QE is Back! Cost of Living Will Soar.

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 10:00: Peter Schiff
2. 40:00 – 50:00: Peter Schiff
3. 50:00 – 1:00:00: Peter Schiff
4. 1:00:00 – 1:10:00: T-Gold, Peter Schiff

Notable quotes from "QE is Back! Cost of Living Will Soar."

• You are about to enter the Peter Schiff show.

  about Peter Schiff · at 0:20

• All those debates. I want to do the tokenized gold debate because I'm doing T- Gold. And if you don't have an account yet with T- Gold.com, go there after this video and buy…

  about T-Gold · at 1:00:03

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Peter Schiff — Person · 5 mentions · first at 0:20
• CZ — Person · 3 mentions

Companies & orgs

• US Federal Reserve — Company · 10 mentions
• T-Gold — Company · 2 mentions · first at 1:00:07
• Europacific International Value Fund — Company · 2 mentions

Products & tech

• GDX — Product · 2 mentions
• GDXJ — Product · 2 mentions

Full transcript with timestamps

0:02 You make no friends in the pits and you take no prisoners. One minute you're up half a million in soybeans and the next boom, your kids don't go to college and they've repossessed your family. Are you with me?

0:10 The revolution starts now. Starts. We have to pass the bill so that you can uh find out what is in it.

0:18 TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK ON. You are about to enter the Peter Schiff show. Tell me the money. [screaming]

0:25 If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. The Petership Show is on.

0:31 I don't know when they decided that they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.

0:35 Your money, your stories, your freedom. The Peter Shift Show. Well, yesterday was a very significant day and normally I'd have done this podcast yesterday, but I was in flight. You know, I spent um over a week I was in Dubai during blockchain week and then I spoke at this gold conference in Amsterdam and I returned on the 10th which was the day the Federal Reserve announced its decision from its two-day FOMC meeting. And by the time I got home here in Puerto Rico, it was already close to midnight Puerto Rico time. So 11:00 uh New York time. So not enough time to do the podcast uh yesterday. So I am doing it today, one day after the fact. I will speak about uh what happened with my debate with CZ that got a lot of media attention as well as my uh Fox and Friends. I did a Fox and Friends interview from my hotel room in in Dubai which caught the president's attention and he called me a jerk uh and

2:09 a loser. So, I'll talk about that uh after I finish talking about the Fed and what happened yesterday. And of course, what most people are talking about is the fact that the Fed cut rates. They reduced interest rates down to three and a half or the Fed funds rate is now at target of three and a half to three and 3/4. That was very much expected. I said this was going to happen. In fact, briefly following the last FOMC meeting, there was a scare that the Fed might not cut in December. And if you recall what I said on my podcast at the time, I said, "Ignore that noise. The Fed is going to cut." Maybe they're just trying to introduce a little two-sided risk. Uh they don't want to admit that it's inevitable. Uh they want to act like they're data dependent. And what I said is it didn't matter what the data is.

3:06 They're cutting rates. And that's what they did. But that's not the big story. The big story is what I've been saying was going to happen for years. And I'm actually surprised that the Fed was able to hold off this long. And I'm talking about the return to quantitative easing. And in fact, if you recall at the last FOMC meeting, the Fed indicated that in December, quantitative tightening would come to an end. And what I said at the time was that that was just the first step to pave the way for quantitative easing. That they obviously couldn't do quantitative easing if they were still doing quantitative tightening. So before they can go to quantitative easing, they'd have to end quantitative tightening. Well, the Fed didn't waste any time because no sooner did they end quantitative tightening, but they already resumed quantitative easing.

4:07 Even I didn't expect them to do it that fast. I thought there may be at least one meeting that they skipped between the end of QT and the beginning of QE. Now, of course, the Fed uh pal did not come out and say we're doing quantitative easing, right? You've got to read between the lines, although they don't make it that difficult to read between these very, very wide lines. But what pal announced was that in the next month the Fed is going to buy 40 billion of Treasury bills and then after that on an ongoing basis the Fed will be a buyer of Treasury bills. There's no specific commitment. We don't know exactly how many they're going to buy but they're going to be buying them. and pal said, "Hey, the only reason we're doing this is because we want to a maintain ample reserves over time." Well, first of all, we got a $6.5 trillion balance sheet right now and then some, right? So, quantitative tightening is over and the

5:15 Fed has 6.5 trillion. Isn't that ample? I mean, that's more than ample. Remember, before the 2008 financial crisis, they didn't even have a trillion. And then at the end of the official QE programs before COVID, the balance sheet peaked at four trillion and then they started quantitative tightening then because they wanted to shrink it from 4 trillion. Well, it's now 6.5 trillion. Why do they need more reserves? Clearly, what they're trying to do is avoid admitting that they're doing quantitative easing. Because what is the difference between what the Fed just announced they're going to do and quantitative easing? Nothing. Because they are the exact same thing. [snorts] Pal said that the Federal Reserve is going to create money and then use that new money to buy treasuries. Well, what did they do when they were doing quantitative easing? They created new money and they used that money to buy

6:14 treasuries. It's the exact same thing. The only difference is when they were officially doing QE other than admitting it was that they were buying longerdated maturities, right? They were going out and buying longer term uh treasuries. What Pal announced is that the Fed's going to buy short-term treasuries. Okay. But it's still the same thing. A treasury is a treasury. Printing money is printing money. They're creating inflation to monetize government debt. The only difference is how far, you know, down the yield curve, right, are they going? But of course, it's only a matter of time, right? Now that they've restarted quantitative easing, how long before they're going to expand the maturities and start buying longer dated paper? I don't believe it's going to take very long because the yield on the 10-year Treasury is 4.15%.

7:12 It did not go down when the Fed cut. It seems to be holding a bit steady and it's not getting below 4%. Mortgage rates are not going down. This rate cut will have zero impact on mortgage rates, right? But everybody wants mortgage rates to go down, at least in the administration, right? That's what the goal is. Uh but they're not getting that. But as I have also been predicting, these rate cuts are bearish for bonds. And in fact, if you know that the Fed is only buying Treasury bills, why do you want to own a Treasury bond? The Fed's not buying that. At least not yet. But all the inflation that the Fed is going to create is bad for Treasury bonds, right? this easy money policy is a negative and so I think we're going to start to see more weakness in the Treasury bond market. We didn't see that much, right? So far, the market reaction has been more in the US dollar, which sank to a two-month low today. You know,

8:19 the US dollar index now, which had gone back above 100. We're now at 98.33. Uh I think the dollar is very close to a new record low against the Swiss Frank. I mean, we may actually be there. I I didn't, you know, check the the prices, but we're back below uh 80 cents uh on the dollar Swiss. In fact, right now it is um what is that point? That's the Euro Swiss Frank US dollar 7949. So below 79 a half. I don't think it's ever gone below 79, right? I So I forget if this is a record low, but it's very close. Uh but the dollar is now rolling over against other currencies. But you also saw the reaction in the precious metals market. A bit of a delayed reaction. I mean gold was up a bit yesterday. Silver of course up even more. But today uh gold rose $50. I think at the high it was up maybe about $60.

9:21 Um not quite hitting $4,300. Gold has not hit a new high unlike silver which at one point today traded north of $64 an ounce. We settled at around 63 and a half up about a buck and 3/4 new all-time record close all-time record intraday high and we had a big move up in the GDX and the GDXJ. Both of those indexes finally hitting new uh 52- week highs. And if you recall on my last couple of podcasts, what did I say was going to happen? I said that both silver and the GDX and GDXJ would hit new highs before gold hit new highs. And that is exactly what has happened because in this leg of the bull market, silver is leading gold and the miners are leading the metal and that's what happened. And so gold is going to follow with a record high of its own. But in the meantime, you're already seeing the record high in silver. You know, silver prices have already more uh than doubled this year.

10:31 This is a direct reaction to what the Fed did. It's not the rate cut so much as the return to quantitative easing. whether the Fed wants to acknowledge that or not. In fact, I was watching on, you know, CNBC and Steve Leeman comes on and as soon as he sees this, he says, "Oh, no, you know, the podcasters are going to have a field day. People are going to claim this is quantitative easing." I'm not claiming it's quantitative easing. It is quantitative easing. I don't care what the Fed wants to call it. They can call it whatever they want. In fact, quantitative easing is just inflation.

11:11 It's just a euphemism. It's just a way to dress up inflation in a way that the public won't realize what it is. So the Fed said, "We're going to create more inflation." That's what they admitted. We're going to print money. We're going to increase the money supply. We're going to grow our balance sheet. You know, at the same time, they say that inflation is the problem, right? We're worried about inflation. You know, there's risks to both sides of our mandate. Uh and in fact, the decision was not unanimous. There was three denters, which is the most uh I think since the 80s or something. Two of the FOMC members didn't want to cut at all. And then Trump's guy uh Steven Moran, he wanted 50 basis points. He didn't think 25 basis points was enough. And of course, neither did President Trump. He he wants bigger cuts. Um but the Fed is claiming that it's worried about inflation because after all, it it is 3%, right?

12:10 Even the way the government measures it, you're 50% above your your supposed target and you're cutting rates. It makes no sense. But not only are you cutting rates, you are printing more money. You are doing quantitative easing uh at a time when you've acknowledged that inflation is too high and and may go even higher. And in fact, a normal, you know, Fed, right? is that the palace say, "Look, you know, we we kind of caught between a rock and a hard place because we've got weakness in the labor market, but we've got strength in inflation." And so, you know, we got to figure this out. And obviously, they're airing on the side of worrying about the labor market because that's why they cut. But if you look at what past uh Fed chairman have said, including Pal, they've said that look, the best way to deliver on the maximum employment mandate is to is to deliver on the inflation mandate to make sure we have

13:10 price stability, which they've redefined as 2% inflation. But they said if we have this low inflation, that's the environment that's conducive to strong employment. So if you have a situation where you're not sure, which is what the Fed admitted that we really don't know, right? We that and he and he and Pal kept saying that is a unique problem that we have now because normally it's clear. It's one or the other. And he said it's not clear. We're not really sure, you know, what we should worry about more inflation or labor. Based on what prior Fed chairman and pal have said, the more important of the two is inflation.

13:53 And in fact, that was the first mandate. The employment one was was added later, which never made any sense that the Fed has any influence on because you don't create jobs by creating inflation. I mean, what does that have to do with it, right? Nothing. I mean, somehow the Fed thinks if they can stimulate spending, right, with lower interest rates so we can borrow more money and spend it, that somehow that extra borrowing and spending is going to lead to job gains. It doesn't. The only way inflation increases employment is by reducing the minimum wage. That's it. Inflation lowers wages. And so, yes, if you lower wages, you'll increase the demand for workers. So in that respect, yes, you inflation can help employment, but that's not what people want that he's and that's not what he's claiming. He's not saying, well, we're going to reduce the value of everybody's wages so that people get jobs. And of course, a lot of

14:52 people demand wages, you know, raises rather. But obviously the minimum wage, it's a way to reduce the minimum wage. And if you lower the minimum wage, well, then more people are going to be able to uh get get jobs. But in general, you don't create employment by creating inflation. But of course, the Fed only has one tool. So, you know, it's got to smash everything with this hammer, even if it's hitting a a piece of glass. But if the Fed was going to um really be choosing, and if it's not sure, and inflation is already three and can just as easily go to four as down to two. And in fact, it's far more likely that inflation is going from 3 to 4 than 3:2, especially if the Fed cuts rates and goes back to QE. So, if it was a tough call before the Fed's recent action, it's an even easier call now, right?

15:48 It's I mean, it's a slam dunk that inflation is going to go up and that's ultimately going to undermine the economy and the labor market. So by choosing uh employment over inflation, the Fed is going to get more inflation and more unemployment, right? the Fed has done the wrong thing and the right thing of course would have been to hike interest rates but that is not even on the table and in fact I'm going to talk about that because of course a lot of the important stuff is not in the prepared remarks but in response to the Q&A that follows and of course this is not an exception this was another situation uh where you really had to pay attention to what uh pal said and what he did not say in response uh to the questions that he was asked. So, I'm going to get to that as well as uh uh Trump's attack on me and CD CZ's uh hoax or trick that he pulled on me with that gold bar on the other side of this commercial break. So, stick

16:55 around. We'll be right back. Every business right now is trying to figure out the same thing. How do we actually use AI to get ahead without wasting time or money chasing hype? Especially when your competitors are already making moves. With Netswuite by Oracle, you don't have to guess. You can start putting AI to work right now in ways that actually matter to your bottom line. Netswuite is the number one AI cloud ERP trusted by over 43,000 businesses. It's a unified suite that brings your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into a single source of truth. That connected data is what makes your AI smarter. So, it doesn't just guess, it knows. Netswuite intelligently automates routine tasks and delivers actionable insights, helping you cut costs and make fast AI powered decisions with confidence. This isn't another bolt-on tool. It's AI built into the system that runs your business. Whether your company earns

17:50 millions or even hundreds of millions, Netswuite helps you stay ahead of the pack. Netswuite is the platform that I would choose and you should too. Right now, you can get their free business guide, Demystifying AI, at netsweet.com/gold. The guide is free to you at netsweet.com/gold. netsweet.com/gold. All right. So, we're talking about the uh FOMC's uh decision to cut interest rates and to resume quantitative easing, something that I have maintained uh was inevitable. And actually, I had expected the Fed to return to that well sooner than it did. So, it managed to hold off uh for a long time. But clearly, once it made the decision, it didn't waste any time. Right? I know immediately when they decided that they were going to end quantitative tightening that it meant they were getting ready for quantitative easing. But even I didn't know that it would almost happen at the exact same time. Uh but that is what in fact

18:50 happened. And there were not nearly enough in questions about this. In fact, I don't think anybody who asked the question mentioned the fact that isn't this like QE? Didn't you just go back to QE? uh you know what do you mean you just you're doing this solely to maintain ample reserves? I mean you got ample reserves and of course if you're fighting inflation why would you do this? Why are you expanding the money supply? You know pal kept saying we're not sure. We think inflation is going down to 2%. We're confident it is. Um but you know there's still a risk. Well how do you know for sure? especially if you just cut rates and went back to quantitative uh easing. You know, Pal kept reassuring the reporters, you know, we're going to get to 2%. We're going to deliver 2%. Okay, but what are you doing? How are you going to do that when inflation is 3% and you're cutting rates and you're printing money? You are you

19:50 are interjecting monetary stimulus into an economy when inflation is already too hot and moving in the wrong direction. Right? So, how are they confident that inflation is going to go down to 2%. They should have zero confidence that that's going to happen. I mean, what they do is they look at the long-term bond market and they look at the tip spread and they think, well, you see, you know, if uh the markets were concerned about higher inflation, we would see it. But, you know, we're not seeing that in the bond market yet because the bond market isn't necessarily showing it yet. The bond market is still reacting to weakness in the economy. They're probably reacting to the anticipation that the Fed will start buying the long bond. But a lot of these traders still don't get it. They still don't understand uh that a weak economy is actually bad for bonds because it means bigger budget deficits

20:40 and more inflation. And both of those factors are are negative for bonds. But, you know, it's also kind of ridiculous the way the forecasting works because uh private economists forecast the 2% inflation because that's the Fed's target and they just assume that the Fed is going to reach its target over time. So, that's where they just make their estimates. And so, people are buying these tips based on a belief that inflation is going to be 2% because they have confidence in the Fed. Ironically, when you ask the Fed, "Well, why do you think there's going to be 2% inflation?"

21:20 They'll say, "Well, because for economists are forecasting 2% inflation, but they're only forecasting it because that's the Fed's target." And they believe the Fed. But then the Fed says, "Well, we're basing our our our target on the fact that private economists are already forecasting it." But of course, you know, the craziest thing of all, and I pointed this out, no one brought this up again at this press conference because nobody even asked a question, but at a prior press conference, and I went on about it on a previous podcast, but one of the reporters asked, "Pal, why should we have any confidence in your 2% forecast? because you're now calling for 2% inflation in 2 years and 2 years ago you made the same call and we're not there. We're at 3%. And so you were off by a lot then. Why should we have any more confidence that you're going to get it right this time and I actually couldn't even believe what what what pal

22:20 said and of course it's even more unbelievable that nobody cared what he said. Right. And this is a reason why the tips don't reflect uh inflation reality. Pal said, "Well, you know, we forecast 2% because that's our goal and we just assume that we'll achieve our goal." And and so if we're not at 2%, our forecast is always 2% in two years. And and so the whole target isn't actually like a forecast where they're trying to figure out where inflation is going to be. It's more like just a wishful guess, right? Since they want 2% inflation and their policies are geared supposedly to give us 2% inflation and they have confidence in themselves, they base their forecast on that. So they say, well, we want inflation to be 2%.

23:19 And so our forecast is that in two years it will be 2%. But it's not based on any actual economic statistics or reality that would suggest it's going to be 2%. And so whenever it's above 2%, their forecast is always going to be that it will be 2%. I mean, maybe if it's 10%, they're going to say, well, it's going to be 2%. That, you know, they don't care, right? So that didn't even that didn't even come up. But the fact that Pal acknowledged multiple times that they're really unsure and then at the same time telling everybody we will get to 2%. It's going to happen. We're going to bring it there. How if that were the case, you would prioritize it. You would say, you know what, the labor market is weakening, but we still have low unemployment. The the key is inflation is still well above our target and so we've got to hike interest rates. The fact that the Fed is willing to cut rates when it's a close call and the

24:20 labor market according to them is not really weak. It's just weakening. It's just at risk that unemployment might go up. But the bigger risk is that inflation might go up. Right? any central banker, right, worth his salt would perceive the inflation risk as the greater and air on the side of containing that. And you know what? If it means that the labor market weakens, well, the labor market's going to have to weaken because if we let the inflation genie out of the bottle again, if we end up with four, five, 6% inflation, that's going to be a disaster for the labor market when we have to jack interest rates way up. So, the Fed should be vigilant. It's not. And that tells you that there's something else going on, that there's something that they're worried about that's more than inflation. They don't care. The Fed doesn't care if inflation goes up, right? They just can't say that. They just can't admit that. What they care

25:22 about is another financial crisis. What they care about is a collapse in the stock market, a collapse in the real estate market. Why? Because that's what Donald Trump cares about, right? Uh and so they're trying to keep everything propped up. And I think the Fed realizes that if they let the cat out of the bag and they start hiking interest rates, you know, everything's going to collapse. And then, of course, Trump is going to blame it all on the Fed because, of course, Trump didn't waste any time criticizing the Fed's decision in that they didn't cut enough, right?

25:56 So, he's trying to lay a foundation to blame the Fed for anything that goes wrong because the Fed didn't cut fast enough. the Fed didn't cut deep enough. Now, the Fed is not without blame. But the problem is not that they didn't cut enough, but that they cut too much. Interest rates never should have been reduced to zero. They never should have done quantitative easing. The Fed made all these mistakes long before Trump was president the first time, but the Fed continued to make these mistakes throughout Trump's uh term and now during his second term. Right? The Fed has always been too loose. Even then when even when they were tightening, they were too loose. They never got into restrictive territory. That's what I've been saying the entire time. That's why inflation hasn't gone away. That's why this unaffordability crisis is getting even worse. Things are getting more unaffordable. And I I obviously struck a

26:54 nerve when I mentioned that on on Fox on Fox uh not Fox Business on um uh on uh the morning show Fox and Friends when I when I when I discuss this and I'll get to that, you know, after I finish talking about the Fed. One of the really interesting questions though that the Wall Street Journal reporter asked I think I he asked probably the best uh question but he he said okay look you've cut three times uh you know you've moved north to more towards neutral but you've admitted that you're not really sure that there's risks to both sides right inflation could rise you're not sure right the un the the labor market might weaken, but again, you're not sure, right? So, he said, should the markets now consider that the next move might be a hike, right? It might not be another cut because it may be that you cut too much. It may be that it ends up that inflation accelerates.

28:04 And so should the market now look at this as kind of two-sided like we're really not sure right now this was a dangerous question because had Pal said yes the stock market would have tanked. Um but what Pal said was oh absolutely not he said nobody has a rate hike as any kind of base case or nobody is thinking about hiking interest rates. Right? So the Fed is data dependent but basically it doesn't matter what that data is. There's no way they're hiking rates, which is what I've been saying, that rate hikes are not going to happen.

28:39 So, it's either that we get more cuts or the Fed holds rates where they are. I don't see any circumstance in the near term, no matter what happens with inflation. And of course, the Fed has a very convenient out tariffs, assuming the courts don't strike them down. Now, of course, Pal talked a lot about tariffs. uh during his uh Q&A trying to say that one of the reasons that we're kind of unsure about inflation is because we're not really sure the effects that the tariffs are going to have. We think it's a one-off one-time increase in prices, but we're not sure. As if the only reason they're thinking that inflation might be higher is because of the tariffs. when the real reason inflation is higher is because of the Fed and because the Fed is cutting rates and now the Fed is doing quantitative easing. That's the problem, right? It's not the tariffs. The tariffs create a different problem. Uh but

29:39 there's going to be inflation without the tariffs, but the Fed is now able to say, well, the only reason that there might be higher inflation is the tariffs, meaning they're blaming the inflation on Trump, right? Because obviously they didn't impose the tariffs. uh and it kind of deflects the blame away from the Fed. Not that the government isn't blameless because it takes two to tango. Uh the government is running the deficits that the Fed is monetizing. The government is spending all this new money into circulation. The government is stimulating demand uh by sending people money to spend, right?

30:16 And but we don't produce the goods. So we have more demand, you know, chasing uh a a supply of goods. Now that the good supply is being diminished by the tariffs because it now costs more to import and so obviously we will import less. Doesn't mean we're going to produce more. In many cases we'll produce the same. We'll just consume less but we'll pay more for those things that we do consume. You know, Donald Trump still doesn't want to acknowledge that. He's still pretending. You know, they're they're talking about the dolls again. you know, the Christmas dolls where he said, "All right, instead of buying $35, you're going to have one or two, and they may cost a dollar or two more." They're not going to cost a dollar or two more. They're going to cost a lot more. That's why people are going to have to buy far fewer dollars because the cost isn't just going to go up a little. Costs will double and

31:05 triple if we can't import those dolls from China. The fact of the matter is, if your kid, if you want to get your kid a doll for Christmas, it's going to be made in China. It's just going to cost you more money. You know, I got into this argument with uh Jim Rickards again uh when I was at this goal conference uh about the tariffs, and Jim Rickards keeps saying that um the tariffs are paid by the the companies, by the manufacturers. I No, they're not. They're paid by the customers. And in fact, I just got uh we had ordered some stuff for our boat and um they weren't able to deliver to the boat, so they wanted to ship it to us.

31:45 said they were going to ship it in Florida and now they called back and they said, "Oh, we got to increase your price by about £5,000 for the tariff going in." You know, they didn't say, "Oh, you know, there's a tariff and so we're going to eat this $5,000. Don't worry, Mr. Schiff. You know, no, it's like, hey, there's a tariff. You got to pay this extra money. You know, you want us to send you this stuff that you bought, you know, you got to pay the tariff." And now I'm thinking, you know what? The boat's going to be in the Bahamas.

32:15 Send it there. I'll pick, you know, to pick it up over there. There won't be a tariff because the boat is is flagged in the BVI. I'm not importing the boat into the US. If I if I imported the boat and I flagged it here, I'd have to pay the tariff. But because I'm not importing it, I don't we don't have to pay the tariff. Well, the stuff that I bought is for that British vessel. It's not It's going to stay on the boat. So, I don't you know, I'm going to try to find out a way where I don't have to pay that tariff. But the bottom line is the manufacturers don't pay it. I mean the the the the the customer in America pays all of uh of these tariffs but the tariffs are not the main factor but sure yes all these goods are costing more. So the tariffs are there, but again, inflation, the prices are rising a lot faster than the government admits and that the Fed admits. The Fed is still basing everything off the CPI or the PCE

33:16 without acknowledging that these numbers are too low, right, by design. Yet the Fed, despite the fact that the government numbers are still showing 3% inflation, that probably means 6% inflation. The Fed's cutting rates. The Fed is returning to quantitative easing again. Part of that is to try to prop up the housing market. Housing prices are poised for a big drop, right? Because nobody can afford to buy the houses. And if nobody can afford to buy a house, that means nobody can sell a house because you can't sell unless there's a buyer. Right? Now, if you don't have to sell, okay, then prices can stay up. But as people who own homes have to sell them for whatever reason, they get divorced, they move, they die, they lose a job, there are things that happen, right, that cause people to have to sell a house. And they can only sell it to somebody who's able to buy. And if the pool of buyers isn't there because

34:20 prices are too high relative to what it's going to cost them to take out a mortgage, the prices are going to go down. But the Trump administration doesn't want housing prices to go down. They just want to make it easier for people to borrow money so that house so that they can buy houses at these high prices. Uh which is the the opposite of what you would really want if you were concerned about affordability. If something is uh is too expensive and people can't afford it, the best solution is for the price to go down.

34:51 But of course, if you're going to have a financial crisis as a result because of all the leverage in real estate and the fact that so many people are going to lose their home equity and when you don't have home equity, you don't have an incentive to to make a mortgage that you really can't afford. Uh and now the banks are stuck. I mean, so they're trying to avoid all that. that that is a reason uh that the Fed is cutting rates, but it's not working because long-term rates are not falling. Which is why I'm confident that this stealth QE program that's not so stealth, it's just not acknowledged is going to rapidly expand to the uh to the longer longer longer duration. But anyway, I thought that the entire Q&A wasn't a hawkish cut. Some people were saying, you know, the Fed was going to cut rates and indicate, you know, we're done cutting. You know, we're really in a wait and see mode. Uh but the Fed

35:48 indicated to me that they're more likely to keep cutting. Um because the I think that the labor market is going to continue to weaken. I think that trend is firmly entrenched. And in fact, had we got more data uh but we did not get the data because of the government shutdown, we would already have a lot more uh uh data points confirming that the labor market has weakened even more than the Fed acknowledges and prices are going to keep rising. But Pal has already, you know, chosen the battle he wants to fight and that is uh employment. And I think what the Fed is still hoping is that if the labor market weakens that that will do the Fed's job of bringing down inflation.

36:45 You still have this thought Keynesian economists who think that there's a trade-off between employment and inflation and that somehow if we do get a big increase in unemployment that that in and of itself will bring down inflation. And I think that is what the Fed is counting on that if it turns out that the labor market is a lot weaker than we thought then inflation will come down which is what the Fed normally encounters which is why it's an easy decision because normally when the labor market is weak then inflation is low and so it's not a tough call. It's obvious you just go and cut rates because uh the weak economy has already lowered inflation and according to you know Keynesian economy when you have a strong economy that's when you have rising prices and so it's obvious that you raise rates because you have a strong economy you have a strong labor market that can withstand higher rates. The Fed

37:43 doesn't often confront the situation where the labor market is weakening yet inflation is high and rising at the same time. And what it is doing is it is making the politically expedient choice. Even though the number one concern that the public has right now is the cost of living, is inflation. Yet, despite knowing how much the public cares about inflation, and that's their biggest gripe, not that they're worried about losing their jobs, but that they're worried that their paychecks, you know, don't go far enough, that they can't afford to buy what they need with the money they earn on the job. Despite Pal knowing this and the Fed knowing this, they are still airing on the side of making inflation worse, making the affordability crisis worse. Now, of course, Donald Trump on the one hand, he says it's a hoax, right? There's there is no affordability crisis. That's a Democratic hoax. But then he says, well,

38:46 it's all Biden's fault. Biden's the reason that everything is unaffordable. Well, I mean, which is it? I mean, is it a hoax or is it a problem created by Biden? Because if the problem is here, then it's not a hoax, right? The question is, who is responsible uh for the elevated cost of living? And the answer is both of them. Donald Trump bears significant responsibility. He acts like, "Oh, we just inherited the worst inflation in history from Biden. I'm cleaning up Biden's mess." Biden inherited inflation from Trump. Now, of course, Biden didn't just inherited it.

39:23 He was vice president for eight years while inflation was being created under Obama. But again, the worst year for CPI of the entire Biden presidency was year one. So if it was all Biden's fault, you would have expected inflation to be the highest during his last year. Instead, it was the lowest during his last year, the year that was closest in time to Trump. And in fact, go back, and I mentioned this before, go back to the CPIs. It was about three or four months, uh, at the end of Trump's term that CPI really started to spike, right? We started to see big increases in the monthly numbers when Trump was still in office. And of course, even the first couple of months that Biden was in office, we had accelerating inflation before Biden's policies kicked in, before the first Biden stimulus checks were put in the mail. So all of that inflation happened on Trump's watch. And I would say that that 9% inflation that

40:36 we had during Biden's first year, you could lay all that on Trump, right? Biden's inflation happened later because it always happens with a lag. First you create the inflation. You expand money, you expand credit, and then prices respond by going up. There's a lag. All of the price increases that happened in 2021 were a result of the COVID stimulus in 2020. Who was president then? Who signed on to all those massive government spending bills that led to the price increases? Donald Trump. So, he didn't just inherit the worst inflation. He helped create the worst inflation. Yes, Biden's policies made it worse, and we're going to suffer have suffered the consequences. But what Trump is doing right now is making it worse. The big beautiful bill made the inflation problem worse. Right? He he passed the inflation baton to Biden. Biden handed it back to Trump and now it's it's bigger, right? And so when I went on on

41:44 Fox and Friends on um Saturday morning and it was probably like 6:00 in the morning uh New York time uh Washington DC time, like 3:00 out west. How many people are awake at 6:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning? I mean, it was 3:00 in the afternoon for me because I was in Dubai. Uh, but how many people were even awake? I mean, the president was, right? He was watching Fox News. And I come on because the president is about to go on this uh affordability this this stump speech is going around talking about how he's going to solve the affordability problem that that Biden created.

42:29 And they wanted me to talk about, you know, whether I thought Trump was going to be successful in in in, you know, making things more affordable. And of course, I said no. I said things are going to be even more unaffordable under Trump than they were under Biden. Now, that would have been the case had Kla Harris been elected, right? I mean, things were going to get more expensive. Uh, that was pretty much baked in the cake. But I pointed out that Trumpomics was very similar to Bidenomics. Yes, you know, you have some changes around the edges. Uh but the their substance is big fiscal stimulus. Government spends a lot of money. We run huge deficits. I mean, that's what uh Biden did and that's what Trump is doing, right? and and and and so we're going to have more inflation and the Fed is cutting rates and now doing quantitative easing, right? That's what the Fed has done in the past and that's the reason we're we're suffering

43:33 the consequences. So there's nothing that Trump is doing that is going to bring down the cost of living. Everything he's doing is going to add to the cost of living uh and everything that he is encouraging the Fed to do. And on top of that, he's got tariffs. And clearly, tariffs make prices go up. They are taxes on consumer goods that get passed on to the consumer in the form of a higher price. Or if the consumer is the importer, like I was on, you know, some stuff for the boat, then uh you just pay it to import it. But if you're not the importer, if you're buying it from the importer, the importer pays it and then adds it on to the price. And so you just pay the higher price because that's the way the importer can recover uh the tariff that he was forced to pay to bring the goods into the country. So everything that Trump is doing uh running big deficits, imposing tariffs are going to put upward

44:37 pressure on prices. And so if things are unaffordable, they're going to get even more unaffordable. You know, even if the Fed succeeds in 2% inflation, that means that prices are 2% more expensive than when you couldn't afford them before. And so now they're even more unaffordable. Now, maybe you got a big W raise, but a lot of people aren't seeing their wages go up. Some people, a lot of people are retired. They don't have any wages. They're just dealing with the rising uh cost of of living. And of course, the cost of living is rising a lot more than what the government will admit to because the the numbers are are wrong. But anyway, so Trump, right, probably lying in bed uh in in uh in the White House, is watching Fox News, and of course, he's expecting uh everybody that comes on Fox News to basically kiss his ass and talk about how fantastic Trump is, how great Trump is. So, he probably likes to watch Fox

45:38 News to get that, you know, that positive reinforcement, right? He likes to get his ego stroked. and Fox News is the place to get it. Right. So, he's in bed. He's, you know, he's getting all excited. Peter Schiff is going to come on. You know, I'm going to talk about, he's probably like, "Oh, this guy is going to say great things about me. You know, he's going to say how great all my policies are and what a fantastic president I am." And so, I come on and I say, "No, things are going to get worse under Trump. Uh Trump's policies are are are are fueling inflation.

46:15 uh there's no relief in sight. And you know the funny thing about this particular interview, the interviewer was trying to be positive and he said, "Well, you know, we got some bright news on the housing market. Here's this uh company that just came out with a report about a major housing reset. What do you think about this?" Like, and the guy is acting like this report is good news. And then he starts talking about this report, right? And what this report is predicting. And so what the report predicted is that Americans are going to buy fewer homes. They're going to live with their parents longer. Uh they're going to take on roommates. They're going to form group houses and they're going to they're going to, you know, buy in houses with other families.

46:58 Basically, it's it's the reset is lowering your expectations and having multi-families and multi-generations sharing a house. So, it's all about how Americans are going to have to get used to having less, right? So, he didn't even really read the report. He thinks that when they wrote housing reset that this is going to be a good thing. No, it's lowering your expectations and realizing that you got to live with your parents or your parents have got to live with you or you got to have a roommate because you can't afford your own house anymore. Right?

47:29 That is the reset that this publication was talking about and the host of the show thought it was good news. So, but then I, you know, when he read that, I didn't want to like really insult him. So, I just basically said, "Look, you know, the housing problem is caused by government. They kept interest rates too low too long and the reason home prices are unaffordable is because government credit uh enabled buyers to bid them up and that real estate prices need to come down and they will come down, but the government is not allowing it to happen." So I I basically I'm saying all this negative stuff and Trump is probably like just fuming like uh he's so upset that he immediately goes to Truth Social and just basically lays into me and it's like what the hell is this stock broker? You know, of course they they introduced me as a stock broker, right? So he goes, they brought on this stock broker, Peter Schiff. And

48:26 you know, this this this guy is th this guy's a complete loser. He's a Trump hater. And of course, I mean, I'm not a Trump hater like a typical Trump hater. I mean, I encouraged people to vote for Trump. I voted for him twice. I voted for him the first time when he won. The second time I couldn't vote because I was in Puerto Rico. The third time, Puerto Rico decided to have like a mock election. So, I was able to cast a ceremonial vote for Trump, even though it didn't count. But the two times I had a chance to vote for Trump on the ballot, I actually voted for him. Uh, and I was a big defender of Trump when the media was attacking him when he wasn't president, all the lawfair, all the January 6 stuff. I mean, I I I defended him in in situ. I was a big defender of him with the Access Hollywood stuff during the first campaign. I mean, so I'm not a Trump hater. Uh I mean, I hate some of the

49:21 things that Trump is doing. In fact, a lot of the things that he's doing now. I think he's doing worse stuff now than he did during his first term. Uh but who the hell knows what what Kla Harris would be doing. But I'm I'm certainly not your typical Trump hater like a radical left socialist, stuff like that. I mean, you know, I I call him like I see him. I was very critical of Biden when he was president. that I was very critical of Obama. I was critical of Bush. I mean, none of them seemed to care. None of them ever acknowledged it.

49:52 But Donald Trump comes out with this post and he's like, "How dare Fox News have this guy on? How could they even let this guy on?" And he said, "We got to find out who booked him, who who let this jerk on the air. What is Fox News doing?" He's like so mad that one person, I mean, I watch Fox News and I watch person after person just talking about how great Trump is and how great the economy is and it's all right? So, if you're a Fox News viewer, you're already getting inated with all this pro Trump stuff. He should be happy with that. But no, he wants it unanimous. He doesn't want any criticism at all of anything in the economy. Like if you are not going to go on Fox News and tell the audience how great everything is. Now, one of the things he criticized me for, he said, Peter Schiff says prices are still going up. He's wrong. They're going down. Look at gasoline. It's a $1.99 in one somewhere.

50:57 And then he said, "And the price of everything else is going way down. The price of nothing is going way down. The price of everything is going up. The price of some things are going way up. So, he's saying I'm wrong because I'm saying prices are going up when they're going down. Even the Fed is acknowledging that they're going up. The Fed said that they're not happy with where inflation is right now and they're determined to bring it down and they think it's going to go down even though they're cutting rates, right? But according to pal, I'm a I mean, according to Trump, I'm a loser and a jerk because I think prices are still going up. Well, everybody thinks prices are still going up because they are. The only person who thinks they're not is Donald Trump. Maybe that's because he doesn't have to actually go shopping. He has no idea, you know, what's what what's going on, right? Um, you think he

51:47 would at least know the price of gold is going up because he buys so much of that, right? He's got it all over the White House. I think has he bothered to know uh how expensive uh how expensive gold is. I mean, that's also a reflection of inflation. So, we'll see. Maybe I'm not going to be on Fox News again. I mean, I don't know if they're going to fire the guy who booked me. Uh but, you know, this should be a big story. I don't know why the left doesn't want to make a bigger deal out of it. I mean, why isn't CNN or uh MSNBC or ABC or CBS, none of those networks are calling me? Hey, why don't they invite me on? Right. I really got under Trump's skin. You know, the reason they don't want me on is because I criticize the left, too, right? They only want hacks, right? They want to bring on people, the conservatives, right? The Republicans, right? Four, five. They want to bring on people that say that all the Republicans

52:39 are great and the economy is great and everything they're doing is great. and the rest of the media, they just want to bring people on that say that yes, everything is bad because of Trump and his free market policies and that's why we need more Democrats, more government, more regulation. They don't like me criticizing Trump for being too much like a Democrat, for having too much uh influence in the government, uh too much micromanaging of the economy, too much government spending. Right? I want to criticize Trump uh for not cutting government spending. The Democrats want to criticize him for supposedly cutting it, not having enough government spending, you know. Uh so I can't It's like I'm a man without a country anymore. I used to be able to get on uh the the mainstream media. I used to do CNN a lot. I used to get on MSNBC.

53:34 Um, I I these networks used to have me on, but they become so partisan that even when I'm critical of Trump, they won't have me on because I'm not criticizing him the way they want him to be criticized. And now we'll see what happens at Fox, you know, because Fox, at least the booker, look, they probably said, "Look, almost everybody that we bring on." It's not like whoever booked me didn't know. In fact, before I went on and I I had been on Fox and Friends a couple of weeks earlier than that and I was critical about the Trump administration then. So, they knew what to expect and before I come on, they asked me for my thoughts and I told them exactly what I was going to say. So, if they didn't want me to say it, they they could have gone with a different guest.

54:24 In fact, they didn't even have a studio in Dubai. So that they had I did it, you know, from from uh my laptop. Um but we'll see if that Booker gets fired how much pressure the White House. But if Trump is supposed to be pro free speech, which he is because that's one of the reasons I supported him because the Democrats were attacking free speech and Trump defended it. Well, if he's going to put pressure on Fox because they allowed me to speak freely on their air and basically tell the truth, I told the truth, right? And that's the irony of Truth Social. He went off on me by telling lies on Truth Social because I was telling the truth on Fox and Friends. And which is why I said, you know, he should rename Truth Social Lies Social because he's telling lies, I'm telling the truth. And of course, then I challenged him to a debate on the economy. Now, I know that the president is very busy, so he doesn't have time to

55:23 debate a jerk like me, a lowly stock broker, but he's the one that called me out. But I also put in my challenge, look, if you have no time, I will debate your design. You appoint somebody or get somebody from your administration, somebody from your economic staff. I don't care who it is, right? Anybody. I mean, I'll go to the top and I'll I I I'll debate your Treasury Secretary, your commerce secretary. But look, if those guys are too busy, just find an under secretary. Just find anybody. Even an intern, right? Somebody from your administration. I'll debate them, right?

55:58 Somebody that that thinks you're doing a good job. Like, pick anybody, right? But of course, you know, they're not going to have anybody debate me. And the reason I was thinking about it is because I had just done that debate sort of with CZ and I want to get get to that because there's been all kinds of articles, you know, the Bitcoin community is so happy because they think I lost this debate with CZ, right? Which of course, no matter what happened, they were going to declare me the loser, right? Because the whole thing is all a bunch of hype. And by the way, you know, Bitcoin was down about 3% today, although it's rallying back now, but it's still barely above 92. It's 92,600.

56:38 It's not going anywhere. It didn't respond positively to QE the way gold and silver did. It didn't react the way the dollar did. It's not doing anything that its pumpers said it was going to do. You know, in fact, in terms of silver, it's getting destroyed even more so than it was in in terms of gold. I mean, Bitcoin has lost more than half its value this year priced in silver, right? Uh, silver's more than doubled and Bitcoin has gone down. It's lower now that it started the year. Uh, it's not a lot lower, but gold is silver is a lot higher. Um, but so I knew that no matter what happened, right, the Bitcoin community is going to declare CZ the winner and I'm the loser because they're trying to hype more people into buying Bitcoin. That's what they need that that to keep the con going. And by the way, I don't really want to get into it. I don't have a lot of time. Um, but uh Sailor's speech at Bitcoin Mena in Abu

57:40 Dhabi, which I skipped. I didn't go to Bitcoin Mena. I I went to that one in Vegas. His speech is now so insane. I I'll get to it maybe on my next podcast, but I mean he's I mean he has gone off the deep end of of crazy. I don't know how the SEC even lets him get away with this nonsense, but his whole speech that he's using digital cap, Bitcoin is digital capital and he's using it to create digital credit which is now uh enabling digital money and he's saying that you're they're going to have digital money now that's going to yield 8% uh tax deferred in perpetuity risk-free.

58:17 He says that strategy is taking all of the volatility out of Bitcoin and creating these risk-free securities. First, it's the 10% perpetuals, then it's going to be this money. I mean, it's all nonsense. Complete unadulterated I mean, if you listen to his speech, everything he said is BS. Yet, the fact that the people in the audience don't recognize it is probably the biggest indictment yet of the entire Bitcoin industry. that your leader can basically be saying things that really should lend him in jail, right, for, you know, securities fraud because he's talking about securities that are actually being issued. And he's basically telling lies about how these things are guaranteed. Uh they're risk-free, they're high yield, like like he's somehow invented, you know, through Bitcoin, you know, this this all these great instruments that have great upside and no downside, right? I mean, you you

59:15 can't make these kind of assurances when you're the CEO of a publicly traded company about securities that your company is issuing to the public. You can't say these things. I mean, if I was saying stuff like this, they would all they'd be all over me. They had to find me. They they'd have shut me down. Yet, somehow Sailor can get away with it because he's making up these lies about Bitcoin. And whatever lies you tell about Bitcoin, you get a complete pass right now because the administration is obviously very friendly to Bitcoin because that's the business of the president's family. Um, but I want to talk about uh the CZ. So, I'm having this debate and my debate with CZ is supposed to be Bitcoin versus tokenized gold, not Bitcoin versus gold. I've had all those debates. I want to do the tokenized gold debate because I'm doing T- Gold. And if you don't have an account yet with T- Gold.com, go there

1:00:11 after this video and buy some gold or silver at T- Gold because that's the gold and silver that we're going to tokenize. But right now, just get yourself an account, get into the system because to make this viable, I really need I need a big user base. I need to get a lot of people who want gold and silver to transact with it. Not just hold it as a store of value, but to use it as money. So, I'm going to to CZ's conference to talk about uh about this. And by the way, he's a nice guy. We had a lot of conversations off the air. He's very excited about my token. He wants to list it on Binance, so I know I got that going for me, which is which is good. Uh because I want to have more liquidity for my token, and if I know, I'm going to get it listed on Binance. And he actually is a fan of tokenized gold. He likes the concept. What started the debate was that he threw cold water on it. He said it was a bad idea uh because

1:01:05 you had to trust a third party. But he now thinks it's an an improvement on physical gold. But the stunt that he pulled that everybody now is using to show that I lost the debate is so in the debate CZ hands me this kilo bar of gold that's you know fabricated by who knows what. I've never seen this particular bar, right? It's not by a major uh mint that makes bars that I would recognize. And he puts it in my hand and he says, "Hey, I got this bar of gold uh as a gift." I'm like, "Oh, yeah." You know, it's very heavy cuz it's gold, right?

1:01:43 And then he says, "Is it real?" And I'm like, "Whoa, what the hell? Does he try to trick me? Did he give me a bar of gold that he knows it's not real and he wants me to say it's real and now he's going to say it's not real? Or does he want me to?" But but the reality is there's no way I can tell with the naked eye if that bar is legitimate. Now, it certainly feels like gold to me. I don't know. It's it's color is a little different. So, it's probably alloyed with something cuz I was looking at my bracelet, which was 24 karat gold. Now, a lot of times when you make a gold bar, you add another metal in there to make it stronger. But the key is the weight of gold you have to have. So if your bar says it's 1 kilo, even if you have a little bit of another metal, you've got to have the kilo of gold cuz you you can melt it down and separate the gold from the other metal and get all the gold.

1:02:35 So, but I don't know, right? I'm just looking at this bar gold. And I have no idea how much gold is in there. I mean, I know there's got to be some gold in there, but is it a real kilo bar? Does it really have all this gold? And I said, "Well, I don't know. Is it real or is it I don't know." Right? And they use that to say, "Aha, you see, Bitcoin is better than gold." Because Peter Schiff with his naked eye, if you if you give him, you know, a kilo bar of gold, he doesn't immediately know if it's real or not. Well, when would anybody even be in those circumstances? Do you think when we were on the gold standard and people walked around with huge bars of gold and if they wanted to buy something, they said, "Here." No. They they used coins.

1:03:18 The coins were minted by the government and if if you counterfeited them, it was the death penalty. But they were 1oz coins. They had they everybody knew what they looked like. If somebody gave you one, you can compare it to one that you already had, right? You you look at it, make sure that the edges are not been smoothed down because if somebody smoothed down the edge, it means there's not all the gold. So you make sure the mill marks are not messed with, you know, and people would, you know, drop it on a table and listen to the sound because they know the sound it's supposed to make because they have other ones, right? So if you're dealing with actual coins, right, that were made for transactions, it's very easy to recognize a legitimate coin and not to take one that doesn't look good, right?

1:04:07 Say, I sorry, I'm not taking that that coin. It doesn't look right. Right? But if somebody did want to give me a big bar of gold for something, okay, let's assay it. Let me make sure it's real. No big deal, right? But the whole point of the debate was tokenized gold. See, what he was trying to say is Bitcoin is better than gold because we know it's real. If somebody gives me a Bitcoin, I know it's real. Yes, I I concede that. Right. a real Bitcoin versus a fake Bitcoin. It's verified on the blockchain. Yes, I understand that.

1:04:43 But we're talking about tokenized gold. If you have a token, then you can instantly verify that the same as Bitcoin because it's on the same blockchain. It has the same properties. So, the whoever tokenizes the gold, they authenticate it. They make sure the gold that they have is legitimate and then they tokenize it, right? So the person who gets the token doesn't have to uh verify it. It's verified automatically because it's on the blockchain. But the main difference between tokenized gold, which is easily verifiable, and Bitcoin, which is easily verifiable, is when you verify that you got tokenized gold, you've verified that you now own gold, right? You were given a token that legitimately is backed by gold that you now are the owner of because you now have ownership of that token. So, you get to verify that you own something. you own gold.

1:05:47 But with Bitcoin, yes, you can verify the fact that you own absolutely nothing because that's what Bitcoin is. It is nothing. With Bitcoin, you verify that you own nothing. With tokenized gold, you can verify that you own gold. You don't have to worry about verifying the gold because the gold wouldn't have been tokenized if it wasn't real, right? You have to trust obviously the company uh that is creating the token and they are audited, right? They have people that come in and test the gold and they make sure it's real. They have third-party auditors. I mean, so, but this whole thing was a stunt to try to catch me offguard so that they can show that gold doesn't work, right? Because you can't you can't tell if a huge brick is actually made of gold or maybe is made of other things, some gold, some some other metals might be in there, tungsten or whatever. Um, but if you actually watch the entire debate, it's pretty

1:06:44 clear that that he didn't win. I mean, it's pretty clear to anybody who's objective that I had the stronger argument because he had a weak position to argue. I mean, you can't win. You can't argue uh that uh Bitcoin is better than gold. You certainly can't argue that tokenized that Bitcoin is better than tokenized gold because all of the criticism that the Bitcoin community has about gold save one is solved when you tokenize it. The only thing is you have a third party. But all the Bitcoiners, most of them endorse stable coins.

1:07:16 There's a third party. They got no problem with people owning Bitcoin ETFs. There's a third party. So the only time they're worried about third parties is when they're storing your gold. But if they're storing your fiat currency or if they're storing your Bitcoin, they got no problem with third parties, right? Which is all a bunch of BS. But it was because I had just had that debate with CZ, you know, where I was thinking, hey, let me who can I debate? And then Donald Trump calls me a jerk, a a hater, and a loser. And I'm like, okay, let's let's go. And and and look, just appoint a champion, right? I know you don't want to face me on your own because, you know, you're too busy watching Fox News and and putting out uh posts on Truth Social, right? He's got all the time to fire off all these posts, but he doesn't have time uh to debate the guy that he attacked, right? Because, okay, you want

1:08:07 to attack me on on your own social media platform, how about, you know, let's have a a debate, right? Why not? um or at least, you know, put put your top economist or somebody on your staff to defend your record. Uh because I think it's indefensible. I think we have a weak economy that's getting weaker. I think inflation is strong. It's going to get stronger. Uh and and and I think that's why Trump really reacted because I struck a nerve. I think Trump knows that what I said was true. That's why he reacted the way he did. Because if what I was saying was untrue, he would have no problem with Fox putting it on the air. The problem he has is that on is that it's the truth and he wants Fox to bury the truth because he knows his supporters watch Fox. See, he doesn't really care as much what happens on CNN or MSNBC because the people who are watching those networks aren't going to vote for him. But he knows that the

1:09:04 people who are watching Fox are the ones who are going to vote for him. and he does not want those voters to know the truth. He wants them to only be exposed to pro-Trump propaganda. And that's why he went ballistic uh when uh he he saw that it slipped through the cracks and that they somehow screwed up and they let somebody on their air to tell the truth. Anyway, that's it. I'm off to uh the uh the community uh Christmas party. That's why I did this uh this podcast earlier in the day. Oh, plus I guess they got football later tonight. Again, don't forget, uh, buy gold, buy silver, go to, um, uh, t-gold.com and set up an account, but go to shift gold. I've been telling my audience, look, silver is $64 now.

1:09:56 You know, when it was 30, I was, you got to buy it, 40, even 50. I said, look, don't wait. If you are waiting for silver to come down, stop waiting. We are going to be $100 an ounce, I think, next year, right? The price is still low. Gold, you've got a great opportunity here because gold is kind of like just going sideways. It's probably not going back below 4,000. That's the new 3,000, but it's going up. It's going a lot higher. It's going to at least hit 5,000, I think, next year, maybe 6,000. So, but this is it's very quiet now. The actions in silver, so it's an opportunity to buy some gold. But these gold stocks, they finally just hit, as I said, new all-time highs. Get into my gold fund. I think we're going to kill it next year in the Europe Gold Fund, EPGIX.

1:10:48 The reason that we've underperformed this year is because of the small stocks that we own, and I think they're going to be the rock stars next year. And so I think what dragged our performance in 2025 is going to goose our performance in 2026. So you want to get positioned, go to the Europac website, get all the information, read the perspectus. You can buy it on my site. You can buy it no load using the no load ticker. Uh you can open up accounts with us and our other funds that are killing it. My dividend payers fund up almost 60% on the year. My value fund, you know, we're going to get an award. Uh they haven't announced the winners yet because they don't do that till February, but I will announce it here, but we're probably going to get an award for the best performing fund over a 10-year time period. Now, we might get a 5-year time period and a three-year time period. Not sure, but I think we're pretty much a

1:11:40 lock on the 10-year number one, which is an even better category to win, to be the number one fund out of 300 some odd funds in the international value category that the Europeacific International Value Fund is going to be number one, right? It's not there yet. It's not official, but I think if they had to score it as of yesterday, today got even better. We crushed everybody today. Uh but um I think I think we're going to finish the year very very strong with our strategy. I think the dollar can really take a dump in the last week or two of the year, especially in the thin trading around around Christmas. Uh and so I think our strategies are going to really have a big uh uh um push going into the year and then just continue. So, you want to be getting more money into the Europacific funds, uh, into your managed accounts if you have accounts, uh, because I think in 2026, that's going to be when US retail investors really start

1:12:40 getting out of some of these tech stocks and getting into value stocks, getting out of crypto, getting out of Bitcoin, getting into gold and silver, getting into the mining stocks. That's a 2026 story. It's not even a 2025 story. 2025 is going to lay the foundation with these phenomenal returns to get the public's interest and I think we can have even bigger returns in 2026. So, bye for now. And again, if you like this podcast, don't forget, give me the thumbs up, like, subscribe, and I know everybody tells me I'm supposed to say that at the beginning of the podcast because by an hour and 10 minutes in, most people have stopped uh listening.

1:13:18 But if you're still listening, despite the fact that I've been going on for over an hour, the least you can do is like the video. And if you're not a subscriber, well, you you got to subscribe. Bye for now.

Questions about this episode

What is discussed in "QE is Back! Cost of Living Will Soar."?

In order: 0:00 Peter Schiff; 40:00 Peter Schiff; 50:00 Peter Schiff; 1:00:00 T-Gold, Peter Schiff.

What is mentioned in this Peter Schiff episode?

7 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including US Federal Reserve, Peter Schiff, CZ, T-Gold, Europacific International Value Fund, GDX. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "QE is Back! Cost of Living Will Soar."?

The episode runs 1 h 14 min; the transcript is about 12,644 words in 88 timestamped sections.

More from Peter Schiff

• All analyzed episodes
• People mentioned on Peter Schiff
• Topics mentioned on Peter Schiff