저자: PeterSchiff&MarcFaber · 외국인
요약 보기
연준 대차대조표가 계속 늘어나고 있고 M2는 전년比 5.6% 증가해 인플레이션을 유발하는 중이라고 주장. 연준은 말만 하고 실제 긴축(대차대조표 축소·금리 인상)은 못 한다는 입장. 관세로 수입물가가 오르고, 주식·부동산 자산효과가 꺼지면 소비가 위축될 것으로 봄. 금과 은은 인플레이션 헤지로 강세가 예상되며, 주식·부동산은 조정 가능성이 있다는 취지. 연준 금리 인하 자제는 옳은 결정이라는 평가도 함.
다듬은 글
The Fed's balance sheet rose by another, uh, 7.4 billion. The balance increased. It is expanding. It was the Fed monetizing government debt. So he knows that the Fed's balance sheet is too big. However, he keeps making it bigger. So he can talk, but he can't act. And again, if the markets don't realize this, it should be obvious, because if, uh, Walsh did what he has to do, the markets would be collapsing.
In fact, I think he wants to show the world that the Fed is truly independent. I would say something good about the Fed. But in this case, I think they're doing the right thing, which is not cutting rates. Because look, the stock market is at its all-time high. The gold market is near its peak, and so is the silver market.
And there are price pressures as well due to tariffs. The global financial architecture faces greater uncertainty as central bank balance sheets expand alongside rising sovereign debt. Systemic pressures on prices remain a major concern for investors seeking to protect their capital against the erosion of long-term purchasing power .
Peter Schiff, a leading chief economist and author, along with Marc Faber, a renowned global , warn that current monetary strategies are creating profound imbalances in the market. They argue that policymakers will rely on verbal assurances rather than reducing the central bank's balance sheet or aggressively raising interest rates.
Because real rate hikes would cause severe stock market crashes, monetary authorities will continue to fuel liquidity. With new tariffs raising the prices of imported consumer goods and the expansion of the money supply, inflation will remain high. Consequently, the purchasing power of fiat currency will fall, sending gold and silver significantly higher.
While overvalued residential real estate and stock markets face inevitable corrections, investors should focus on holding tangible assets rather than chasing speculative stock market gain. Donald Trump is saying, "If you want what basically amounts to insider information, market-moving information, I'll share it with you sooner if you pay me money." Basically, it's selling access to this information so you can trade with it before anyone else gets it.
How come there is no outrage over what Trump is doing? Because it is also really an admission that their publications can move the market, because that is the only added value. I mean, why would you do it? What else would you pay for? Oh, these posts are so important. I need to pay extra to receive them 10 or 20 seconds earlier.
Who cares? Except that if you receive them 10 or 20 seconds earlier, you can position yourself in the markets before everyone else. Now, of course, if many people end up buying the tweets in advance, or rather the posts, that will reduce their value, right? But almost everyone who operates with this will have to pay, because if they don't, they'll be too late.
So this is a massive scam. I mean, can you imagine? Is this what all presidents will do from now on? They will simply publish exclusively on a particular platform and then charge you money so you can see the posts that move the market . But much of the criticism Walsh received was actually criticism of Trump, wasn't it?
They were trying to get Walsh to admit that Trump was a bad guy and that he did bad things. And of course he won't, right? So they're just putting on political theater. They're just talking, you know, to get a sound bite and for their own voters. But there were a couple of interesting questions and answers.
One of them was Senator Kennedy, and this was probably the best exchange. Kennedy asked Walsh, "What caused inflation? What caused it?" He said, "I want a quick answer." And Walsh replied: "Monetary policy caused it." Yeah . Perfect. He admitted that the inflation we have was caused by monetary policy.
So, who was in charge of monetary policy? The Federal Reserve. So Walsh admitted it was the Fed. It wasn't COVID. It wasn't Putin. It wasn't the supply chains. He acknowledged that the Fed caused inflation. Now, again, as I said in the last podcast, the Fed didn't cause it on its own. The Fed had an accomplice, and that was the US Congress and the president, right?
Because it was the fiscal policy they monetized that caused inflation . So Walsh is accepting the Fed's responsibility, but Congress is not accepting his. But then Kennedy followed up, and it was a great follow-up. He said, "Okay, he said, 'Is inflation, high inflation, going to be there permanently?'" "And Walsh said, 'No, not under my supervision.'" "And then Kennedy said, 'Okay, what are you going to do about it?'" "Perfect.
What are you going to do about inflation?" And then Walsh said, " I have three things I'm going to do about inflation." And then he listed the three things. Number one, it will make sure the markets know that the Fed is serious about lowering inflation, right? And then, uh, Kenny said, " Okay, so you're going to talk about that." " Exactly".
They're going to talk. They're going to say, "You know what? We're serious about reducing inflation." "The second thing they will do is assume responsibility for inflation, which they have basically already done." It is our responsibility. We created it. And then to say that the Fed has the power to do something about it .
In other words, more talk. They're going to acknowledge it and talk about what they're going to do about it. So, of the first two things he's going to do, it's just to talk about it. Now, he comes to the third thing he's going to do. He said, "We're going to review our tools, interest rates, and balance sheet, and decide if we need to make adjustments." So, they're going to talk and they're going to review.
How does that count as what they're going to do about it? I mean , doesn't he know what he's going to do about high inflation? If he understands that the Fed caused it through the money supply and artificially low rates, why doesn't he say, "Let's reduce the balance sheet"? "We are going to raise interest rates." Because that's the only thing he can do.
Instead, he doesn't want to do any of that. He's just going to talk. He's going to check, right? That's why I said it's all nonsense. Meanwhile, look at the M2 money supply, uh, it's up 5.6% year-on-year. That's not a Fed that's fighting inflation. That's a Fed that's creating inflation. Now , we still don't have the figures for the money supply under Worsh.
I think we'll have them in about a week . We'll have the first monthly one, because they publish these numbers every month, and we'll be able to see what happened under their supervision. But we have been able to see the balance sheet, right? The balance sheet, well, it's there and it's been growing.
In fact, in the most recent week, the Fed's balance sheet rose by another, uh, 7.4 billion. The balance went from 6.736 trillion to 6.743 trillion. Then, the balance increased. It is expanding. Why does he do that? In fact, he admitted that he was uncomfortable with the current size of the balance sheet.
And he said it's so big that it seems more like a fiscal policy, which is what it is. It was the Federal Reserve monetizing public debt. So he knows the Fed's balance sheet is too big and yet he keeps increasing it. He can talk, but he can't act. And again, if the markets don't realize this, it should be obvious, because if Walsh did what he has to do, the markets would collapse if he did.
That's not doing it. That's why he created all these working groups to study a problem whose solution is obvious. And you know, I mentioned in the last podcast that the Fed has 23,000 employees, right? Whereas it had 40 when they started in 1914. So the real inflation has been in the number of people working for the Fed.
We went from 40 people to 23,000. Can't those 23,000 people handle that? Do we really need five new working groups? We really need to hire more people to try to figure out what to do about inflation when none of these 23,000 have a clue. We need more. And it's not nuclear physics. It's easy. And since it's easy, that's why they create these working groups, because they don't want to do it.
You know the problem isn't not knowing what to do. It's the fact that, if you do it, you create too big a problem. That's why the Fed has always chosen to create inflation . And I mentioned that he says inflation is a choice, and he will choose inflation for the same reason as all his predecessors. Commercial real estate values have fallen sharply in urban centers, signaling a broader contraction.
While residential markets remain above all-time highs, weakening purchasing power will inevitably lead to a widespread decline. Meanwhile, aggressive rate cuts would cause a sharp drop in the value of the currency, forcing global investors to prioritize capital preservation. As trade tariffs drive up the prices of imported goods, basic consumer spending will continue to rise.
In the future, capital will shift towards defensive assets that fall much less than general price levels during systemic crises. Now, let's get back to the interview. In a capitalist system, of course , prices will fluctuate. They will go up and down depending on supply and demand, among other things.
But I'll give you an example. As you know, in the United States, the stock market is selling at a high valuation and, let's say, the real estate sector, distinguishing the commercial sector, has collapsed; It has decreased, in some buildings by up to 70%, in other cases less, but buildings that were worth perhaps 300 million, are suddenly worth 20 million.
Nobody, nobody moves there and I have several examples of that. But the residential real estate market in the United States and other cities around the world and Canada is through the roof. It is much higher than at the previous peak of the housing bubble in 2007-2008, after which the residential sector declined.
I think it will go down, but the Fed is aware that a significant drop in the residential sector would cause enormous damage to the economy, because there are people who bought a house, say, 20 years ago. They paid $300,000 and suddenly it's worth a million. So some may sell it and move to a smaller place, etc., or they may borrow money against it, and so on.
In my opinion, the rise in asset prices has created a wealth effect, an illusion of wealth where people feel rich and spend more. And when these asset prices, including stocks and real estate, fall, I think it will have a huge impact on spending. And lately, as you know, retail sales have been okay, but not fantastic.
And many stores are complaining that people are being careful with their spending patterns. In my opinion, this is happening because most people haven't made much money in the stock market in the last 12 months, unless they were in the trendy stocks, say the top 10, and the real estate sector is no longer rising.
In some areas, in fact, it is dropping quite a bit from the peak, perhaps 15 or 20 percent. So purchasing power has decreased, in my view. And the Fed, of course, Trump wants interest rates at 1 percent. But if he lowers the rates to 1 percent, in my opinion, the dollar will collapse because I like holding dollars, since I get, say, 4.5 percent on 3-month deposits.
In Thailand, it would perhaps yield 2 percent annually. That's all. Therefore, I have an advantage when investing in dollars. Furthermore, as a holder of Swiss francs, I barely receive any interest , whereas in dollars I get that 4.5 percent. So it's not bad. It's probably less than inflation. But I think investors need to start thinking: how do I lose the least amount of money possible?
Not how I make more money, but how I invest in assets that fall less than the general price level. In fact, I think he wants to show the world that the Fed is truly independent. I don't think they're independent, but in this particular case—and I never thought in the last 40 years that I'd say anything good about the Fed—I think they're doing the right thing by not cutting rates, because the stock market is at all- time highs.
The gold market is near its highs, as is the silver market. And there are also price pressures due to tariffs. I mean, it's clear that big stores, like Walmart, sell products of which probably 80% are imported from foreign countries. With the tariffs, all these prices will have to go up a little, not much, because if you buy some Nike shoes, the tariffs don't affect the $80 or $150 you pay in the store; They affect the price of shoes that come from China or Vietnam.
So that would be, let's say, $12 a pair. The rest is added in wholesale, retail, etc. But tariffs will undoubtedly increase prices. That's clear, because the government says that last month we collected, let's say, 18 billion or 30 billion dollars, and so on. That's paid for by the American consumer, nobody else.
Global asset markets remain heavily distorted by artificial liquidity, keeping stock valuations high even as real economic fundamentals weaken. Retail activity indicates that ordinary consumers are adjusting their spending, pressured by persistent inflation and stagnant incomes. Large stores and retailers face mandatory price increases on imported products due to expanding trade tariff policies, directly shifting the financial burden onto households.
Simultaneously, the central bank's leadership remains structurally trapped. Implementing genuine adjustment measures or rapidly reducing the $6.7 trillion balance sheet would trigger severe market sell-offs. As a result, monetary officials will form administrative working groups and rely on rhetoric, while continuing the covert expansion of the balance sheet.
With the money supply constantly growing, continued currency devaluation is guaranteed . In this environment, precious metals such as gold and silver are expected to maintain a strong upward trajectory as essential portfolio hedges. Looking ahead, successful wealth management will depend on maintaining tangible assets capable of surviving persistent inflation and market volatilit for watching .
Comments 0