Wow. Mamdani and the Left trash Cuomo for not loving Islam enough

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 wi...

Few people understand how the Federal Reserve actually works— and frankly, I’m not sure the President or Treasury Secretary are among them. That’s not an insult, just based on what they say. Let me explain. Most people think the Fed sets “the interest rate” for everything—mortgages, car loans, 10-year yields. But that’s not how it works. The Fed only sets a very narrow rate—the overnight lending rate between banks. Everything else, from your mortgage to the government’s long-term borrowing costs, is determined by the bond market. And as America’s debt spirals past $37 trillion, the bond market—not the Fed—is in control. This misunderstanding matters. Because when Treasury Secretary Bessent says he’s going to “get rates down,” what he really means is printing money. That’s the only lever left: the Federal Reserve creates money electronically and uses it to buy government bonds. The consequence of that is inflation: more money in the system means higher prices. Sometimes it shows up in financial assets—stocks, bonds, real estate—can also surge to record highs as a result of inflation. Other times inflation hits the grocery store, your utility bill, or your insurance premiums. Lately, it’s been both. Inflation is everywhere. But this administration is also openly floating the idea of a sovereign wealth fund—borrowing billions (or trillions) and putting that money directly into the stock market. Intel. Nvidia. Strategic stakes in American companies. It’s not socialism, and it’s not free markets. It’s something in between: a blending of state and corporate power. Call it National Capitalism. If that sounds far-fetched, remember—they’re already talking about taking a stake in Intel. Why would they stop there? This administration is full of people whose entire background is borrowing massive sums of money at low interest, pouring it into enormous projects, and pocketing the spread. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what they know. That’s what they do. Trump is a very successful real estate developer who has personally borrowed billions of dollars throughout his career. So of course when they look at the economy, their instinct is to repeat the same playbook on a national scale—borrow cheap, buy big, and hope the gap between cost and return pays for everything. But when the government itself becomes one of the biggest stock buyers, what happens to markets? They explode higher. And you’re going to want to own assets when that happens. This is the subject of today’s podcast. We dive into: Why the Fed’s “rate cuts” don’t control the 10-year or 30-year Treasury yields—and why the bond market is now in charge. How the U.S. is spending $1.2 trillion a year just on interest payments, and why refinancing old debt at today’s higher rates keeps driving costs up. The Fed’s true method of lowering rates: creating new money, buying bonds, and fueling asset bubbles—at the cost of more inflation. The absurdity of how the US banking system works. How every time the Fed “prints money” to bail out a crisis—9/11, 2008, the pandemic—it ends up inflating specific bubbles: housing, stocks, crypto, collectibles, and now consumer prices across the board. And we wrap up with a quick look at Total Access—our highest level membership built around forging lasting relationships with other members in extraordinary settings. It combines world-class networking and internationalization strategies with unforgettable, once-in-a-lifetime travel experiences. Right now, Total Access membership is open for a limited time. You can learn more here. And you can listen to the full podcast here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g22tNN5YNo The podcast transcript is available here.

I was still just a kid as the US headed into the 1992 US Presidential election, but I remember the excitement around my home town as Ross Perot entered the race as an independent candidate. Perot was from Dallas, where I grew up. And he was one of the first tech billionaires, long before the dot-com boom. Like Elon today, Perot knew that America was heading down a dangerous fiscal path. At the time, the US government was spending about 28% of its annual tax revenue just to pay interest on the national debt. It wasn't because the debt was so vast. Actually back then it was just a fraction of today's debt. The real problem was that sky-high interest rates from the 1980s (15%+) had pushed the government's borrowing costs and annual interest bill to the moon. So Ross Perot decided to run for President under a promise to fix the deficit. Few people understood anything about the deficit back then. So Perot used his vast fortune to buy TV time where he would explain the problem in hour-long presentations. I remember  learning things from him that I'd never even heard about before-- Treasury markets, bond yields, government accounting, mandatory spending, and more. Perot single-handedly dragged America's deficit issue to the front page and started a national conversation; so even though Bill Clinton ultimately won the election, Perot succeeded in making deficit reduction a top priority. It was interesting times politically. Clinton was rocked by scandals, impeached, and deeply hated by the other party... quite similar to the situation today. They didn't have social media back then, but 'talk radio' pundits raged 24/7 with the same ferocity of today's Twitter mob. Yet even with such conflict and division, Congress and the White House managed to work it out. And over the next decade, interest costs fell from 28% of tax revenue down to 18%. And by the end of the 1990s the government was posting strong budget surpluses. How did they do it? It wasn't rocket science or black magic. They simply took a common sense approach to spending-- they held spending increases to minimal levels, all while tax revenue soared thanks to a tech-fueled economic bonanza. Over the ten-year period between 1991 and 2000, government expenditures only rose by 35%. Adjusted for inflation that's just 5.5% over the entire decade. Meanwhile tax revenue nearly doubled over the same period. Poof. Problem solved. And America stormed into the 21st century with a record budget surplus, and its interest costs and national debt under control. Could this happen today? Maybe. There are a lot of similarities. The US government currently pays roughly 22% of tax revenue just to cover the annual interest bill on the national debt, and this amount is growing rapidly. Not to mention, interest costs plus mandatory entitlements (like Social Security and Medicare) already consume 100% of tax revenue. If they don't solve this problem, America is going to be looking at a major fiscal crisis in the coming years. Unfortunately few people in power seem to be taking this seriously. The White House is far more focused on tariffs and trade rather than the obvious problem-- excessive spending. And when it comes to deficit reduction, their approach is to seize control of the Fed to push through interest rate cuts. Congress, meanwhile, seems completely oblivious to the problem. One of my major concerns is that American voters tend to oscillate from one side to another. So if the guys in power now don't solve this problem now, voters could swing hard to the Left in 2028, quite possibly to a card-carrying socialist. There are certainly a lot of socialists emerging in American politics. And they all see deficits as a "revenue problem" and believe that higher taxes will fix every challenge. Well, we did the math in today's podcast: "taxing the rich" won't make a dent in the deficit problem. Neither will wealth taxes,

To the surprise of absolutely no one today, the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee chose to do nothing at the close of its two-day meeting. The White House is furious about the decision; the President believes that the Fed should be slashing rates, and that the current “high” rate of interest is costing the US government hundreds of billions of dollars each year in excess interest. (I put “high” in quotes because interest rates are still well below historic averages...) Now, I am no fan of the Fed. Quite the opposite— the organization is a total failure. Just consider that section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act (passed in 1913) states that the Fed is supposed to maintain a stable currency. Yet the US dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power under the Fed’s stewardship over the past 112 years. Personally I think it’s difficult to find another organization that has been so terrible at its core mission for so long. Yet even with that scathing criticism in mind, it’s still not the Fed’s job to bail out the US government’s finances. If Congress and the White House want to pay a lower interest rate on the national debt, then they can make the hard decisions to cut spending, balance the budget, and attract foreign investment by acting like responsible adults. Unfortunately none of that seems to be in the cards. So instead there seems to be a clear plan being hatched: Project “Hijack the Fed”. Let’s start from the basics: In order to fund its roughly $2 trillion annual budget deficit, the US government has to sell debt (bonds) to investors to plug its funding gap. And this responsibility falls to the Treasury Department. Ordinarily, Treasury would sell a mix of US government bonds, ranging from ultra-short-term 28-day T-bills, to very long-term 30-year bonds. Lately, however, the Treasury Department has been focused on selling mostly short-term bonds... simply because those rates are lower. The yield on a 12-month T-bill, for example, is just 3.86%, whereas the yield on 10-year Treasury is almost 5%, so it’s a difference of roughly 1%. In some ways it’s sensible to take the lower rate. But it’s a risky strategy. If interest rates suddenly rise, then the US government could wind up paying even MORE interest in the next few years, just to save 1% today. So clearly the Treasury Department must have some confidence that rates won’t be going higher... and will probably be headed lower. Last month Secretary Bessent even said this out loud: “What I’m going to do is, I’m going to go very short-term. . . Wait until this guy [Fed Chairman Jerome Powell] gets out, get the rates way down, and then go long-term.” In other words, he’s going to keep selling the lower-interest short-term debt. Then, once Jerome Powell’s term as Fed Chairman ends next year, the Treasury Secretary thinks that HE will be able to “get the rates way down”, at which point he’ll start selling long-term debt to lock in lower rates. This is a stunning admission that the Treasury Secretary (and by extension the White House) think that they will be able to steer interest rates much lower through their new Fed pick next year. Coincidentally, Treasury Secretary Bessent also happens to be on Donald Trump’s shortlist to be the next Fed Chairman. So let’s skip over the obvious legal and reputational issues involved in such a move. The bigger problem is that there’s only one way for the Fed— even if Secretary Bessent becomes Chairman— to “get the rates way down”... and that is by expanding the money supply, i.e. what we often refer to as printing money. And just as we saw during the pandemic when the Fed printed $5 trillion, large-scale money printing can easily lead to some nasty inflation. Why it matters: We’ve been talking about the next inflation cycle for a while, explaining why 2033 is the key date to keep in mind; this is when Social Security’s major trust fund will run out of money,

The US owes a LOT less money to China today than it did a few years ago. As recently as three years ago, for example, China held $1.3 trillion worth of US government bonds. Today they’re down to around $750 billion. In other words, China’s government has decided to cut back on its US dollar Treasury holdings by more than 40% over the past three years. And at first, that might sound like a good thing— HOORAY! More independence from foreign creditors! America is better off without that Chinese money! Right? But in reality this is a huge problem. Because it’s not just China. Going back to the years before Covid, roughly a third of US debt was owned by foreigner governments and foreign central banks. But then federal debt skyrocketed during the pandemic, and US government credibility plummeted. Even the government’s credit rating has been slashed. As a result, foreigners across the board began stepping back from Treasury securities. Today foreign ownership of US debt is less than 25%, and falling. This is a significant drop in just a few years. Why it matters: The US Treasury relies heavily on foreign capital to fund the federal government’s gargantuan (~$2 trillion) deficits. So if foreigners’ appetite to buy US government debt is waning— at a time when federal deficits are exploding higher— where will the Treasury Department come up with the money? There are essentially two answers. Either (1) the Federal Reserve will “print” the money, or (2) domestic investors within the US economy will buy government bonds and fund the deficit. But both of those options come at a significant cost. Consequences of the Fed funding US government deficits: In order for the Federal Reserve to buy US government bonds (and essentially fund the government’s annual budget deficit), the Fed must first expand the money supply. We often refer to this as “printing money” even though it all happens electronically. The Fed calls it “quantitative easing”, or QE, but it’s all the same thing. The consequence of QE is inflation. Serious, serious inflation. Think about it— during the pandemic, the Fed’s QE created roughly $5 trillion in new money... resulting in 9% inflation. Creating enough money to fund federal budget deficits over the next decade could result in the Fed having to print $15+ trillion. So most likely that’s going to be a LOT of inflation. Consequences of the US economy funding government deficits: American investors, i.e. banks, funds, corporate treasury departments, etc. could also buy more US government bonds in order to offset waning foreign demand. But this capital comes at a big opportunity cost Any private capital that goes in to the Treasury market means less money available to buy stocks, fund venture capital, or finance real estate mortgages The net result is lower stock prices, higher mortgage rates, and slower innovation.   Why China is first to ditch US government bonds: After sanctions on Russia, which included freezing their Treasury holdings, other countries got spooked — especially China. China probably fears becoming the next target of US financial weaponization. This may also be an indication that they will eventually invade Taiwan So China is hedging: they’re selling their US government bonds and buying literal metric tons of physical gold— driving gold prices to record highs. The bottom line: The shrinking foreign appetite for US debt is a glaring red flag. It signals waning confidence in US fiscal credibility and could lead to a capital squeeze at home — or nasty inflation spiral if the Fed fills the gap. Many Americans might cheer the idea of being less reliant on Chinese or other foreign money. But in reality, foreign investment in government debt is the closest thing to a ‘free lunch’ in economics. It means that foreigners are financing federal deficits, meaning less inflation at home,