Ronald Reagan once famously said he didn’t leave the Democratic Party—it left him.

That was back in the early 1960s, when the America he knew was beginning to transform.

Fiscal responsibility, which had been a cultural and political norm through the post-war 1950s, gave way to the reckless spending of US President Lyndon Johnson’s welfare programs (dubbed “the Great Society”) coupled with the Vietnam War.

Reagan was just an actor. But he decided to go into politics to address this spending and debt problem.

As governor of California and later as President, Reagan made it his mission to rein in spending and cut government down to size.

At the time, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio was much lower than today’s astronomical levels. But interest rates were sky-high, which made the cost of servicing that debt a real issue.

More concerning was the trajectory. Reagan knew that without deliberate effort to reduce spending, the deficit would eventually spiral into a crisis.

Reagan’s ethos carried through the next two decades. Even Bill Clinton picked up the baton and eventually presided over multiple years of balanced budgets.

But all that changed with the “War on Terror” in the early 2000s. The military spending blowout, combined with the 2008 global financial crisis and big bank bailouts sent the national debt on a vertical trajectory.

It blew past $10 trillion, then $15 trillion, then $20 trillion with nary a concern.

The political and media establishment dismissed it.

“Debt doesn’t matter,” they said. “We’re the superpower. We’re America.”

Yet the veneer of strength and credibility eroded, withering away bit-by-bit as deficits ballooned and the national debt climbed relentlessly.

Then COVID happened. And whatever was left of fiscal sanity died quicker than nursing home patients under Cuomo’s Emmy-award-winning leadership.

Under the influence of Lord Protector Fauci, Congress was convinced that the only way out of the pandemic was to spend trillions of dollars.

The nation debt shot up $7.5 trillion in three years. But even when the pandemic was over, the spending binge never stopped.

The national debt is now north of $38 trillion, and interest costs exceed $1.2 trillion per year— nearly a quarter of all federal tax revenue.

The other three quarters of tax revenue is consumed entirely by mandatory entitlement programs like Social Security and welfare.

This means that everything else— from the military, to roads, to the bureaucracy in DC— is paid for with borrowed money.

And let’s not forget: a significant chunk of this debt is owed to foreign nations.

Here’s the key part that makes 2025 stand out: foreign governments and central banks are starting to back away from US government bonds.

For decades, the US had a captive audience. Foreigners needed to hold dollars to participate in the global economy. And US Treasuries were the most liquid, “risk-free” assets on Earth.

But this year that illusion finally broke.

The signs were already there at the start of the year. The Biden administration’s overuse of sanctions made it clear: if a foreign country crosses Washington, that nation’s assets can be frozen and its economy sanctioned.

US government bonds no longer looked like a safe harbor. And in 2025, foreign countries began diversifying aggressively.

The clearest sign of this trend has been this year’s astronomical rise in the price of gold.

Central banks and foreign governments are dumping dollars and buying gold to prepare for a post-dollar world.

And the chaos that 2025 brought only strengthened this resolve.

“Liberation Day” tariffs rocked global trade. Then came the government shutdown.

And perhaps the most symbolic moment of the year: the DC establishment ran Elon Musk out of town—the one guy actually trying to reduce the deficit by identifying low hanging fraud and waste to cut.

That’s why 2025 will go down as the year the debt crisis got real. It was a golden opportunity to turn the tide. They didn’t even have to eliminate the deficit— just shrink it enough so that the economy could grow faster than the national debt.

But that didn’t happen.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve capitulated and continued to lower interest rates even as inflation ticked back up. They signaled an early end to quantitative tightening, and then set the table for more money printing.

Ten years from now, when people wonder what happened to the US dollar, they’ll be able to draw a straight line to the events that transpired this year.

Not just because of one event, but because of the cascade of decisions—economic, political, cultural—that revealed, once and for all, the unseriousness of the United States Congress and the recklessness of its monetary path.

We talk more about this in today’s podcast.

And we also discuss two other major events of 2025 which we identified as the most consequential— trends that will unfold in the future that we can directly link in a straight line to something that happened in 2025.

You can listen here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hqZJoYNJH0

You can also access the podcast transcript here.

Sometimes it feels difficult to get one’s bearings.

Markets are near all-time highs, yet extremely volatile. America is the ‘hottest economy in the world’ attracting trillions of dollars in capital, yet inflation is up… and seemingly almost every week some major corporation announces mass layoffs.

Very little makes sense these days. So today I wanted to take a big picture view of what’s happening in the US economy… and more critically, where it may be headed.

1. It’s all about the US federal budget deficit

It’s not exactly controversial anymore to say that federal spending is completely out of control. Fiscal Year 2025 (which ended on September 30 of this year) posted another $1.8 trillion deficit, and interest on the national debt exceeded all military spending.

This becomes worse each year and will soon reach a point where it is unfixable. The government has to borrow money just to pay interest on the money it has already borrowed… which means that the annual interest bill– already more than 20% of tax revenue– will continue to increase.

2. The budget deficit has to be financed, one way or another

When the US government spends more than it collects in tax revenue, it makes up the difference by selling more debt, i.e. Treasury securities. Very broadly, you could group the investors who buy the US government’s debt into two groups: foreign investors and domestic investors.

3. Foreigners are abandoning US debt faster than anyone cares to admit.

But for the past few years, foreigners (including foreign governments, central banks, large corporations, commercial banks, and even individual foreign investors) have been net SELLERS of US Treasury securities.

It’s not hard to understand why; the entire world has witnessed utter chaos and insanity, from a guy who shook hands with thin air, to the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, to TWO attempted assassinations of a Presidential candidate, to “Liberation Day”, to the government shutdown, and more.

Plus, all along the way the national debt reached an eye-popping $38 trillion. Foreigners are no longer looking at US government bonds as a “risk free” or “safe haven” asset. Instead, it just looks better to avoid.

4. Domestic investors don’t have enough savings to finance the deficit

Each year, between businesses and consumers across the US economy, a total of roughly $1-2 trillion in “net savings” is generated. This is essentially the combination of all business and corporate profits, plus the net total of whatever households have left over after paying all bills and expenses.

This year net domestic savings in the US economy is on track to be less than $1 trillion. But the budget deficit is roughly $2 trillion. This means there’s simply not enough savings in the United States to finance the annual deficit.

5. So, the Fed steps in and fills the gap

Since foreigners aren’t buying, and the domestic economy doesn’t generate enough savings, the only option left to finance the budget deficit is for the Federal Reserve and the banking system to create the money.

That’s why, over the past decade, US money supply has grown by 6.8% annually, while the real economy has only grown at 2.3%– a difference of 4.5% annually.

In short, this means that the growth in money supply is significantly greater than growth in the production of goods and services.

A 4.5% difference isn’t very much if it were just a single year. But if you compound that 4.5% difference over 10-15 years, it means that the amount of money in the system has become substantially greater than the amount of goods and services in the economy.

So there’s a LOT more money chasing around less ‘stuff’. The net result is inflation.

6. Bad policy makes it worse

Between 2020 and 2024, the U.S. went from being a net energy exporter to importing the equivalent of 2 million barrels per day. That wasn’t a weird coincidence—it was the deliberate result of idiotic Biden-era policies. Refinery shutdowns, blocked leases, and a full-scale war on domestic energy.

This is a big deal; energy, on average, comprises roughly 50% of the cost of producing nearly everything– food, automobiles, clothes, equipment, microchips, etc. So higher energy prices ripple through the entire economy as higher inflation.

It’s the same story with healthcare. Obamacare is the poster-child for horrible policy—it was supposed to make it “affordable”. Since then, costs have doubled.

Bad policy makes our lives more expensive.

7. Then it all impacts the labor market

When prices rise, households cut back. That’s exactly what’s happening now. Big consumer-facing businesses—Walmart, Procter & Gamble, even Amazon—start slashing costs, which usually means jobs.

Layoffs are rising. The labor market is weakening. And technology only makes it easier to let go of workers. Now we’re stuck with high inflation and a weak job market—otherwise known as stagflation.

8. Again, it starts and ends with the deficit.

The government spends too much, borrows too much, and prints too much. Inflation follows. That hits consumers. Businesses respond by cutting back. The economy slows. And the cycle repeats.

Can America break out of this cycle? Absolutely.

The tools already exist– or are on the way: advanced automation, small modular nuclear reactors, and next-gen natural gas tech that could make energy cheap and boost productivity across the board.

And I think we’ll get there eventually.

But in the meantime, there could easily be a bumpy, stagflationary road ahead over the next couple of years. The budget deficits are still massive, and I don’t see a shred of political will in Congress to rein in the spending.

In today’s podcast, we talk about all of this in more depth—what it means, where it’s going, and what you can do about it.

Because the key is not to wait for Washington to fix it… but to have a Plan B while they keep making it worse.

You can listen here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hFYqS9QtG0

And you can access the podcast transcript here.

We sincerely hope the House of Representatives can pull itself together and get the government back open this week.

Not because we love federal bureaucracy—but because this shutdown is embarrassing, and it continues to chip away at the rapidly declining confidence that foreign governments and central banks have in the United States.

This matters. Foreign governments and central banks collectively own $10+ trillion of US government bonds and other agency securities.

And given how rapidly the national debt is rising, the Treasury Department needs every lender they can get.

Up until recently, foreigners have always happily stocked up on US government bonds— which were traditionally viewed as THE world’s “risk free” asset.

But over the past few years, they’ve seen endless financial chaos and political dysfunction.

They watched Joe Biden shake hands with thin air. They watched the humiliating US withdrawal of Afghanistan. They watched millions of migrants stream across the US border with impunity, then be showered with taxpayer benefits. They watched TWO assassination attempts on a Presidential candidate.

Then, even after last year’s election, they watched the richest guy in the world willingly roll up his sleeves to help eliminate federal waste and cut the deficit— only to get chased out of town by politicians who are addicted to fraudulent spending.

They’ve watched extreme political dysfunction, with two sides who can’t agree on anything… including the most basic task of keeping the government open.

They’ve watched deficits grow and the national debt spiral to $38 trillion. They watched the debt grow by HALF A TRILLION dollars just over the past SIX WEEKS when the government was supposedly closed.

In short, if you were a foreign government or central bank, there’s little chance you would look at Congress and think, “these are serious, responsible people.”

Quite the opposite. In fact you would probably think that it’s time to start cutting your Treasury holdings and back away from the US dollar. After all, the United States Congress doesn’t exactly look “risk free” any longer.

Foreigners understand that a time is coming—sooner rather than later—when the US dollar will no longer be the dominant global reserve currency. Many central banks still hold nearly 100% of their reserves in US dollars. They know they need to diversify.

And we’ve written about this many times before— the #1 asset that they’re purchasing right now is gold.

It’s not because these foreign central bankers and finance ministers are irrational gold bugs. Instead, they understand that gold is nearly the only asset that (1) is universally accepted, (2) carries zero counterparty risk, and (3) has a large enough market to absorb hundreds of billions of dollars in capital flows.

That’s why, from Poland to Ghana to Kazakhstan, central banks have been buying gold in record quantities. It’s not just China.

China is the most desperate. They hold hundreds of billions in US dollar assets as part of their strategic financial reserves, and the Communist Party is extremely concerned—because they see a real possibility that they could be at war with their own borrower in the future.

Only three central banks were selling gold last quarter—and their reasons are easy to understand.

Russia was one—not because they love the dollar. But because they need to fund a war. Frozen out of the global financial system, gold has become almost a medium of exchange for the Russian government.

Singapore was another. Most central banks only buy strategically; they don’t try to turn a profit. Not Singapore. Their financial institutions are filled with sharp traders who would sell high into record trading volume, with the intent to buy gold back at a lower price.

In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Singaporean government picked up more gold during the recent price dip earlier this month.

The third was Uzbekistan, whose central bank already holds about 80% of its total reserves in gold. With gold prices up, the value of their holdings ballooned—so selling some is simply a way to re-balance.

The problem for most countries is that they have too many dollars and not enough gold. Uzbekistan is the lone example of a country with too much gold and not enough dollars. So their gold sales, while unusual, make sense.

We keep talking about this because it truly is one of the most important trends of our time.

The US government’s fiscal condition is atrocious. Almost no one in Washington is willing to take it seriously. But foreign governments and central banks are—and that’s exactly why they’re buying gold.

That trend won’t reverse unless, miraculously, everyone in Washington starts treating the national debt like the emergency it actually is.

I’m not holding my breath.

That’s why we believe $5,000 to $10,000 gold is a completely valid future scenario—and why mining companies, precious metals producers, and real asset businesses are so well positioned.

We discuss several of these miners in today’s podcast, including Barrick, Newmont, and Franco-Nevada.

And we also highlight some of the overlooked smaller gold companies that, right now, are just absurd bargains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5NZBAT57U8

You can access the podcast transcript, here.

PS – We write about this because we’re extremely proud of what we do.

We provide extremely high-quality research, and the results speak for themselves. Four of our precious metals companies are up 3-4x, even after recent pullbacks. Another seven are up 35–150%.

With our no-questions-asked money-back guarantee, and a limited-time promotional price, now is a great time to join. Click here to learn more.

Imagine for a moment you own a small piece an old, well-established, family-owned business.

Your long-lost ancestors started this company a few centuries ago, and subsequent generations built it into a global powerhouse— we’re talking $100 billion in annual revenue and hundreds of thousands of employees.

Hundreds of years later, the family business is well past its peak and is in decline.

And at this point the ownership is in the hands of thousands of descendants of the original owners. But even with all of those different perspectives, everyone agrees that something needs to change.

The various stakeholders still believe in the company, still believe that the brand can be restored to its former glory. But it’s definitely time for new leadership.

So the company starts a search to recruit a CEO. Your fingers are crossed that they find a highly experienced turnaround specialist who knows how to restore fallen stars.

Yet, to your utter bewilderment, the executive candidate that most of your fellow stakeholders support is someone who has absolutely no business experience… someone who has never managed a single employee.

In fact, he’s never even had a real job! He’s never run a budget, let alone a large organization’s, he can barely manage his own finances, and to make matters worse, he actively hates business.

Why would anyone support such a candidate for the company’s top job?

Well he’s a fairly well-spoken, charismatic guy. He has a winning smile. He checks a bunch of diversity boxes.

He also offers some ideas that really excite your fellow stakeholders— even though none of his ideas actually survive scrutiny. His ideas remind you of the election for your high school class president where one of the candidates promised to put Coca-Cola in the water fountains…

You’ve been around business long enough to know ideas are pretty worthless. Execution is what matters. But you find yourself in the minority… and the other stakeholders end up choosing this inexperienced neophyte to lead the company.

This is what NYC did yesterday in electing Zohran Mamdani. And it’s really hard for any rational person to expect a positive outcome.

It’s easy to lament the election of a card carrying Socialist. But if we’re being intellectually honest, we can acknowledge that a lot of people are suffering. They’re struggling more than they used to—and they don’t understand why.

Voters don’t understand how years of mismanagement and waste at the city level have led to a significant decline in municipal services. Crime rates are up, and even the basics like garbage collection or the city’s rat infestation just continue to get worse.

Nor do voters understand how idiotic state policies have driven productive people and businesses away from New York state to friendlier jurisdictions like Florida, resulting in a hollowing out of the tax base (and hence reduction in services).

They also don’t understand how the blowout of federal spending—starting especially with the pandemic—has resulted in higher levels of inflation.

And they definitely don’t understand the vagaries of monetary policy, and how the Federal Reserve’s mistakes have fueled the inflation problem.

Most voters don’t understand any of these things. (Neither does Mamdani.) They only know that they’re falling further behind, and they want change.

Well, change they got. Unfortunately, it’s probably not going to be a good change.

Ironically, one of the other things voters don’t understand is Socialism.

These days, most people who like the idea of socialism skew younger—too young to remember the Soviet Union.

When they think of Socialism, they think Norway. They think it’s possible to have free healthcare, free education, robust pensions and retirement, social safety nets, low unemployment, and a strong economy all at the same time.

The reality is far different.

Scandinavia has achieved certain success in its public welfare programs because, at least until recently, they were high-trust societies with relatively low corruption and high levels of competence in government administration.

A better example of Socialism is Venezuela—a very low-trust society where you have inexperienced, corrupt, incompetent people who regulate every aspect of the economy.

The end result has been everything from widespread starvation to an endless economic depression.

With the election of Mamdani, the ingredients look a lot more like Venezuela— incompetence, inexperience, high-regulation, etc.

Yet people very naively are expecting a result that looks like Scandinavia. In other words they think they can have Venezuelan inputs and Norwegian output.

Good luck with that.

We talk about all this, and more, in today’s podcast.

We cover the lunacy of some of Mamdani’s specific policies and why he won’t be able to achieve them.

We discuss Scandinavian public welfare, and why those systems are eroding thanks to multiculturalism.

We talk about why high-trust societies require shared values and social cohesion—and New York City doesn’t have any of that.

We also discuss the biggest thing that voters are missing. One of the biggest problems in the US is that it has terrible leaders. You only need to look at AOC, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Jasmine Crockett—complete buffoons—and wonder: how do they get elected year after year?

Voters are completely naive. And it’s hard to imagine the US fixing its problems if voters continue sending incompetent, destructive politicians to represent them.

You can listen to the full podcast here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbLsmKoJSTY

The podcast transcript is available to you here.

There was a popular legend from medieval Venice about an impoverished orphan from the island of Torcello.

The boy came to Venice at a young age, found a job, and worked tirelessly and energetically– enough to impress some of the city’s wealthy patricians.

Eventually the boy– now a young man– had built up enough credibility that some local noblemen entered into a commenda contract with him, i.e. a sort of proto-limited partnership. The idea was that the investors would finance a trade voyage (and stay comfortably at home in Venice), while the young man would risk life and limb on the high seas.

The investors would take 100% of the financial risk in exchange for 75% of the profit, while the orphaned entrepreneur would earn a 25% cut in exchange for risking his life.

The young man went off to sail the known world and came back with 10x his investors’ money. Ecstatic at the tremendous return on capital, the investors backed several other voyages… until eventually the young orphan boy with no prospects became one of the richest men in Venice.

No one knows if this particular story is true. But it’s emblematic of the incredible rise and peak of the Republic of Venice. 1,000+ years ago, it was truly the America of its day.

While the rest of Europe was toiling away in poverty due to the constraints of the ridiculous feudal system, Venice was like a rocket ship far ahead of its time.

Its entire society was built on economic freedom. ANYONE, from anywhere in Europe, could come to Venice, work hard, take risks, and make a fortune. It was the American dream seven centuries before there was an America.

Venice also prided itself on a strong rule of law, not to mention unparalleled political and financial stability. It became the richest place on the continent, by far, and its ducato (ducat) gold coin eventually displaced the Byzantine gold solidus as Europe’s major reserve currency.

But eventually, like most great civilizations, it peaked. Venice’s swashbuckling, risk-taking, hard-working entrepreneurial culture became complacent.

Rather than finance new trade routes and keep innovating, the great moneyed families of Venice were happy to sit at home and spend their fortunes on art and architecture. The government became clogged up with an entrenched political class that remained in elected office year after year. They became lazy, then incompetent, and then ultimately ran the place into the ground.

Meanwhile, other rising powers emerged on the geopolitical horizon– among them, the Ottoman Empire.

In the 1300s, the Ottoman Empire came out of nowhere as a ferocious competitor, ruthlessly conquering everyone who stood in their way.  They were also shrewd at trade and commerce, and they posed a direct threat to Venice.

It was a classic historical case of a rising power against a declining power. And it seemed like war was inevitable.

And to be fair, the two countries did cross swords a number of times; history records these as the “Ottoman-Venetian Wars [note the plural]”, though realistically they were extremely limited conflicts, i.e. not full-blown total war in which both sides tried to obliterate one another.

The reason for the limited nature of the conflicts is simple: trade. Both Venice and the Ottoman Empire did a LOT of business with one another, and they both knew that destroying their adversary would be self-destructive.

So instead, they fought small, limited conflicts while continuing to engage in trade and commerce.

This is very similar to the US-China conflict that has already been going on for a number of years. We can’t even count the number of cyberattacks that China has waged on the US and US infrastructure. There will be more.

China has been buying up land across the United States left and right to stage military assets for further conflict. They’ve engaged in election interference. Stolen intellectual property. Flooded the US with Fentanyl. Brazen espionage, complete with honeypot sex scandals of high-ranking bureaucrats, business leaders, and politicians. And let’s not forget about the balloons flying over US military bases.

Over the weekend the US Navy announced that two military aircraft– a MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter  and F/A-18F Super Hornet jet– both crashed in the South China Sea while conducting “routine operations”.

Fortunately no one was killed, and all crew members were safely recovered. But aside from that, the Navy provided no further details.

Realistically there are two possibilities.

Either, one, it’s amateur night at the Navy again, where poor training, bad leadership, or DEI quotas resulted in yet another preventable accident. And if that’s the case, it’s even more embarrassing given that it took place in China’s backyard.

The more sinister possibility is that the Chinese navy disabled the aircraft.

China regularly deploys its extensive (and highly advanced) nuclear-powered submarine fleet throughout the South China Sea to deliberately frustrate global shipping and control the region.

They engage in electronic warfare, including signal jamming that takes out radar, navigation, and communication systems for commercial shipping vessels… which encourages them to avoid the South China Sea entirely.

The US military, on the other hand, routinely conducts counter-jamming operations, along with submarine tracking, in an effort to keep the South China Sea open.

The two militaries are essentially engaged with one another every single day… but without firing a single shot. It’s a very limited conflict.

This weekend it might have crossed a line. And it’s possible that China’s jamming operations might have taken out certain flight and navigation controls of the US military aircraft, causing them to crash.

That would be a blatant escalation, especially as President Trump and Xi are set to meet.

Having said that, I still think full-scale war is a remote possibility. Just like Venice and the Ottoman Empire, China and the US still need each other. China actually needs the US far more than the US needs China at this point, and in truth the Trump administration has worked hard to make sure that’s the case.

Frankly, war with China doesn’t even crack what I would consider the top five concerns facing the US right now—maybe not even the top ten.

We break this all down in today’s podcast—why these latest incidents matter, but also why the odds of all-out war are extremely low.

And I also weigh in on what I actually think is a much bigger concern for the US.

You can listen to the podcast here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kHwCQzGRTo

You can access the podcast transcript here.

The most polished, eloquent, and articulate voice on the Left right now is no longer the greasy used-car salesman Gavin Newsom.

It’s the next mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani.

He has Obama‑level charisma and speaking ability, which is terrifying, because it means his political career won’t stop with New York City.

I watched the mayoral debate between Mamdani and former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo— of daytime Emmy fame for delivering pandemic briefings while murdering nursing homes residents with his COVID policies.

But after being cast out by his party over #MeToo allegations, this was meant to be Cuomo’s big political comeback.

It will not be.

Last night’s debate made it painfully obvious the fix is in. The moderators gave subtle advantages to Mamdani, like allowing him to respond to questions last, giving him ample time to think through his responses and hear what his opponents said.

They even joined in on the beat-down of Cuomo over not being pro-Islamic enough.

The fact that Cuomo could not name a single mosque he had visited, Mamdani said, “is why so many New Yorkers have lost faith in politics.”

Wow. It’s not the crime, the trash piling up in the streets, the homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, noise, illegal parking, or the absolute unimaginable infestation of rats that have overrun the city.

It’s because Cuomo can’t name a mosque.

Those problems, by the way, Mamdani openly admitted urgently need to be solved… including the rats. In fact he ranked New York’s rat infestation as one of the top two problems in the city (the other being noise).

Yet in almost the very next sentence, when asked how he would pitch corporations on relocating to New York City, he looked in the camera and said with a straight face, “The quality of life.”

Because nothing says quality of life like a medieval infestation of plague rats.

The debate was so absurd, I kept waiting for an announcer to declare, “Live from New York, it’s Saturday night!”

But that didn’t happen.

Instead, when asked how he’d pay for his utopia of free buses, free childcare, city-run groceries, and state-sponsored everything, Mamdani pointed to a shining beacon of fiscal competence and economic magnetism: New Jersey!

He said, if New Jersey can tax corporations more, why can’t New York City?

Because nothing says high growth, business-friendly fiscal responsibility like New Jersey.

When the discussion turned to crime, Mamdani blamed Donald Trump. But the solution is definitely not Trump sending in the National Guard. That was only a good solution when Governor Kathy Hochul did the exact same thing last year.

Insead Mamdani wants to hire a legion of social workers to stop New York’s violent criminality, and pay for everything by raising taxes. Apparently he’s completely blind to all of the people and businesses who have fled the city over high taxes, rampant crime, and… rats.

I get into all of this, and many other jaw-dropping debate moments, in today’s podcast.

And I also discuss why this doesn’t have to be America’s future.

There are actually places that are solving problems— and no, not New Jersey.

Look at Florida. It went from heavily indebted to budget surpluses in about fifteen years.

Today the state is so fiscally stable that they’ve paid down half of their debt, and now they’re talking about eliminating property taxes altogether. There’s already no state income tax in Flodia, yet the government still manages to keep crime under control, maintain functioning infrastructure, and enjoy a booming economy.

America’s problems are substantial. Florida is a great example of how they can be solved. New York City is proving to be an astonishing tale of how they can become much worse.

Which way will the country go?

You can listen to the full podcast here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76MOBLG3xOQ

The podcast transcript is available here.

Yesterday we wrote that with gold topping $4,000, it’s time to step back and look at the big picture—and the fundamentals haven’t changed.

Foreign governments and central banks hold about $10 trillion in US denominated reserves. But for years they’ve been trading this paper for gold— because it is their only realistic alternative.

Why are they searching for an alternative? Because they are losing confidence in the US government.

The debt, the political dysfunction, the weaponization of the dollar— these all make them less excited about loaning money to the US government.

And their steady buying of gold is what pushed it to these levels.

Those catalysts have not gone away, and if anything, are stronger than ever.

When a few hundred billion in demand can double the price of gold, imagine what happens if even a small portion of the remaining trillions rotate into gold.

Does 5% of dollar reserves shifting into gold translate to $10,000 gold? 20% re-allocation to $20,000 per ounce?

We don’t know exactly, but these numbers are not fantastical. There’s still enormous room for upside.

In the short term, of course, we can see plenty of noise.

Markets respond to headlines—like the new prime minister of Japan openly calling for more money-printing. Any environment like that naturally drives gold higher.

But at the same time, we’re seeing signals that a correction could be near—a stampede of new individual investors, record inflows into large gold ETFs, and a drop off in jewelry sales.

There are some classic signs of a short-term top.

But we don’t focus on short term trading. We always look at the long term big picture. And the long-term trend remains solidly intact.

So does the most important story of all right now: the much ignored mining sector.

Even after a massive run, many gold miners are still deeply undervalued relative to the long-term intrinsic value of their businesses.

One company featured in our premium investment research is up 5x in the past year. Yet even if gold fell back to $3,000, it would still be turning enough profit to trade at just four times earnings.

It’s debt-free. It pays a dividend. And it offers massive downside protection.

So while no one has a crystal ball—and we can’t tell you what happens tomorrow—the reality is that the mining, drilling, and service companies behind this bull market remain absurdly cheap.

That’s an opportunity to take seriously.

We dug into all of this in our latest podcast which you can listen to here.

https://youtu.be/96mB4tbh9Ao

And if you want to learn more about our investment research— currently available for a limited time discount— click here.

(You can find the podcast transcript here.)

On December 26, 1933, US Secretary of State Cordell Hull sat in a conference room in Montevideo, Uruguay, chain-smoking— as usual.

It was just months into Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term as president. In the midst of the Great Depression, the new administration was trying to turn the page from America’s imperialist era and become (what FDR called) “a good neighbor” in the region.

So Roosevelt sent Cordell Hull— a tall, austere Tennessean to build relationships in Latin America.

Hull was was polite, unshakably formal, and most importantly—stone cold sober in a room full of diplomats who treated every negotiation session like a vineyard tour.

It was perhaps because Hull might have been the only delegate who wasn’t falling-down-drunk that, by the end of the conference, a series of landmark agreements had been signed— everything from women’s rights to non-intervention—including the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.

Born out of border disputes in South America, this document established the modern legal definition of statehood, with four main pillars:

• Permanent Population – A stable group of people living in the territory.
• Defined Territory – Clearly recognized borders, even if not fully settled.
• Government – An organized central political authority that exercises control.
• Capacity to Enter into Relations with Other States – The ability to engage diplomatically and sign treaties.

I found this interesting this week as the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, and other countries formally recognized Palestine as a sovereign state during the UN General Assembly.

At a minimum, Palestine doesn’t meet the definition of having an effective central authority—one part of the West Bank is run by the Palestinian Authority, while the other is run by the Israeli military, and Gaza is run by Hamas— a terrorist group that openly targets civilians and uses its own people as human shields.

In the end, this recognition was just more destructive derangement from the Left.

It’s ironic that countries like Britain are so concerned about Palestine when they have already utterly destroyed themselves with immigration. So much so, that they now have to cover their mistakes by arresting people for posting online, threatening to arrest others simply for being openly Jewish, or even just looking at the wrong meme.

Despite this endless track record of failure, the Leftists in charge change nothing.

Even while holding near-total power in many countries, and dominating single-party cities and states in the US, their policies and ideas are proven failures.

Yet they still blame the other side while refusing to make a single adjustment or course correction.

And if you call them out, they won’t argue on the merits of ideas. Instead, they’ll label you a racist, a fascist, or “far-right”.

If that doesn’t work, they’ll resort to outright violence.

Today we dive into a number of these failures—from Palestine to Jimmy Kimmel to Iryna Zarutska—and come away with a conclusion.

To be frank, I’m not sure the UK and Europe are going to recover.

But America is going to get past this deep ideological divide.

America has been through worse.

Back in the early 1900s, anarchists, Bolsheviks, and socialists were blowing up buildings, assassinating politicians, and planting bombs in public squares.

You might remember the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti from history class—two anarchists convicted of murder in 1920. That wasn’t some isolated case. The left-wing violence of the era was widespread and organized.

And yet, the country pulled through.

As crazy as the world seems today, there’s still a lot of reason for optimism.

That’s what we talk about in today’s podcast episode.

You can listen here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflS4Y1GEIE

You can find the podcast transcript here.

It pays to think long-term—and to recognize major trends and opportunities before they become obvious.

Some of the greatest wins in history stem from long-term thinking. Some of the richest people on Earth, like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, had to commit to decade-long visions to accomplish their goals.

At the same time, there’s no shame in recognizing short-term, time-sensitive opportunities right in front of us. Especially in finance and investing, it’s critical to balance both views.

Long-term, we’re watching a clear trend unfold: foreign governments and central banks are losing confidence in the US government and the US dollar. They’re selling Treasuries and buying gold—driving gold prices to record highs.

Why gold? Because it fills the vacuum— no other currency is appealing to replace the US dollar.

But the price of physical gold is only part of the story.

For the last couple of years, we’ve pointed out the massive disconnect between rising gold prices and the underperformance of gold-related companies.

That gap is finally beginning to close. Gold and silver producers—especially the ones with low costs and high margins—are now seeing record revenue growth. And many of their share prices have surged 3x, 4x, and even 5x.

Yet we still believe there’s significant room to run.

This is the part of the cycle where investor capital floods in—especially institutional money that needs larger market caps. And with Q3 earnings about to reflect record-high gold prices, we expect many of these companies to report blowout quarters over the next couple months.

We think there’s still a short window—likely just a few months—where these companies remain undervalued despite strong performance. The disconnect between gold prices and gold company valuations is closing fast, but hasn’t fully closed yet.

Once the broader market catches on, we expect a surge of capital into the sector—especially from institutional investors—which could push prices much higher in a short period of time. That kind of rush often leads to a mini-bubble. And while the long-term case for these businesses remains strong, the short-term opportunity lies in getting in before that final wave of excitement hits.

In the long term, we think gold could easily go to $5,000–$10,000, driven by a global shift away from the dollar. That doesn’t mean it will be a straight line up— there will likely be pullbacks. But the long term trend is clear.

But in the short term, gold-related businesses are poised to benefit from the surge in revenue and capital inflows right now.

And that’s a short term opportunity.

We discuss this dynamic in more detail in today’s podcast.

We also cover:

• The historical parallels between today’s U.S. dollar and the fall of the Roman denarius
• Why there’s no real alternative to gold as a reserve asset in today’s geopolitical landscape
• How Congress’s dysfunction is accelerating the loss of global confidence in the dollar
• The key differences between physical gold and gold companies—and why that gap created an overlooked opportunity

You can listen here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozLLSx-TML4&lc=UgyHTIXs7-c9Ye5xdzR4AaABAg

You can also access the podcast transcript, here.

P.S. While gold has doubled in recent years, many of the companies we’ve been following in our investment research newsletter The 4th Pillar—especially miners, royalty firms, and service providers—are up 2x, 3x, even 5x just in the past few months. Their costs are steady, but as gold prices surge, revenues and profits skyrocket.

Even after big gains, we still think several of these companies could double again as earnings roll in and investor interest explodes.

If you want to see the names we’re watching now, click here to check out our premium investment research service, on sale for a limited time.

You might be surprised to know that the government is facing yet another shutdown at the stroke of midnight on September 30.

A lot of people might be thinking two things: First— “again?” And second— what about the “One Big Beautiful Bill”?

The One Big Beautiful Bill, signed into law on July 4, did not, in fact, contain all the necessary resolutions to fund the government for the next fiscal year (which starts on October 1).

As a result, Congress still needs to pass 12 appropriations bills in order to avoid a shutdown at the stroke of midnight on September 30.

From what we can tell, the Trump administration seems to be pushing for spending cuts this time around, which is great. I sincerely hope they are successful, because the country desperately needs fiscal restraint.

But at this point, it’s up to Congress—and that’s far from a foregone conclusion.

The most likely scenario is they’ll just punt any real decision-making and instead pass a stopgap continuing resolution that will merely add to the deficit.

In short, America will remain on its current trajectory—which the Congressional Budget Office estimates about $25 trillion in additional deficit spending over the next ten years.

This is why so many foreign governments and central banks are aggressively working to establish some kind of alternative to the US dollar as the global reserve currency.

Most likely, they won’t be very successful—simply because nobody trusts the Chinese or the Russians. India has far too many capital controls. So does Brazil. And as large as these countries may be in combined economic power, they have completely different economic priorities. Plus they don’t even trust one other.

So the prospect of some “BRICS dollar” emerging as a serious competitor to the US dollar’s reserve status is laughable.

But there actually is a serious competitor already—and that’s gold.

The reason why is simple: no single country controls gold. There’s no supranational agency that can regulate the gold price. Gold is a free market, all about supply and demand, and it happens to be an asset nearly every central bank on the planet already owns.

This is the reason why gold has surged to an all-time high—because foreign central banks just keep buying so much of it.

And they’re doing it to reduce their exposure to the US dollar, and to reduce the hold and power the US government has over them.

We think this trend is absolutely going to continue.

And that’s why we’re still in the early days of this gold boom.

In today’s podcast, we discuss all this, as well as:

• The global sell-off of US Treasuries and the pivot by foreign central banks toward gold.
• Why foreign governments and central banks now own more gold than US Treasuries for the first time in decades.
• Historical lessons—from the Byzantine empire to Venetian gold ducats—on what happens when trust in a currency breaks down.
• How central banks are also eyeing platinum and strategic assets as alternatives to the dollar.
• Why well-managed gold and silver producers could deliver outsized returns compared to the metals themselves.
• How owning gold today is a hedge against US fiscal chaos and a way to offset the increased costs of inflation.
• Why we’re still in the early innings of a gold bull market, even with prices already at record highs.

You can listen to the full podcast here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDiueo1tfc4

Podcast transcript is available to you here.

William Martin probably knew he was in deep trouble when he boarded the plane to President Lyndon Johnson’s Texas ranch.

As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he had just warned that the US economy was overheating—and that the boom could end in a crash.

But he probably didn’t expect the visit to end in a physical altercation, with the President of the United States literally shoving him against a wall and shouting: “Boys are dying in Vietnam, and Bill Martin doesn’t care!”

It was 1965. The Vietnam War was raging. Johnson was desperate to keep funding the war effort and his expansive “Great Society” domestic programs. He needed low interest rates to keep the borrowing cost manageable and the economy growing.

Martin refused to play ball. So Johnson resorted to raw, personal pressure. He couldn’t fire the Fed Chair, but he could humiliate him, bully him, and try to bend him to his will.

That wasn’t even the first time a US president went to war with the central bank. The tradition goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson, who practically fought to the death against the Second Bank of the United States—and even believed an assassination attempt on his life was connected to his war against the Bank.

Now, here we are again.

Like Johnson, President Trump is a big personality with a big agenda. He wants to stimulate the economy. But more importantly, he wants to bring down the federal government’s interest expense, which is $1.2 trillion this fiscal year.

And rather than physically assaulting Jerome Powell, Trump has been figuratively shoving him around on social media, hammering the Fed for keeping rates too high, too long.

He’s also been turning to the hundreds of thousands of pages of US regulatory code to find ‘cause’ to oust sitting Fed officials—and replace them with loyalists committed to the cause of lower interest rates.

I predicted this two weeks ago.

And just a week later news broke that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook had allegedly committed mortgage fraud. Today Trump attempted to fire her.

Suddenly it makes sense why another Fed official, Adriana Kugler, resigned without notice or explanation. The White House immediately filled her seat with a trusted insider: Stephen Miran, a Trump economic advisor and vocal advocate for a weaker dollar.

I also predicted the Fed would cave quickly under this pressure.

And after Chairman Powell’s speech on Friday at Jackson Hole, that capitulation is now a fait accompli. He didn’t cut rates yet. But he opened the door to a rate cut as early as next month.

But cutting rates won’t be enough. If the goal is to bring long-term interest rates—and with them, the average cost of federal borrowing—down to 2%, the Fed is going to need Quantitative Easing.

With a lot of help from Grok, we calculated the Fed would have to create roughly $10 trillion in new money to achieve that target.

And as we’ve argued many times before, that level of monetary expansion will be very inflationary.

But inflation doesn’t always show up the same way.

For example, from 2008 to 2015, the Fed printed trillions… and yet retail price inflation remained muted. Food, rent, and gas prices didn’t spike dramatically. Instead, we saw asset price inflation—stocks, real estate, crypto, even fine art soared to record highs.

Then came 2020 to 2022. The Fed printed again—this time even faster—and we got both asset inflation and retail inflation. Grocery bills skyrocketed. Rent exploded. Insurance premiums multiplied. All while stocks and housing hit new peaks.

And if you look back to the 1970s, monetary accommodation triggered mostly retail price inflation, while stocks languished for a decade in real terms.

So the big question now is: what kind of inflation are we going to get this time?

That’s what we explore in today’s podcast.

We make a strong case that the Fed’s capitulation, rate cuts, and monetary expansion will continue—and we examine whether that will lead to asset price inflation, retail price inflation… or both.

We discuss:

• The post Global Financial Crisis Energy Boom: After 2008, US shale discoveries brought the energy equivalent of multiple Saudi Arabias online in just a few years. That flood of cheap energy helped keep production costs—and consumer prices—low, even as the Fed printed trillions.
• The lack of global dollar competition in 2008: Back then, there was no BRICS coalition, no widespread de-dollarization, and no credible alternative to US Treasurys. Foreign central banks eagerly bought US debt, soaking up the excess dollars and keeping inflation in check.
• That meant massive international demand for dollars: Quantitative Easing worked in part because much of that liquidity got exported. Dollars flowed overseas, where they inflated asset prices in global markets—but didn’t push up rents or groceries in Topeka, Kansas.
• The Pandemic-era ‘printing’ was different:
•     The money went directly to consumers, not just into bank reserves
•     Energy policy turned anti-supply, driving up input costs
•     Dollar dominance is now openly challenged—less demand, more inflation pressure

In short, it’s a complex picture—but the strongest case points to real asset price inflation leading the way.

You can listen to the full podcast here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC4G8nMb02w

You can access the podcast transcript here.