, because that's the only way to ease the burden on the taxpayer.
The taxpayer is forced to bear the burden of paying for the state apparatus. So the bigger the government, the bigger this burden. So, when you vote to increase government spending, you are voting to increase the burden that the taxpayer must bear to maintain that government. It doesn't matter whether you also vote for a tip or overtime tax cut, because if government spending isn't cut proportionally to those tax cuts, then there's no tax cut.
The people will have to pay for this government one way or another. One way is through higher prices, and people pay through higher prices. So, yes, the government takes less tax on my income, and to the extent that I declared my tips, right? The government now doesn't take as much of my income , or I can keep more overtime pay.
So, you get a higher nominal salary. But now when I go to the store, everything costs more. So I don't necessarily have more purchasing power. I may have more money, but can I buy more things? Maybe not. Prices of goods are rising due to the deficit caused by tax breaks that need to be financed. But another way people pay for tax breaks is through rising interest rates, bond yields, and mortgage rates.
One of the reasons a 30-year fixed- rate mortgage is now at 7.5%, and was much lower a few years ago, is the deficit created by that great, beautiful law. So when Republicans want to come out and take credit for lowering your taxes, they should accept responsibility for rising mortgage rates, because that's a direct result.
Tax breaks have increased the deficit, and it is a larger deficit that scares the bond market. This is what will lead to higher inflation. That's why lenders want to be compensated more for this risk. So, yes, we pay higher prices and higher interest rates because of that great, beautiful law because it was unfair.
This is not a true tax cut because Republicans don't really want to reduce the burden of government. They don't really want to cut government spending. They want more government spending. In fact, I'm looking at some of these ads right now, and Republicans are essentially saying, "Don't vote for these Democrats because they're going to cut Medicare.
They're going to take Medicare away from you." And part of that is because they want to open Medicare to more people. They want to maybe let in more immigrants and give them Medicare, but they're running as if they 're defenders of Medicare. Vote Republican because we are going to preserve and protect your Medicare , which is a socialist program that Republicans once opposed, they were against Medicare on principle, on constitutional grounds.
And of course, you know, when Medicare was first proposed, I mean, look at the estimates of how much the government said it would cost. I mean, it was tiny compared to how much it actually cost. I mean, it was n't even close. I mean, they didn't even guess 10 percent. That is, it is more than 10 times more than they predicted, significantly more than 10 times.
But initially there was a lot of opposition from Republicans. In fact, one of the ways that Democrats have always campaigned against Republicans is by saying, "Hey, don't vote for Republicans. You know, they're going to take away your Medicare program, because, you know, they never really liked it. So don't vote for them, because they're going to cut Medicare." Now the Republicans are basically saying, "Don't vote for Democrats.
They're going to take away your Medicare. We're the ones who are here to protect your Medicare, right? We're the party you should trust to keep this great socialist program that we should get rid of. We shouldn't have Medicare at all. We shouldn't have Social Security. All of these programs shouldn't exist, and they were all opposed by Republicans.
They were the New Deal programs, FDR, LBJ. But the reason Republicans are supporting them now is because voters want them. Because you can't take something away from the people. It's one thing to oppose something. A lot of Republicans were against Obamacare before it was passed, but why do you think Republicans never repealed it?
Because once the voters got it, they didn't want it taken away. One of the main points of Obamacare was that insurance companies couldn't discriminate based on previous diseases. Well, I'm not going to dedicate this podcast to that. I've talked about it before. It's a terrible thing, because that's exactly what insurance companies are supposed to do.
They should discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. They shouldn't sell a policy to a sick person at the same price as a healthy person. It's not insurance. But once they created it , nobody wanted to take it down. It's like letting someone sell you car insurance after you've been in an accident.
Like, I have a car, I just got in a car accident. I'd like to buy car insurance to cover my accident. Right? You can't do that. I mean, you can't buy insurance after you've had an accident. You have to buy it before you have an accident. Because the odds of you not having an accident are higher. That's why you can have car insurance .
Because most people don't get into accidents. And then when someone does get into an accident, they can use the premiums collected from all the people who weren't in accidents to pay out. But you can't let people get sick and then buy health insurance, because there's no money in that. You have to sell insurance to healthy people.
Because that's how you get money to pay for a sick person. If you just said you could wait until you got sick, there wouldn't be any healthy people to pay for insurance. There would only be sick people, and there wouldn't be any premiums. There wouldn't be any money to cover sick people, because you need healthy people.
But, you know, the problem is that the government raises the cost of insurance so high for healthy people that they don't want to buy it. And so there's not enough money to cover people who get sick. But there's so much moral hazard created by this scheme. But it's already ingrained. Because the public now expects that you can wait until you get sick to buy insurance.
And then the insurance companies can't to deny them. Of course, part of the problem is that you could lose your job, and with it your insurance, and then maybe get sick. But the only reason insurance is tied to employment is because of the government. If it weren't for the government, nobody would get insurance from their employer.
You would just buy your own insurance, and it would be cheap. It used to be cheap. The government raised the cost, but the reason it's tied to employment is because employer-sponsored insurance is not taxable. But if your employer pays you and you buy your own insurance, you have to pay income taxes.
So obviously the government created an incentive to get tax-free insurance instead of a taxable salary that I could have used to buy my own insurance. That's what tied insurance to employment. In fact, it all started partly under Nixon, when there were wage and price caps, when there were no wage increases , and The unions said, "Okay, you can't give us a higher wage, just add health insurance." Give us health insurance instead of a wage increase, and we can get around these price caps.
But all of that was created by the government. I mean , if we had a free market in health care, it would be more affordable. It would be cheaper and better. The same way if we had a free market in agriculture. Well, it's not like the government is running all these farms. That would be even worse. So it's not a full socialist system, but if we had a full capitalist system in agriculture, which we don't have, because the government is so heavily involved in our U.S.
agriculture. We're still doing pretty well right now , even with government intervention. It's not like we don't have a viable industry; Americans eat, and farmers are very productive. But they would be even more productive. Food would be even cheaper if the government got out of agriculture altogether.
But the reason they're involved is politics, and that's the reason they're involved in everything. But, you know, socialism sells well. It sounds good to a lot of people who don't understand. They don't understand economics. And it especially resonates when times are bad. And at least in comparison, they're bad.
They're not as good as they were in the past, or as good as you hoped, and politicians can blame that on capitalism. The rich aren't paying their fair share. You're being exploited. You're being taken advantage of. And these things resonate when people are struggling. How many Americans are struggling with high inflation, higher interest rates, and they're fertile ground for a socialist to come in and say, "I feel your pain, and I'm going to solve your problems." Even though they've never solved the problems in the past, they've only made them worse.
Voters don't understand. And I'm afraid that's going to happen in the election that we have next week, especially because Republicans are not only denying how bad things are, they're talking about how great things are. They keep talking about this booming economy and how great things are, when voters know it's not that great and they don't like it, right?
That's the reason Donald Trump won, because he told the truth about how bad the economy was, while the Democrats lied and pretended that everything was great. Now it's the other way around. The Democrats are saying the economy is bad, and he's lying and saying it's great. Anyway, the other thing that I wanted to talk about, that's been happening in the last week or so, since my last podcast, is that there seems to be a lot more air coming out of the AI bubble.
And a lot of that is because of the rising cost of credit, because a lot of these companies are borrowing huge amounts of money to build out AI infrastructure, data centers, and buy computing power. Even look at Meta. Meta announced today, it seems like they're going to raise about $35 billion or something like that.
They're going to sell stock, but Meta stock is down almost 20% from its peak right now. Meta is actually going to spend more on AI capital investments than it makes. So now the company is actually having negative cash flow as a result of these investments, and that's why it needs to raise money. Oh, and by the way.
It seems like late last week Meta announced that they're going to pay a one-for-one one-for- one stock dividend: for every one share of Meta you own, whether it's a Class A or a Class B, they're going to issue another Class C share. So it doesn't give you any real money. It's just, you know, like a stock split, right?
You now have twice as many shares, but the combined value of both shares is the same as the value of one share before. But the difference is that these Class C shares will be non-voting. And the reason they're doing this is so that Zuckerberg can sell the Class C shares to pay the California wealth tax.
Apparently, this wealth tax is about to be voted on, which would require billionaires to pay a one-time 5% tax on their wealth if it's over a billion dollars. And of course, Zuckerberg's wealth is well over a billion dollars, but he doesn't have the liquid assets to pay the 5% tax because it's all invested in Meta stock.
So he's going to have to start selling his shares, but he didn't want to lose control of the company. So they created these non- voting shares for Zuckerberg to sell so that he could maintain control while owning a smaller share of the company. But that's probably just the beginning. If this tax pass in California, they say it 's a one-time tax.
Yeah, it's a one-time tax until they do it again. Because if they get a lot of money out of it, they'll do it again. Right? It's never a "one-time " tax. Once they set a precedent, you know, there's an old saying about the camel's nose in the tent, right? You should never let just the nose in, because pretty soon the whole camel will be in the tent.
And that's what's happening in California right now. This wealth tax is like letting a camel in the tent. And then, on top of that, they're not only going to do it again, they're going to lower the threshold. Hey, we didn't raise enough money by taxing the billion- dollar-plus. Let's lower the threshold to a hundred million.
And then, with inflation, you know, pretty soon everyone will be subject to the California wealth tax. It could happen every time, right? This could become an annual thing. I do n't know why Zuckerberg is staying in California. Although the tax is retroactive to January 1st, so it's too late. If he didn't move earlier, he's on the hook now.
But I would move out if I were him, because again , if they put this tax in place, it's not going to bring in enough money. Higher taxes are not going to solve the problem of excessive spending. So it's just going to mean that we're going to have more tax increases. But because of the massive increase in spending, lenders are starting to refuse to finance this construction.
And you've seen stock prices fall significantly. A lot of the AI stocks, you know, pure AI players, right? Infrastructure companies, these new cloud services -- their stocks are down 50% or more in just a few weeks. So a lot of people are looking to lock in profits from trading AI. I think they're either scared or they're smart and they're just taking their winnings and running through these concerns.
In fact, even Elon Musk seems to have said today that it's going to be very difficult for these loss-making companies to continue to access the credit markets and borrow more because lenders are starting to worry about whether they're going to get their money back because the companies that are making these investments don't know for sure whether they're going to pay for themselves in the end.
Ultimately, they're buying assets that are depreciating. They're buying GPUs or, you know , computer memory, whatever it is, but there's depreciation. You know, over a period of five or six years. Now people are pointing out the fact that, wait a minute, maybe the lifespan is much longer than we normally think, because look at what's happening now.
You can lease or sell used computer components for more than they were selling new a few years ago, which is what's happening now. But the question is, is that always going to be the case? You know, because this is an anomaly. Normally, computer equipment depreciates quickly, because now there are newer things that are even better.
But now the demand is so insatiable that even the old things have a lot of value. But the question is how long will that last? We don't know. And lenders are starting to worry that the numbers might not add up, that this AI arms race is going to blow up eventually. Also today, Anthropic filed for an IPO.
They're expected to raise about $100 billion, which would make it the largest IPO in U.S. history. I think they're talking about a valuation of $ 1.5 trillion to $2 trillion . So even if they raise $100 billion, it's still a relatively small portion of the company that they're offering. But again, it's all competing for capital.
The $100 billion that goes into Anthropic is $100 billion that can't go anywhere else. Or that has to be taken out of something else. So you have all these companies competing for a limited pool of capital. And they also competing with governments that need more and more capital. And voters who are demanding more government spending.
So governments need to borrow more money because they're not raising taxes to pay for all these programs. So they need to go into the credit markets and borrow money, but they're borrowing it from the same source that all these companies are trying to tap to expand their AI infrastructure, including what's going to happen with Anthropic.
So I have a feeling that we're heading towards a debt crisis. We just have so much demand for credit around the world, and not enough credit supply. And all of that is going to drive up rates. And the problem is that higher interest rates are going to impact all the debt that's already out there. And that makes it much harder for the borrowers who are responsible for that debt to make payments, including governments.
And they're not going to raise taxes. What sources do they have? If they can't get it legitimately through the credit markets, they're going to have to get it through central banks. They're going to have to create more inflation. But we're at a point where that's not going to work. We can't create more inflation because inflation is now the problem.
For years, inflation was the solution to the problem. That's why we have so many problems. But the main problem right now is inflation. And you don't solve the problem of inflation by creating more of it. You end up with runaway inflation, hyperinflation, a currency crisis, and a sovereign debt crisis.
That's what we're heading towards. Gold, and gold stocks in particular , got caught up in the tech sell-off last week. And gold pulled down. It went up to almost 4,200. And then it briefly fell below 4,000. So we're not below that level anymore. I'm just going to check the price right now. It's 4,014.
And silver has really taken a hit. Silver is now below $54. And if you look at mining stocks, I think only 10% of them are trading above their 200-day moving average right now. I mean, it's a real bloodbath. These stocks are still well above where they were a few years ago. But these stocks have really sunk in.
But if the price of gold hadn't gone up to 5,500, but had just slowly crept up to 4,000, like it is now, I think these gold stocks would be much higher than they are now, because 4,000 is still a very good price relative to the cost of mining. And yes, energy costs have been up a little bit recently, but still, in relative terms, these companies are making a lot of money.
And I think that's the bottom for the price of gold. I don't think we're going to go much lower than 4,000, and we're going to go much higher when people figure out what's going on in the stock market; if the AI bubble bursts, that's good for gold. I mean, AI capital spending—that's the only reason GDP is positive at all.
You know, if you take that out, there's a recession. So if AI slows down significantly, it's going to lead to a recession. That's going to show up in the numbers. Will the Fed continue to raise rates? And what's happening in the housing market? As the housing market collapses, that's good for the price of gold.
That means we're going to see more easy money policies to support housing to prevent another financial crisis or bail out the banks before that crisis. So the fact that people are dumping valuable gold assets with the AI dirty water, because that's what the water is, is just an opportunity to take advantage of.
These stocks shouldn't suffer from this downturn. What happens to interest rates, to bonds, to inflation—yes, it could be very bad for bonds. Sure, it could be bad for stocks. But it's not bad. for gold. It's not bad for gold mining companies. It's not bad for silver. These are very favorable factors that are at work right now.
It's just that the market is so nervous and doesn't understand why all this news is playing to the upside. Traders are reacting to it as if it's negative. So it will be interesting to see the mood when I get to New Orleans tomorrow. Although the conference seems to start on Wednesday. I wonder if there will be a lot of nervous investors in gold, because a year ago at the conference things looked much better, given our momentum at that time.
So a lot of people probably expected the price of gold in October- November 2026 to be higher than in 2025. And indeed, at first we had a good growth. You know, we were growing until January-February, and then the war started and the correction started. And this correction, you know, turned into a pretty big "bear" market.
Of course, the price of silver fell by more than 50% from the peak. And gold is down over 20%. So this is not just a correction, it's a bear market. But a lot of people probably didn't see it coming . But I see this as a great opportunity because the fundamentals have actually improved a lot, even though prices have fallen.
And if you combine better fundamentals with lower prices, you get even better deals. So people should take advantage of these opportunities to buy more physical gold. Again, go to Shift Gold, fill your cart. You can place an order. You can use my new app. If you haven't downloaded the Shift Gold app yet, you can get it in the app store.
And you can buy some gold and silver here. I don't think there's much potential for a downside. I would be surprised if we see silver below 50. I mean, it's not impossible, but it's actually a breakout point. So right now you're, you know, somewhere around 54, 53.86—that's the last price at the moment.
record . So I think you have a great price for silver right now. And for gold—again, if 4,000 is the bottom, you buy it at the bottom of 4,014. That doesn't mean it can't go lower for a while . It does. But I don't expect it to stay lower. I'm sure they'll try to talk tough again on Wednesday. But their actions never match their rhetoric.
And we'll see how the markets react to that. And remember, I'm talking about market reaction. , as well as his own reaction to what will and won't be said, in his next podcast on Sunday night. So bye, and don't forget: if you're not already subscribed to my YouTube channel, just click the link to subscribe, and don't forget to leave a comment or like the video.
Also, if you don't follow me on social media, be sure to go to Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, or especially X. I'm trying to reach 1.8 million followers . I'm currently about 25-30k subscribers short, so you can help me reach that goal by following me. And again, when you subscribe, don't just read my posts, repost them so other people can read them too . See you later.
Comments 0