Transcription
When you see the US Mint come out with the $20,000 coin that comes out after July 4th, when you see call options being placed at $20,000 by the end of the year, these—all of these things—are they independently coincidental? Could be. Sure. Or is there something bigger at place? Maybe there are people who know things that we don't. Look, insider trading isn't illegal, I guess, in Congress. I have never seen any of these coins come out at a premium of four, five, six, as much as 10 times spot. It's unusual.
Maybe the Mint knows something that we don't, but we will soon find out.
These are the things that make you go, "Hm," right? The entire system is changing right out from underneath us. You put it all together: the central bank spying, the massive deliveries, the massive deliveries out of the LBMA or even out of the Shanghai Metals Exchange, the expansion of the vaulting systems and clearing systems. All of these pieces together start to tell you that gold is coming full circle. Gold is far more important than price alone would would explain.
This is The Real Story with Michelle McCrory. Hello, I'm Michelle McCrory, and thank you for joining us here on The Real Story.
Does the US Mint know something that the rest of us don't? A newly released 1 oz gold coin is creating a wave of speculation after being priced in a way that some investors believe could be signaling something much bigger ahead of July 4th. And at the same time, traders are piling into $20,000 gold call options, placing bets that gold could move dramatically higher by December.
And the global gold story keeps getting bigger and bigger. Central banks are buying roughly a thousand tons of gold a year, about double the pace of the previous decade. And countries around the world are repatriating their gold reserves, bringing bullion home from foreign bolts. So the question is no longer just how much gold a nation owns; it's where that gold is stored, who controls it, and whether it can actually be accessed in a crisis.
And then there's the battle over the future of money. Europe is pressing ahead with the digital euro, calling it a matter of payment sovereignty and reducing dependence on payment networks from the United States. Meanwhile, the United States is moving in the opposite direction, with lawmakers proposing a ban on a Federal Reserve-issued CBDC through 2030, even as private stable coins are increasingly being positioned as the future of digital dollars.
Well, here to discuss all of these developments and so much more, none other than Andy Shechman, CEO and Co-founder of Miles Franklin Precious Metals.
Andy, a lot to discuss, as usual.
Yeah, the clock keeps ticking. The world keeps moving faster every day, it seems,
Which is why we're going to try to do these things more regularly and get through a lot of these headlines as quickly as possible. So, let's begin with this big news out of the US Mint that has many in the gold community buzzing. And that is a new 1 oz gold Liberty Bell commemorative coin, which is being offered by the US Mint, trading for nearly $20,000. Gold today, what, around $4,150? So, uh, less than a quarter of the price. And the special offering is part of America's 250th th anniversary celebrations. The coin is priced at approximately $19,600. Production is limited to just $2,26 pieces. There's also a half ounce version, which is priced at around $10,000, uh, $10,50. Again, gold itself trading, let's call it $4,200 per ounce. So, they're asking for buyers to pay roughly four to five times the melt value.
Now, this is a collectible. It's a commemorative. It's a limited edition numismatic piece. So, sure, there's a premium. Okay. But this premium seems very, very, very excessive. Uh, and many are thinking that could signal something much, much bigger in terms of another big July 4th announcement regarding gold. What do you make of this?
Uh, 10 times higher on the silver coin, too. There. I think the silver coin is about 750 bucks.
Look, I, I don't know. It's, it's suspicious. It's strange. I have never seen any issue, including the high relief coins that, that the US Mint has made. I have never seen any of these coins come out at a premium of four, five, six, as much as 10 times spot. Um, it's unusual.
Now, I, I, you know, I'm not part of the camp that thinks gold will be revalued on July 4th. I, I, I think that, yeah, I mean, could they market to market? Should it be done sooner than later? Sure. Yes. Having the Federal Reserve come in or the government come in and actually have the Treasury, in essence, revalue the gold, uh, through the gold certificate program, I think, is, is a stretch. I think there's a better chance of perhaps, as Judy Shelton has mentioned on our show twice—once with you, once with me—that we would see some sort of a link between the Treasury, the long bond (she said 50 year to begin), and gold long before they have the need to synthetically revalue the price of gold, which has been done three times before in this country, of course: '33, '72, and '73. But, um, I don't know what to make of it. It's very strange.
What's a normal premium today? I get it. It's a collectible, but what's a normal premium?
Even a proof coin may have a premium of 50-60%, uh, in silver, maybe 100%. Maybe even 200% on a rare thing. Um, but, and that's a one-off. But to see a premium of this degree, I've never seen anything like it ever since I've been doing this. Uh, I've been doing this since the Mint started in '86. I started doing this in '89. I, I've never seen anything like this.
And it's, it's certainly, you know, when you, when you look at all the rhetoric surrounding not only these gold calls that are going out to the end of the year—$20,000—but at the same time, all the talk about revaluation in July 4th, and these aren't available until just after July 4th, um, it lends itself to these types of discussions. But I don't know what to make of it. I, you know, and, and maybe they just realize that this will be, it's the first time that they've made something other than a coin in a very, very, very long time. Like, going, going way back to, you know, before the US Mint started making these coins in '86. We're talking, I think, going all the way back to when gold was money, when they started making the pan pack coins and those kinds of things, which were more like, uh, commemoratives that were passed out to dignitaries or whatnot. But, uh, this is a big deal, uh, from a standpoint of the US Mint releasing something like this, commemorating the 250th anniversary that isn't in it coin form. But to see it at these prices is beyond strange.
Yeah. 5x premium.
It's strange. Not only 5x, but into the $20,000 range, it's strange. It really is.
Unless the Mint knows something that we don't.
Well, either that, or they believe that there'll just be such demand that they can get it, you know. I mean, um, I guess...
If there isn't a significant move higher in the price of gold, this would not make sense from an investment perspective, as, as patriotic as anybody may be.
Well, you look at some places or things that are so stupidly priced. And I, I remember talking to a friend of mine recently, and I said, "Why the heck would anyone? How do they even justify selling these things at these prices?" And he said, "Because they can, and because people will buy it." Um, which might be the case. I don't know. It's, it—all I can simply say is, absent of it being a, um, foreshadowing by mistake, a mistake, if you will—
it doesn't make any sense to me.
Well, you have speculated that we could see a gold-backed long-term Treasury issued on July 4th, on this 250th anniversary of the United States. A theory initially put forward by Judy Shelton, right? A former Fed nominee under Trump in his first administration. She was the one that started to float this idea, uh, in order to give more credibility to long-term Treasuries,
Which I think is a good idea. And she's a brilliant lady. And everything that allowed me to go down that rabbit hole emanated from that discussion, and frankly, from the discussion you had with her and her book, which I read all of it, allowed me to go down that rabbit hole. But, yes,
Does this add more fuel to your—you said you thought there was a 50/50 chance that this could happen July 4th? Does this increase the likelihood of that happening in your mind? This coincidence with you coins, or...
It is a coincident—there, a coincidence—there is no question about it. It is coincidental. Look, I don't, I don't know. I, I think that there, to me, there is more, I got more, um, what's the word I'm looking for? I, I think I've had more conviction that maybe, just maybe, these things were starting to move in the 'ction that I have been talking about by the hiring of, um, Fed chair's first, uh, first advisor, um, what's his name? Uh, Paul, what's his name? Paul Winfrey. Paul Winfrey. And Paul Winfrey, who wrote a chapter, um, in a report that was published using 40 or 50 economists to write chapters, and his happened to be on using a parallel system that would allow gold-back Treasuries to run alongside the current system, which would not constrain monetary policy, but would still allow for, um, a, a, a amount of demand, uh, for the US Treasury backed by gold, um, and without constraining the Federal Reserve or the government's ability to enact monetary policy, which is one of the big push backs against a traditional gold standard.
And so, you know, when you, when you look at a guy who is now the number one adviser to the new Fed chair, who, whose chapter was about, in essence, gold convertible Treasury Instruments, aka Judy Shelton's gold bonds, that to me made my head perk up. When I saw this, it's just like, it's just another thing that makes you say, "Could it be?" I don't know. I, I, I guess more of me feels like this is just the government saying this is a once-in-a-250-year event, and they figure they'll be able to sell them, and they'll, they'll be gobbled up real quick. And if they're only making 2026, probably are, right? You know, there's, uh,
Interesting number, 2026, I guess, because we're in the year of 2026.
Exactly why they're doing it. Yeah.
Yeah. And, you know,
You'll get companies out there that will buy them. They'll get them certified by PCGS and NGC first day of release, or whatever it may be. And they'll try to sell them for a lot more than the Mint is releasing them for. Um,
We, we did talk about this at length in our previous show, but just as a recap, uh, new Fed Reserve Chair Kevin Walsh reportedly brought on Paul Winfrey, as you were mentioning, as an advisor, uh, in his one, his first hire. And Paul Winfrey wrote a chapter in Project 2025, which is the policy blueprint developed by the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, ahead of the 2024 US election. And in it, it laid out certain recommendations of policy. And he wrote the, the chapter on the Fed, as you just mentioned.
And this is a quote written by Winfrey, uh, from Chapter 24 in Project 2025, where he wrote, "Beyond full backing, alternative paths to gold backing might involve gold convertible treasury instruments or allowing a parallel gold standard to operate temporarily alongside the current fiat dollar." Uh, he goes on to discuss that, but again, what caught everybody's attention there is, uh, gold convertible treasury instruments, the first hire by Kevin Walsh, this idea by Judy Shelton, of course. Uh, this would then have to go coincide with gold revaluation.
No, it would.
It would not. No, but the, it would not have to coincide.
Well, the coin issue would, I guess you could say, but the gold convertible Treasuries would not. Because the whole idea of the gold convertible Treasury is, is it's a zero upfront cash instrument in the respect that my thesis is tied into why it would make so much sense. Let's, let's take a step back. And Richard Russell used to say to me, "Andy, the Fed has two choices simply because we consume more than we produce." Producing more than you consume is the best way to get out of debt. You produce more than you consume. You, you take the savings, you work down your debt, you build your savings. Uh, by consuming more than you produce, you don't have the ability to do that. And as a result, he said, "We can inflate or we can default."
So, by building or selling Treasuries that are redeemable in gold with a zero coupon bond attachment to it. Now, fairness, Judy's idea was a 50-year Treasury at first with a 1% coupon, I want to say, but in her book, she says a 5, 10, 20, and 30 subsequently with zero coupon. This allows you to bring back manufacturing and to build it at a zero upfront borrowing cost by selling these bonds, but it is the payment in gold that is due down the road.
Now, the interesting thing about the Genius Act and the way that the money seems to be flowing where you can't transfer the interest. Look at Tether. They bought more gold than anyone in the world except for the central bank of Poland. Now, that raises gold even though the mechanism is synthetic by the movement of money according to the Genius Act. It's organic. It's synthetic yet organic. It does. And, and Tether doing this by proxy for the US government kind of runs cover. In other words, the US government is accumulating gold and, and organically yet synthetically, letting the price go higher and higher and higher in the face of a falling dollar. Lower and lower and lower, which allows manufacturing to be sold, the selling of the bonds with no upfront borrowing costs, allows manufacturing facilities, modern facilities to be brought home and built, and allow us to pay down the debt and sell our products in a devalued dollar. All of this would allow gold to be raised organically.
And I think Luke Roman talked about this, too. He said, "Look, I think they will let gold go to a certain level before they come in and then market to market or maybe even more. But I think it, it certainly would have a better appearance, uh, from a standpoint because, quite frankly, by revaluing gold to a number above the market price is an accounting gimmick." Uh, and I think would have a, a bigger headwind to face rather than letting it go naturally over time like this, as the bonds get closer and closer to mature maturity, the price of gold is going higher and higher and higher and higher. So, it's less amount of gold that you have to deliver at the end. So, I don't think they would need to do it. But to your point, the US Mint putting these price tags on it. Now, the one thing I didn't look at at this B at these new coins, I should have, is I've seen it on the website, is what the face value is, the denomination on it. I'm not sure what it is.
Say 1.
That's right. But like the American Eagle, the 1 oz coin, is a $50 face value.
Oh.
So, I don't know what if there is a denomination on these coins. We should look. I should look. Um,
We can look.
Because if there is, if you can go to their website right now, you can actually look and see. It's us mint.gov. And there would be a face value on it. Legal, like the platinum is 100, and the 110th ounce gold eagle is five. The 1 oz silver eagle is one.
I don't think there is a face value here.
On the back side.
On this one.
Look at the back side of it.
You'll see it. Uh, there you go.
So, $250 for the 1 ounce. So, what does that even mean? Because a 1 ounce of gold is...
Right. Well, why is the 1 oz gold eagle $50, or the 1 oz platinum coin $100, or the Canadian maple leaf is 50? Um, the legal tender face value side of it really doesn't make much sense at all. Now, there are some people that would talk about the, the gold price being 4222 on the books of the US government, but again, the legal tender face value issued by the US Treasury makes no sense. Um, so when you look at these legal tender laws, as an example, in the state of Florida or Texas, they speak to this and say, "It is not the face value on the coin; it is the market value plus any market premium." Um, no one's ever given me a good reason why they've chosen to put these face values on these coins once they stop being legal tender, stop being currency. They still are legal tender because they're issued by the Mint, the Treasury, but they're not currency. So, the currency value of it, it, it doesn't make sense at all. And no one has ever told me a good reason why they've chosen those numbers instead of not putting a denomination on it at all. And maybe just because it's issued by the US Treasury that it has to have some sort of a face value. I don't know.
Well, in terms of revaluation, uh, I think it's important to remind our viewers that there is a gap between how the US government values its gold on paper in the books and what that gold is actually worth in the market. What we're referring to is that the Treasury books still value gold at $422 an ounce. The last official statutory revaluation of gold occurred in 1973 when Congress set the official accounting price of gold at $422 an ounce. So, officially, all the gold that the United States has is worth $422 per ounce, and every, and people are saying that at the very least that needs to be marked to market to the current price.
I agree with that. And again, in '71, it, the, when the window closed at 35, Nixon revalued it the next year to 38, and then from there, the next year to 4222. This devalues the dollar. Same thing Roosevelt did in '33, paying everyone $2067 when $20 was the value of the coin. 67 was a lot of money in '33 when a dozen eggs were, was a nickel. But then immediately devalued the dollar, making gold $35 an ounce. It's a 40% increase in the value of gold, or devaluing the dollar in the face of gold.
And, and revaluing the price of gold to market to market, in and of itself, is not a provocative, conspiratorial thought. In fact, it would give the Treasury general account right now $1 trillion. Every $4,000 increase would do that. The Treasury would, in essence, um, uh, give the gold certificates to the Federal Reserve, who would cut a check to the Treasury for $1 trillion. Those Treasury certificates, those gold certificates, give the Federal Reserve, um, a, it's collateral for the fiat value of the gold. The gold belongs to the American people. They don't get the gold; they get the cash value of it. This is an accounting gimmick. In essence, money is created out of thin air. It is given to the Treasury general account, who could then pay down debt, maybe not issue debt for a while because they have the extra money, do whatever they want with it. And marking it to market would do just that.
Now, there are those out there who say, "Well, what if they were to mark it much higher?" And, youn know, um, James Urkard's number was, I think, $24,000, which would give the Treasury General account $6 trillion free and clear. But that opens up a whole new can of worms that is more provocative. Um, I think marking it to market at some point is what they will do. The question is when, um, and why haven't they? It doesn't make a lot of sense. But,
I, I will remind our viewers that, uh, last year, the Fed released a paper studying how other countries have revalued their gold reserves, and that there was a lot of buzz about this in the Trump inner circle, including from Donald Trump Jr., correct? And there is an ad where Donald Trump Jr. said that his father's administration may revalue gold. Granted, he is saying this in, in the capacity of a paid spokesperson for a gold company, but it's a bold message.
And in the ad, it says, "Patriot, did you know that the US government has the legal power to change the price of gold with a stroke of a pen? Let me share what Washington insiders are quietly discussing. My father's administration is exploring a powerful economic tool, the Gold Reserve Act. This law gives the Treasury the authority to revalue America's gold reserves on the national balance sheet from their outdated book value of $42 to current market prices." He goes on to say, "Why would my father's administration do this?" And he says it would immediately strengthen America's financial position, signal gold's renewed importance in our monetary system, prepare America for a new era of sound money principles. Uh, and as you see at the bottom of this ad, you have Donald Trump Junior's signature.
All of this is true, by the way, Michelle. It is all true. Um, the question is, especially, you know, all of that is very true. And, and nothing provocative or conspiratorial. It's the last statement that he says where to, you know, to prepare America for a, a new system or something where gold is integrated into the system. I forgot the exact words you use, but that is the big one. And if that is the case, and part of me believes that is the case—
"Signal gold importance in our monetary system"—
because you're seeing it being reintegrated into the global south's monetary system very slowly but methodically, and yet, 100%, it is. So, could it be? Sure. They market to market. Absolutely. I see no reason why they shouldn't. Anything above that, people are thinking these huge prices. Look, I mean, it would be cool, but I, I think there is a far less likely chance of that happening than just simply marking it to market as it should be.
Well, it's very curious that we have the US Mint coming out with these coins.
That's, that's curious.
Priced at $20,000 for an ounce of gold. And that $20,000 number is also interesting because there's another thing that's been getting a lot of attention lately in the gold circles. And traders have been steadily building positions in December Comx gold call options with a strike price as high as $20,000 an ounce.
For viewers who don't really follow options markets, a call option is essentially a bet that the price of gold will move up, and it's the option to buy. But explain what this means. Explain why we're seeing open interest in these $20,000 call options for December, and, and what you think this could signal.
I mean, maybe, maybe there are people who know things that we don't. Look, insider trading isn't illegal, I guess, in Congress. Maybe there are some people. Again, these are the things that make you go, "Hm," right? $20,000 is divisible by four, so that would give the Treasury $5,000 free and clear, uh, $5 trillion free and clear. It would devalue the dollar. It's a form of inflation. It would devalue the dollar, uh, considerably. Um, but someone who would place a very out-of-the-money bet like that is basically saying, "Well, I can pay this premium. If it doesn't go, I lose it all. But the premium is a very, very small amount to potentially write your own lottery ticket."
Now, when I say small amount, you know, there's millions of dollars worth of these bets being placed. I don't know what the exact number is. A few million dollars. Anyway, that gold will close the end of the, uh, the end of the year at over $20,000. If it happens, it's a lottery ticket. Now, the other side is, who's selling it? It could be a bullion bank or the exchange itself, who creates and sells those, uh, takes the other side of that option, if you will, sells it. They think there's a very small chance this will happen. And as is the case, I'm sure they will take out insurance to make sure of some sort that if it does actually hit it, that they're not bankrupt or turned upside down. But the point of it is, is that you have a, I don't know what the exact number is. It's growing. I saw there more and more being put on. There's quite a few of them that are people are basically betting that gold will be $20,000 by the end of the year. It's interesting that this number keeps...
They're paying to make that bet. Obviously,
It's, it's a small premium for a very big return. Small premium in relation to the outside.
But isn't it curious? This $20,000 number.
That's the curious part. That's the curious part. As is the $20,000 number here. It, it's very curious. It is, uh, I don't know,
As you say, things that make you go, "Hm."
Yeah. Which they do. And these are how these are the things that make me try and connect the dots. So, I say, "Look, I don't know." But when you look at these things that line up like this, you have to say, "Geez, that's, is it coincidental? Is there something bigger at play?" You know, information is, is everything. And either of these people have a ton of money and don't mind wasting, you know, a million bucks on a bet. There are people out there that that kind of money. Um, on the other hand, maybe it's something bigger than that. Who knows?
You still think 50/50 chance that the US comes out with a gold-backed Treasury July 4th?
It, it's funny. I, I'm kind of getting a lot...
Or that there's an announcement to that. When I say 50/50, I'm saying, you know, or as the young kids would say, "67," whatever the hell that means. Uh, I don't know. I mean, look, I, um, I don't even know if it's 50/50. I look, when you, I'll say it this way: I've interviewed a lot of people. I've spoken to a lot of people in 36 years in this industry. Judy Shelton impressed me as much as anyone I've ever spoken to in my life. Not only with her how articulate and, and well-spoken and well-measured she was, was, um, but her relationships that she's had and explained to me the circles that she, um, has associated in and around for a very long time, impressed the hell out of me. And so, hearing it once was one thing. Hearing it again when you interviewed her, reading her book, seeing her on X, seeing her getting interviewed continuously and saying these things in a very unwavering manner, has made me think, "Geez, well, maybe, just maybe," when you see Paul Winfrey be the first person hired, when you see the US Mint come out with the $20,000 coin that comes out after July 4th, when you see call options being placed at $20,000 by the end of the year, these—all of these things. I mean, are they independently coincidental? Could be. Sure. Or is there something bigger at play? I don't know. But I'll tell you this, it's a lot of money to spend on a bet. But, uh, you know, I guess there's a lot of money out there. People think it's worth it. So,
Well, you made a very good point about all of this inside trading that we're seeing out of Washington when it comes to equities and oil and all of these interesting bets, too. Yeah. May, maybe these, uh, Com...
Whoever, I don't know what the actual prize would be, the return, but it would be massive. I mean, they'd make a fortune, uh, per option, a fortune, because the further out of the money you go, the, the greater the return. It's just, it's like...
It's like just, you know, taking a, a gander on, on a, a flyer on a lottery ticket. You know,
Maybe with a little bit more information or a little bit better odds, but it's, in essence, what it is. And if you hit it, you make a fortune. But, you know, I wouldn't, I wouldn't bet the house on it at this point.
Well, one thing we do know for sure, what we can bet on, is that central banks continue to buy gold, continue to increase their holdings of gold, and increasingly want their gold close to home. That is according to the latest report by the World Gold Council. Instead of keeping gold overseas in traditional storage hubs like the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, they are bringing their gold reserves home. The numbers are worth noting. A total of 9% of central banks surveyed said that they increased domestic gold storage over the past 12 months. That's up from 5% the year before. Another 10% said that they diversified their overseas storage locations compared with just 2% in last year's survey. And looking ahead, 7% of global central banks say they plan to increase domestic storage over the next year. Uh, 9% expect to diversify where they store gold abroad.
So, you know, the central banks are asking, "Where is our gold? Who controls it? Do we have access to it in a crisis? We want it nearby. We don't trust it not being within our own sovereignty," as well as increasing their holdings of gold. What does this tell you?
Well, and not only that, to me, Michelle, what I see that is equally as, maybe even more so, um, worth contemplating, are all of the exchanges that are being built around the world that focus on settlement. Dubai is now the next, uh, um, country to come out and throw their hat in the ring to launch, and it just launched, uh, yesterday or the day before yesterday, um, a first same-day gold futures contract. And again, countries that are able to settle gold and to do immediately deliverable, like London is T+1, but most of last year they said there was a shortage of manpower in trucks, and it turned out to be T plus 8 weeks. This is T plus nothing, settled same day. Um, you're seeing the same thing happen in Hong Kong. You're seeing the same thing happen in Shanghai and in Singapore. You're seeing all of these countries in the global south, uh, not only accumulate gold to go along with the central banks like France, like Germany, like Poland, like, uh, the Czech National Bank, the Dutch National Bank, the Bank of Austria, Hungary, Turkey. All of the Eastern European banks have said, "Give us back our gold from the New York Fed." India just brought back a whole bunch of gold from the Bank of England. These countries are saying, "We will forego convenience, um, over lack of or removal of counterparty risk," and they have been doing this now for a few years.
But you add that on to, um, countries around the globe that are focusing on storage facilities and clearing facilities, um, along with central banks talking to the World Gold Council that are saying 45% of those central banks expect their own gold reserves to increase over the next, uh, uh, 12 months, and 90% of those, uh, respondents expect all of the global central banks to, um, increase their reserves over the next year. So, you have central banks buying more. You have the global south building the rails and the storage facilities and the clearing facilities that ultimately will challenge London and New York. And I think that is what they are doing. They're building systems that are gaining credibility, uh, legitimacy, transparency, um, to challenge the rehypothecated, um, less than transparent, very opaque western system. So, I think it's much bigger than just bringing back our gold. That's part of it. The entire system is changing right out from underneath us. And as again, we discussed, I believe, about 10 days ago, how China launched Project Embridge.
Yeah.
Uh, a commercial roll out of a digital currency program that could, in fact, reshape crossber transactions and reduce reliance on the dollar. And again, something that you have been discussing, yeah...
For a while now.
And, you know, the, the, it's very important for people to take a step back and realize that these countries are very well aware of who this administration is, who Donald Trump is. They're very well aware of moving too quickly to cut off their nose despite their face. And I think it is this very methodical, um, little by little pace that is difficult for analysts to, to not dismiss. But if you take a step back and look, you can see it's becoming very impressive, the interconnection of the expansion of all of these vaulting systems and clearing systems. Not just vaulting, but clearing exchanges that clear instantly, um, and do so in a better way even perhaps than Commax or LBMA does. As an example, Singapore is saying, "Look, you know, there's a lot of metal that goes through, uh, Asia, and they prefer kilogram kilogram silver bars or gold bars rather, and 1,000 ounce silver bar contracts instead of five 1,000 ounce." And, and so they're tailoring not only through immediate settlement, but they're tailoring the contracts to smaller amounts, to smaller lot sizes, to expand their, um, their reach to not just big traders or, or bullion banks, but to businesses that are actually transacting in this stuff and using it for whatever, or family offices, or whatnot. So, these are all challenging the West. This never happened. There was never an infrastructure set up to challenge the LBMA or the COMX, and there is now. At the same time, repatriation of metal is a symptom of a growing problem, and that is lack of trust. Um, and, and I think that's that you don't have to look any further than lack of trust of the Western system to explain why they're bringing the metal back.
It's interesting, though, that we're also seeing a lack of trust within the Western system of the United States, or at least a new way to push a central bank digital currency, because the new spin from the ECB as to why they need a digital euro is to distance from Visa and Mastercard and reliance on the US financial system.
So, the European Central Bank just cleared a major hurdle in its push towards a digital euro, and they secured key backing from the European Parliament's economic committee, moving the project one step closer to becoming a reality—a scary reality, but we'll get into that. The ECB plans to begin a pilot program in 2027 of the digital euro, with a full roll out potentially coming by 2029. And again, what is interesting to me is how European officials are now increasingly framing this not just as like a tech upgrade, but as a way to reduce Europe's dependence on American financial infrastructure. Uh, they argue that Europe has become too reliant on US payment giants, Visa and Mastercard, which currently handle the majority of COD payments across the Euro zone and virtually all crossber transactions. And they say that the concern is that in a world of rising geopolitical tensions, Europe needs its own payment rails under European control. And the ECB says that a digital euro would give Europeans a central bank digital payment option that works across the Euro zone, both online and in person. And officials say that this strengthens what they call payment sovereignty. In other words, reducing reliance on non-European—let's call those American providers—and bringing more of the payment system under European, uh, control. It's, it's interesting that this is, you know, the language that they're using to push forward the central bank digital currency.
The ECB chief economist, Philip Plain, said Europe's dependence on American payment providers leaves it open to economic coercion. ECB board member Pierro Chupelone said the digital euro will reduce Europe's excessive dependence on non-European providers and provide a fully European infrastructure. Again, going on about how this is essential to increase European sovereignty. It's an anti-American disc. It, it's also a way to push forward a central bank digital currency, which comes with its many, many, many other concerns. But what do you make of the new spin on the, on the, on the narrative here as to why it's needed?
It's just spin doctring. It's taking advantage of, of the current atmosphere. You could replace Visa, Mascard with US Treasuries and, and, and, and gold instead. Um, I, I think that a central bank digital currency would have its own issues. I mean, you'd have to have fraud protection, a wallet, um, rewards, um, you know, when you buy something with American Express or Visa and it goes bad, you know it's going to be covered. They're going to take care of it. Is that the way it's going to go with the CBDC? Probably not. Um, they're not going to get rewards. You look at here with the Clarity Act already, you know, that is what they're going to try to do with rewards because interest is not, not transferable. But that's a CBDC, not a CBDC, that's a stable coin, private issuer stable coin. Um, look, I, I think that it could modestly reduce reliance on, on Visa or Mastercard, American Express, which is a US controlled payment network, but I don't know. It, I don't think it by itself eliminates the broader sources of the American financial influence, Michelle, because they're rooted in the, in the global role of the dollar, um, and the scale of the US financial markets to me on the retail side is far less likely to happen.
Now, that take a step back and look at what the BRICS are doing. On the other hand, they have something where I would agree with it. It's called BRICS Pay, and BRICS Pay is being rolled out as we speak throughout the Belt Road Initiative. BRICS Pay is a B2B and a BTOC business-to-business, business-to-consumer type of payment system that isn't connected to the Western payment systems like Visa and Mastercard, and it is a system that is not even compatible with Swift. This is a big deal. But the CBDC, on the other hand, to me, coming from the ECB, from the European...
Um, government that has been far more, I think, um, they've been less about free markets than the West has. I think I wouldn't take anything. I will remind people that a central bank digital currency does allow the government to track every single transaction,
But so too does a stable coin.
And can be programmable.
As is a stable coin.
Well, we'll get to stable coins, uh, and could be a major way to curtail freedom. And this also comes as this, uh, ECB, uh, and the EU push to have no cash transactions larger than €10,000 by 2030 as well. I wouldn't trust what they're saying. I think they're just playing against the anti-
Actually, by, by 2027. Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, they're, they're banning the cash transaction as of next year. You cannot have a businessto business cash transaction over €10,000 anymore.
It has less to do with breaking free from Western hegemony and far more to do with that control grid, u, entering the surveillance state. And they're ahead of us. You look at what's happening in, in England and France with privacy and, and, and First Amendment and, and the ability to say things, uh...
It's terrifying.
They don't have the First Amendment, but you know what I mean, freedom of speech. Um, I, I wouldn't trust a word that Kathleen Mcgard is saying. Not a word. Um, but I think it, it, it certainly appears where they're going.
Now, at the same time, you talk about here in the US, the stable coin largely issued by Tether. Well, they identified and blacklisted, um, wallets or accounts in Tether that were being used by the IRGC. They were able to identify it, uh, and able to actually blacklist the smart contracts at, at the smart contract level. So, even if they were pulled out of the wallets, you couldn't spend it. So, this is what Katherine Austin Fitz was saying to me, that it's a, it's a CBDC and a stable coin clothing because they're programmable. They, they run through the Treasury in and out of, and the ability not only to see what they've been doing, who they've been doing it with. The KYC (know your client), AML (anti-moneyaundering), and KYT (know your transaction) technology is already inherent to this program, to this technology. You add into it the ability to stop and program and cease to allow, um, the movement of money at the smart contract level, meaning you pulled it out of the wallet. It doesn't matter, you're still screwed. Um, that's what Katherine is talking about. And the reason that she was a little bit more freaked out by it than maybe just straight in your face CBDC is that it lulls people into a false sense of security.
Well, as the Europe is moving with their central bank digital currency, the US has explicitly moved against it, at least in terms of language. As we had Katherine Austin Fitz on the show, she was saying that this is a distraction. In fact, and stable coins effectively do the same thing. But, important to note that the US Senate has, in fact, just passed the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, which is a bipartisan housing bill aimed at increasing housing supply and limiting the role of large investors in the single-family home market. So, arguably, a very good bill there. Uh, and tucked inside that housing bill is a provision on central bank digital currencies that Republicans pushed for. They insisted that this be included in the bill to get it through. And basically, it blocks the Fed from issuing or creating a CBDC or anything substantially similar to a CBDC until the end of 2030. So, it's a temporary ban. Um, and it applies to whether the Fed tries to do it directly or indirectly through a bank, a financial institution, or another intermediary.
Now, Republicans, many of them, argue that this doesn't go far enough. Not only do you have the sunset clause, um, you know, this is only until 2030 anyway. Uh, there was also an executive order issued by President Trump that he signed, uh, very shortly after coming into office, directing his administration not to pursue a CBDC. But again, as we're saying, or as Katherine Rston Fitz has been saying, that we should not really take too much comfort in this because stable coins could effectively work in the same way. However, stable coins are private. They're not issued by the government, but you're maintaining that there's still a link there.
100%. They go in and out of the, the plumbing goes in and out of the Treasury Department. So, it is linked, and the ability for Tether to freeze and/or sanction or block the ability for the stable coins within those wallets to be used at the smart contract level, not even at the wallet level. Past that, whatever's in there is blocked. That's the same thing, in essence. And, um, you know, it wasn't too long ago where Leil Brainer, who was first at the Treasury and then worked at the Fed underneath Powell, was number two, the Vice Chair. She was, uh, at the Boston Fed, I believe she worked with MIT in, in development of the US government CBDC, which has now been mothballed. But I mean, the technology is there, and the ability to do these same things.
You know what Katherine was most upset about, at least the way I understood it, was that when the Clarity Act was being discussed—it's still being discussed—that they didn't put any verbiage in there saying this or the Genius Act that these stable coins cannot include programmability. They do, and they can, and Tether just proved that by identification of the IRGC wallets and, and freezing them. So, yeah, that's exactly what she is saying, and this is a third-party organization who, if the government wants you, they're going to come and get you, and the plumbing goes in and out of the, the Fed or of the Treasury. It's the same thing, only administered by a private entity that is highly regulated rather than by the US government itself. Although, arguably, we're talking about these transactions on a sovereign level, and there still is no way to coerce individuals to use...
stable coins for their transactions in the United States.
>> Not yet. But money, after January of next year, will all move via stable coin if it's not cash. That is the Genius Act. When money moves, it will be backed by stable coins and move like that. Um, that's what the Genius Act says. People won't notice a difference other than how fast money moves, but the traditional rails by which money moves are changing as of next year. Um, so you, we will be using it, not even knowing it, by default, in essence. Now, that's different than opening up an account and your private self opening up account and buying.
>> But again, as an individual, you would need to use a stable coin for these individual transactions?
>> Well, just moving your dollar will move via stable coin network. You won't even notice it.
>> Blockchain?
>> A blockchain network backed by stable coins. Yes, you won't even notice it other than how fast it moves. But that's not the same thing as opening an account with Tether or opening an account with a company that has a stable coin of some sort that you are buying personally. I'm talking when money moves, it will be moved via a blockchain network attached to stable coins backed by US treasuries. That is coming. And that's already the Genius Act, which says it goes into effect next January.
>> Yep. Uh, and we know that uh, Tether has been buying up to a billion dollars of gold per month. Even more,
>> More than anyone in the world except the central bank of Poland.
>> So, what does it tell you? We got central banks buying gold. Central banks saying, "Ah, we're going to keep our gold close to home or at least diversify where we keep our gold." We've got Tether, which is the world's biggest issuer of US stable coins, taking their money and buying gold.
>> And who's the CEO of USA Tether? Bo Hines, who was Trump's cryptosar through last August.
>> But, but what does it tell you that all of these big, big organizations go back to gold?
>> And do so in a manner that no one knows about, right?
>> Well, we know about it. We're talking about.
>> We are, but we aren't CBS or NBC or, you know, the mainstream has zero idea. Zero. Now, you know, even a year or two ago, Palunteer bought $50 million worth of gold. So, I mean, how many people know that? They publicly announced it very quietly. But the point of it is, is that that's been what I've been saying all along. Who's standing for delivery on the COMX every month for billions and billions? And even if it isn't leaving, a lot of it has left, more of it hasn't. But there, these are numbered bars instead of promises via warrant. And no one ever did that. So that no, no, I don't want the warrants, man. I want the number bars in my account. Thank you very much. That in and of itself tells you something far bigger is happening.
So you put it all together: the central bank spying, the massive deliveries, the massive deliveries out of the LBMA or even out of the Shanghai Metals Exchange, the expansion of the vaulting systems and clearing systems. All of these pieces together start to tell you that gold is coming full circle. Maybe not rhyming, but certainly, you know, um, or maybe not the exact same song, but it rhymes and it's it's similar. And I think, you know, what it represents is trust in a system that is really in need of something solid and trustworthy. And I guess that is the marriage of blockchain and something behind it. I think that is where we are going, and it tells me that um, that gold is far more important than price alone would would explain.
Well, echoing that sentiment, uh, a new advisory from Sonogen Society General, uh, they have uh, a big signal, um, and that is they're increasing their gold allocation in the multiasset portfolio up to 10%, up from 7% in the previous quarter. So, Sockgen is effectively saying, out of every $100 in its model portfolio, $10 should be allocated to gold. That's a big percentage coming from from a bank like that. And 10% is important because it's the bank's full strategic ceiling for gold. It's as high as they will go within this portfolio framework.
>> Don't forget, I don't mean to interrupt you, but you know, Morgan Stanley said $20 out of every 100 should go into gold. And Michael Hartnett, the analyst for Bank of America, know $25. And Black Rockck is saying the same thing, that the 60/40 model is broken and it's time to take half your bonds out of that 40%, make it 20% into commodities, largely gold and silver. There is a growing realization, I think, that um, tangible things, not just financialized assets, um, are becoming more relevant again. I mean, in the note, the analysts are saying that they're taking advantage of the dip. Uh, we return to a full waiting in gold, taking advantage of the recent draw down. Looking ahead, gold volatility may decline. The free tail participation, particularly through ETFs, eases off while central banks are likely to remain active buyers, particularly as part of their ongoing ddollarization drive and as institutions diversify further away from equities and bonds.
>> What does that tell you right there? Central banks are buying, ETFs are going down, except they're going up in China, but ETFs are going down here. It means the public is being misdirected elsewhere. And the big money, the central banks and the funds and the commercial banks, they know where the ball is going, and they are buying as this wash out, if you will, washed out all the open interest, washed out all the speculation, and washed out all the mainstream. Uh, and again, to your point about hot assets, they're saying um, that it's raising their broader commodity allocation uh, in general. So, gold commodities now make up 20% of the portfolio, the largest combined commodity allocation on record for the bank. Again,
>> As the price has been kneecapped, I mean, and you bring up great points, Michelle. Um, you do that in and of itself is huge because so many people think that this price draw down marks the end of the gold move. But the biggest money in the world, through deliveries and through their admissions and through their allocations, are saying the opposite.
>> They're saying, "No, let's take advantage of the straw down. They're saying this is exactly our moment to load up on more gold."
>> Well, that's just it. And you know, people will look at that and say, "Well, you know, you own a gold company, you're talking your book." No, I'm not. I mean, it's just obvious. And the biggest money in the world is going to misdirect the hell out of the public always and never be completely and totally transparent about what their intentions are. And um, if they could only tell the truth, I'm sure those numbers would even be higher.
Well, we're going to end on a somber note because we did lose one of the great uh, central bankers, and that is Alan Greenspan. He died earlier this week at the age of 100. Uh, he was for an entire generation of investors the face of monetary policy. I mean, Greenspan wasn't just the Federal Reserve chairman. He was uh, he toured the Fed from 1987 to 2006. He led the Fed for nearly two decades. Through the 1987 crash, the Asian financial crisis, the dotcom boom, the early years of the housing bubble, few central bankers have had a greater influence on modern markets.
And we'll get to his position on gold because he was a very big advocate of gold as a only way to really hedge against inflation. But many investors associate Greenspan with the Greenspan put, with this idea that if there's trouble, the Fed is going to step in and help because the Greenspan put then became the general Fed put, that the Federal Reserve would step in and rescue markets when necessary. And again, this was born after the October 1987 stock market crash. The Dow fell more than 22% in a single day. Greenspan had only been Fed chair for about two months, and he immediately responded, saying that the Fed is standing ready to provide liquidity to support the financial system, and the markets recovered.
And then, over time, investors began believing that whenever markets got into trouble, the Fed would step in. That expectation became known as the Greenspan put, which then became known as the Fed put, as I mentioned, and it fundamentally changed market behavior because instead of pricing risk normally, investors assumed that the Fed would rescue them. And now critics argue that this created moral hazard, that this contributed to the dotcom bubble, the housing bubble, excessive leverage, record debt levels, uh, repeated acid inflation that got us into the mess that we're in right now.
Uh, supporters argue that Greenspan did what he needed to do. He needed to prevent financial panics from becoming depressions, from becoming broader economic depressions that impact everyone. And that confidence was restored before panic spread into the broader economy. And thanks to his action, there was no banking collapse, no depression, no prolonged economic crisis. Market stabilized relatively quickly. So, they're saying a central bank should not just stand by and watch chaos unfold; they should step in. It's an interesting debate because again, it has been taken further and further by every subsequent Fed chair.
>> That's the problem.
>> So, what, what, what are, what are your thoughts on on Greenspan's legacy there, on the Greenspan put?
>> Well, you know, I think it's, it's, you have markets that trade on forward guidance and trade data, um, instead of in, instead of F. No forward guidance anymore with Kevin Worsh as the new head,
>> Right?
>> And, and so they're trading on forward guidance instead of real data, and, and that's a problem, and it's given a rise to irresponsibility by, you know, the big banks. Um, I, I'm excited to see if Worsh actually follows through with that. I really am. And, you know, because as it pertains to gold, it's often punished like now, where, you know, because the fundamentals, um, not because fundamentals have changed, but because traders are frontr running the Fed, thinking, "Well, if inflation is running hot and we're in the middle of war, which should be good for gold. Well, you know, the Fed is going to, going to do what they can to fight inflation, which is to raise rates or not lower them. So that's bad for gold." And all of these things, I think, are, are silly, and it's, um, it's an old system as far as I'm concerned, and, and triggering selling or buying because markets assume higher or lower rates. And so, in and of itself, I don't like that kind of um, Fed intervention.
I think, in fact, it's interesting if you look at this new guy, this Paul Winfrey, uh, who is now advising uh, Wars. His whole idea is that you tie gold to the system because it's the booms and the bust that we see are largely a result of the central bank interference. And so, when you use gold kind of as the, the guardrail or the governor to the system, it, it helps remove the booms and the busts that we typically would see via central bank intervention, lowering rates, raising rates, doing whatever they need to to do.
And you know, I think it's um, it's interesting when you look at some of the quotes that um, Greenspan wrote. Uh, "in the absence of the gold standard there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights." Um, maybe the, you know, the, he was rolling around with Anne Rand and um, in those circles, so he understood hard money. But I think, you know, one of the ones that I always clung to was that if gold was merely a barbarous relic, central banks would not continue holding large quantities of it. In fact, they continue to buy it. And um, you know, I, I think that um, it's too bad that a lot of us in the gold community kind of think of him as a sellout because in his early career he was very big about gold.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh, during his tenure as the Fed chair, he ran the biggest fiat system in the world and allowed it to get out of control. And, and then as he got older, um, he went back to it. And I think that he said something um, that caught my attention. He said, "Greenspack Greenspan argued late in life that many of today's fiscal problems would have been far less severe under a gold standard. Um, we never would have reached this position of extreme indebtedness were, were we on the gold standard." Yet, during his tenure as the Fed chair, he said, "There's no way we could be on a gold standard." So,
>> He's not wrong. I mean, both are right. Well, as as a fetcher, you call me,
>> As a fetcher, right? So, at some point, you know, you sell your soul, I guess. Uh, one of the things that I would never do, ever, and I mean this sincerely, ever, is to compromise my beliefs here running my business, and certainly at the highest level, I would, I would sooner say, "Thank you, but no thank you. I can't take this appointment if I had to completely go against my belief structure." And in essence, he did. And, and the beginning of his career before he was in the Fed and later in his life, he came out and more or less cited that. So,
>> Well, he did say a lot about gold uh, before he became Fed chair. That 1966 essay that he started to quote from, "Gold and Economic Freedom." He wrote, "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value other than gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process." And then again, after he resigned in 2014, he was asked about gold during the uh, during an interview uh, with the Council on Foreign Relations. And we can play that sound bite.
>> "Gold is a currency. It is still, by all evidences, the premier currency where no fired currency, including the dollar, can match it. And so that the issue is, if you're looking at a question of turmoil, you will find, as we always have in the past, it moves into the gold price. But the gold price is actually half a commodity price. So when the economy is weakening, it goes down like copper. But it's also got a monetary characteristic which is intrinsic. It's not inbredent to human beings. I cannot conceive of any mechanism by which you could say that. But it behaves as though it is intrinsic. Currencies like gold and silver, for example, are acceptable without a third party guarantee. For example, at the end of World War II, or just at the end of it, Germany could not import goods without payment in gold. Gold serves a very important place in monetary reserves. And the question is, why do central banks put money into an asset which has no rate of return but cost of storage and insurance and everything's less like that? Why are they doing that? If you look at the data, with a very few exceptions, all of the developed country have global reserves. Why? I mean, I don't know if there's a bigger endorsement I've ever heard than that."
>> Why?
>> Why indeed? And they're only increasing. They're
>> Both, man, clearing his conscience, man. That's what it is. He also came out and said that, you know, investment in gold now is insurance. It's not for short-term gain, but the long-term protection. He's clearing his conscience there. And he's right. He's right. And, and um, I don't know. I, I, I just think that everything he said is spot on. And you look at any time in history since 1971, when we closed the gold window, and measure an ounce of gold in dollar terms and look at what's happened to the value of the dollar. '71, $35 was an ounce of gold, and now it's, it's $4,100. It's lost 1,500 times, you know, percent, and um, or excuse me, 150. No, it would be 1500%. I think that's right. Is that right? Pretty sure that's right. Anyways, the point of it is, it's a big gain, and the dollar has lost a ton of its value. Any time in history, going back all the way forward, you will see the exact same thing. Anything you could buy with the dollar equivalent measured in gold, prices are, are going down.
Well, since the creation of the Fed, gold has lost 97%, if not more, of its purchasing power as measured by government data. And that's the government. You could argue the same thing really since 1971, pretty dang close to it. Um, when we, when we severed the gold tie, and you know, um, like I always say, in '63, when we were still on the gold backing for central banks, you know, my dad said to me, "Your mom and I, first year in marriage, could live comfortably on $6,000 a year." Well, you know what's happened? Has everything gotten that much more expensive, or has the dollar lost that much of its value? And it's, it's continuing and it's accelerating.
>> Again, this is a man that presided over the Fed for almost 20 years under four presidents, from Reagan to George W. Bush. Really became the face of monetary policy. 100 years. It's a good run. What is the Greenspan legacy to you? Is it irrational exuberance, his famous uh, words ahead of the housing bubble? Is it the fact that he believed in gold but yet, well, veered from that belief system as one would argue a Fed chair had no choice but to do? What, what is the Greenspan legacy in your mind?
>> I don't, I don't even know how to, to say it because to me, I think I look at him as a very smart man who sold out his beliefs um, and presided over,
>> Did he sell out his beliefs, though? I mean, this was the system. He, he couldn't reinstate a gold standard even if he wanted to as Fed's chair,
>> But he expanded the fiat system and allowed a lot of these, these booms and busts to happen. And to me, all the central bankers from him, Bernani, Yellen, all of them, they've done nothing to add any benefit to this system. In fact, they've distorted it and perverted it um, and created misallocations of resources, distortions in asset prices by suppression of interest rates. And really, that's really what it is. You look since he was Fed chair, since 1982, moving straight down at a 45 degree angle, you see interest rates until just recently. And those were controlled by the Federal Reserve, not by the market. So, by suppressing interest rates, it got us into the problems we have now.
Maybe it was because we were offshoring our manufacturing. So, we had to find a way to create prosperity or the illusion of prosperity. And that was through suppression of interest rates uh, rather than letting the market do its own work, like uh, like a fire in a forest. It's tragic. Animals and trees and things die. You come back five years later and it's healthier than ever, filled with life. Um, we've never let that forest fire to clean the underbrush, and, and it starts with suppression of interest rates, and, and Greenspan was as much to blame with that as anybody.
>> Well, yeah, he was focused on uh, fighting inflation over promoting full employment, and his supporters say he presided over the longest economic expansion in US history. Critics would say that his low interest rate policies set the stage. How do you expand the housing bubble?
>> That's exactly it. You expand through suppressing interest rates to create an illusion of wealth, of prosperity. And that's really the biggest problem of everything. That's how all of these, these issues of, of, of valuation have been distorted and perverted, you know, and what is something worth at 3%, 5%, 10%? Look what, what Paul Vulkar had to do in 1980. He was the last, the last politician with real courage who came in, and I don't know if you can call him a politician, but came in and raised rates to, you know, almost 20%, and, well, that had a lot to do with inflation and took care of it. So, um,
>> And we also saw what that did to gold prices,
>> And did to the market, and did to the bond market, and to the housing market, and to the employment situation. And it was, you know, higher rates is what this, this market, what this economy needs. But the reason they can't do it is because of the decades of perversion of low rates that created asset prices that are, will have a religious experience if they meet those kind of interest rates. The bond market would collapse. The stock market would collapse. The housing market would collapse. The banks that are loaded to uh, treasuries would collapse. The insurance companies and the pension funds would all collapse. This is what happens when you mess with mother nature. You mess with mother nature by letting the bankers control, the central bankers control the interest rates rather than letting the market say, "Well, there's risk there, and that risk, I think, deserves this rate." And all of those people looking at those fundamentals come to an agreement on what interest rates should be when controlled by the Federal Reserve.
Look, we had far less inflation, far more prosperity prior to 1913, I would argue on a, on a basis, on an, on an individual basis, than we have after the fact because it's, it's like you said, it's destroyed the value of our currency. And saving in dollars really is not a way to, to prosperity. So, you're forced into investment, which then pushes the stock market higher. And um, I don't know. And by suppressing interest rates, pushes the bond market higher. This is all synthetic and orchestrated. And these problems have to be resolved at some point. And normally it would be by raising interest rates. You do that now. Well, you know, that's a whole another, a whole another ball of wax that, that we'd have to deal with. But maybe that's in our future. Maybe the market says, "Enough of this." Rates have to go higher. And you see what happens.
There are those with their infinite wisdom that think if the Fed doesn't lower rates, gold can't go higher. It's the dumbest thing in the world. We've been, I think, um, brainwashed into believing that the Fed has to come in and rescue, rescue the day. Well, that's exactly the, the feelings that the big bankers have had forever. They gamble and gamble and gamble, and, you know, if they hit it big, they get huge bonuses, and if they screw up, well, the Fed will bail them out.
>> Hence the Greenspan push,
>> Right?
>> And that's the problem. And, and that has to end. And maybe Wars is finally, has the courage to do that. But we'll see how much courage he has when, you know, unemployment is raging and Congress is screaming and people are losing their jobs and, you know, the stock market's tanking. And will he have the courage to stay that path? Don't know. We'll see.
>> Well, I know that the majority of our viewers would say that the solution is to just end the Fed,
>> Right?
>> Well, then that wouldn't be so easy either because now you have price discovery being done so by the market. It would be the healthiest thing to do,
>> But it would be very painful. Um, because who is going to buy our treasuries right now in the absence of the Federal Reserve or in the absence of the United Kingdom and, and uh, the Cayman Islands? Um, you know, these countries that are buying our treasuries, which is silly. Um, and you know, you look at Japan, they were forced to buy treasuries right now. They need to only because it is the collateral by which the system works. They're not buying it for the yield. Um, and I think that this is a system that is um, sick at its very core. It's, it's sick. And I don't know what the, what the ultimate outcome is, but certainly Worsh is right when he says that the markets need to react on real, up-to-the-moment information, not, not frontr run what they expect the Fed to do in reaction to inflation or to, to deflation or whatever it is that they are reacting to. And, and the big traders know this, and then they frontr run the public, and it's created a situation that is,
>> Just not, I don't think it's not sustainable.
>> The tail wagging the dog.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Well, he said there's going to be regime change under his uh, chairmanship of the Fed. He's started these five task forces to look at everything. I mean, we'll, we'll see. But the point uh, of that you just made of people preempting what the Fed will do and this vicious cycle, that's, that'll be interesting to see if it changes. What do you think the Fed under wash means for gold then?
I mean, ultimately, I see gold moving higher because of the mechanism that I'm focusing on, and that is the Genius Act, suppressing the front end of the curve, the interest not being transferable, central banks continuing to buy it, and rising gold is the one, gold is the one neutral reserve asset, the one neutral barometer by which we measure anything. And so, rising gold is good not only for all the world's central banks, not only for the United States, but it also devalues the dollar, allows us to bring back manufacturing. I think it's actually what the US government wants at this point.
Now, maybe they're the ones that are at the kind of at the forefront of bringing the paper price down right now so they can stand for delivery easily. Could it be, could it be that the people that are really trying to stand for delivery have the ability to create money, suppress the forward uh, futures price, and then say, "We're going to take the actual physical bars this time. Thank you." The numbered bars, please, not the warrants. Could it be? Just saying. Uh, I think it could. Why not? Who's going to slap their wrist? Um, or certainly the big in the no traders that are doing that.
So, because it doesn't make sense to me in this environment that gold and silver wouldn't be flying. It is that counterintuitive behavior of gold and silver that really is too much for most people to deal with. And uh, but if you take a step back and see the deliveries, the, the rhetoric by some of these very large institutions that are quietly speaking their intentions, I think betray the price. Um, I can't see any, any way that gold and silver don't go ultimately, mostly gold especially, ultimately go higher. And I am not disparaging silver. I just think gold is, is going to be vital in the global monetary system. Silver will come along for the ride. But I think ultimately gold will be the one asset that is agreed upon globally as that one neutral barometer, that one neutral reserve asset that allows everyone to agree upon this is something that I would take for settlement. It just seems to be that's the way it's going.
>> And we will leave it on that note. Gold is a neutral reserve asset, a topic that we explore at length on this show, on your show, and I'm sure we will continue to do so. Let's see if uh, these new offerings from the mint mean anything, if they're part of this uh, puzzle we're putting together. It
>> It is, it is a bizarre one for sure. I have never seen anything like it. So, we'll see what happens. And I thought it was a mistake. They would take it off. It's still on there today. So, $700 plus bucks for 1 ounce silver coin, $10,000 for a half ounce gold, and $20,000 for a 1 ounce. I don't know. Never seen anything like that. We'll see.
>> We'll see. Maybe the mint knows something that we don't, but we will soon find out. Andy, always good chatting with you. Thank you.
>> You too. Thanks, Michelle.
>> All right. Thank you. And as always, a big thank you to all of you for watching. Remember, if you have not yet, please subscribe to our channel. Also, we have a newsletter with special offers and insights that you do not want to miss. You can sign up at the link at the bottom of this interview. And as always, we do love to hear from you. We do read your comments. So, feel free to praise, whine, or just pine. We'll see you next time. Until then, stay sovereign.
>> This is the real story with Michelle McCori.