Transcription
Gold went down during the war, whether or not gold is even a safe haven anymore. Foreign central banks aren't buying, government trust funds are selling. Who's going to buy? Is the public a big buyer? No, the gold is the future of blockchain, not Bitcoin. Interest rates go up this year. If markets move, what moves the most? Well, I think when the Fed starts to raise rates, I would expect gold to go up. Buy the rumor, sell the fact. Between now and the first rate cut, we could have a big drop in the stock market. We could get some really negative economic data. We can get some very weak jobs reports. And then the Fed takes the rate hikes off the table. And that's really going to send gold uh through the roof. No, he can't shrink the balance sheet. He's going to expand the balance sheet. In fact, it expanded last week. The government should be cutting social security, Medicare, national defense, government pensions, all farm subsidies. All this stuff should be cut. Donald Trump wants houses to get more expensive because he wants the older people to stay rich or to feel rich. >> We're going to keep them wealthy. We're going to keep those prices up. We're not going to destroy the value of their homes. >> If the market collapses, if the housing market collapses, we go into a recession. So may >> We have to bring up gold and silver then since you brought up the GDX is still up from 1 year ago, even though it is down on the year. >> calendar year, yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah, yeah, exactly. From 12 months ago, calendar year, it is down. Why Why is the sentiment in gold and miners so low right now? I've talked to a lot of people and if you look at, you know, if you just zoom out over the last seven to eight and to to 12 months, it's done quite well. It's just a bit of a pull back from this really euphoric period here. What What's What's been going on, yeah?
>> Poor sentiment has defined the entirety of the bull market. I mean I mean investors were never excited about the mining stocks because they never believed the rally in gold and silver. And I think what's really caused this sentiment to get negative, not just the new idea that we have a hawkish Fed that's going to, you know, come out swinging with these rate hikes, but the fact that gold went down during the war is leading a lot of people to question whether or not gold is even a safe haven anymore. Like, "Hey, why did it go down? Why didn't it go up?" And they overlooked the fact that it went up so much before the war. It already priced the war in before the war happened. And by the time the war happened, it was to buy the rumor, sell the fact. Plus, gold was so overbought going into the war. I believe had we started the war and gold was still around 3,000 and silver was still around 30, both would have gone way up during the war.
>> Markets pulled back, but investor confidence collapsed far more than price ever did. As Peter Schiff points out here, sentiment turned negative precisely because gold failed to behave the way headlines trained people to expect during geopolitical stress. The overlooked detail is that markets often front-run fear long before television narratives catch up. For wealth preservation investors, mistaking consolidation for failure is how positions get transferred from patient holders to institutions. Next, Peter Schiff reveals the timing of gold's reaction contradicts the public safe haven narrative entirely.
>> The only reason they didn't The only reason they came down is because they went up so much right before the war started. But that's created a lot of false uh negative sentiment on the metals that, "Hey, they don't work anymore." And a lot of the gold enthusiasm over the past decade was stolen by crypto and Bitcoin. And that's where all the action was. That's where all the hype was, all the Wall Street money, all the political clout was being concentrated on Bitcoin, and that stole a lot of gold's thunder. But I think as the air really comes out of this Bitcoin bubble, and it's coming out, it's just going to come out faster, and more people are going to recognize it. Right now, your typical Bitcoin guy is like a deer in a headlight. He doesn't even realize what's coming. He's just frozen. Uh but they're all going to get hit by a Mack truck. And and and and that's going to take the spotlight off of Bitcoin and put it right back on gold where it belongs. And I think to the extent that crypto is going to be a part of it, it's going to be about tokenized gold. You know, gold is the future of blockchain, not Bitcoin. Instead of being gold obsolete, blockchain makes gold better. It makes it more fungible, more divisible, more portable. It makes gold better money. Bitcoin was never money. Even though it was on a blockchain, it wasn't money. Gold's been money, but now when you tokenize it, it becomes even better money. It does everything that Bitcoin promises to do but can't.
>> Yeah, but even the World Gold Council is participating in exactly this, by the way. I I spoke to a David Tait at the Consensus Miami conference. Okay, so
>> Wall Street really abandons a narrative until the next one is already funded. According to Peter Schiff, speculative capital pulled attention away from metals and created the illusion that monetary history had changed. The deeper question is whether institutions ever replace gold at all or simply used volatility to redirect retail enthusiasm elsewhere. Investors protecting purchasing power should watch where custody, settlement, and reserve structures evolve, not where excitement peaks. Next, Peter Schiff reveals the hidden transition forming between digital rails and hard asset credibility.
>> Interest rates go up this year. Suppose the Fed raises rates, what is the biggest thing to re-rate? In other words, if markets move, what moves the most?
>> Well, I think when the Fed starts to raise rates, I would expect gold to go up. You know, just buy the rumor, sell the fact. Everybody knows they're going to raise rates, so get it over with. Uh because once they start raising rates, the focus will be that is not enough. And that it's going to weaken the economy. And that's going to create bigger budget deficits. And that's going to be good for gold. Uh, so I think by the time we do get a rate cut, gold's going to go up. But we may not get a rate cut. Because between now and the first rate cut, we could have a big drop in the stock market. We could get some really negative economic data. We can get some very weak jobs reports. And then that takes the rate hikes off the table. And that's really going to set gold uh, through the roof.
>> So going back to bringing it back to home, the Fed has to raise interest rates to combat inflation, but they can't raise it too much or else the bond market's going to break and the economy is going to uh, crack. So what what
>> not just raise interest rates. They got to keep If they don't keep printing money, the balance sheet is still expanding. Look at what's going on. They have to keep buying bonds. They have to keep doing quantitative easing. Because if they don't buy these bonds, who will?
>> I think that might be the key difference between Warsh and Powell.
>> This same sequence has repeated before major repricings. Rate expectations peak just before confidence cracks. What Peter Schiff is highlighting is that markets care less about the first hike and more about whether policy makers can survive the consequences of tightening. If growth weakens while deficits expand, the narrative shifts from fighting inflation to managing instability. Savers who focus only on headline rates risk missing the balance sheet story entirely. Next, Peter Schiff unravels why the market may fear policy restraint more than inflation itself.
>> This is just my take. I don't know if I'm wrong, but remember how Warsh back in 2011 protested against QE and he left. Maybe he doesn't like
>> it. Yes.
>> It wasn't It wasn't brought up at the last FOMC that they're going to shrink the balance sheet, but do you think that's his next move?
>> No, he can't shrink the balance sheet. He's going to expand the balance sheet. In fact, it expanded last week. If he wants to shrink it, why isn't he shrinking it right now? In fact, what he what he's doing is he's setting up a task force to study the problem. Right, he doesn't actually want to uh solve it because the the government is running deficits now of like 3 to 4 trillion a year. If you look at what we're spending versus what we're collecting. Where's the government going to get that money? The only store to be the Fed. The Fed is going to have to buy a lot more government debt. Uh and it's going to create money out of thin air. It's going to create inflation in order to do it. Otherwise, long-term interest rates are going to soar. Because if we have to find private buyers, cuz who's going to buy? Remember, the big Who are the big buyers of Treasuries? It was foreign central banks. They're not big buyers. It was US government trust funds. Social Security trust fund. They're They're sellers now. The Social Security trust fund sells US Treasuries every year. It's not a buyer. It's a seller. Uh so, foreign central banks aren't buying. Government trust funds are selling. Who's going to buy? Is the public a big buyer? No, the public's not buying Treasuries in a big way. They They don't have any money anyway. The The average American is broke.
>> The Fed talks about discipline while the system quietly depends on continued expansion. Peter Schiff's argument suggests the real constraint is not inflation targets, but debt absorption capacity. The contradiction appears when officials discuss normalization while balance sheet support remains structurally necessary. For long-term investors, the danger is assuming policy language matters more than funding mechanics. Next, Peter Schiff reveals the institutional dependency nobody wants priced into bond markets.
>> have any money for Treasuries. But when the average American decides to invest, he doesn't want to invest for 4% yield. They're They're buying SpaceX. Yeah. They They they they they they want to go to the moon. Right? They They don't They don't want to clip a 4% 5% coupon. Even if treasuries were 6% or 7%. They They don't want that.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I There's just no demand there. The Fed is going to supply it. Now, it shouldn't. The Fed should allow the collapse. The Fed should force the government to cut spending. The government should be cutting Social Security, Medicare, national defense, government pensions, all farm subsidies. All this stuff should be cut. And if the Fed refused to buy all this debt, it would be cut. But, you know, the Fed's not going to do that. The The Fed is going to cooperate and enable the profligacy just like it's done, you know, since Greenspan.
>> Well, what's a more important tool for fighting inflation? Monetary The money supply, which is the balance sheet size, or interest rates?
>> Well, both, actually. I think the money supply. And And And they kind of go together. Um but, remember, inflation is about an expansion of money and credit. So, the reason that prices go up when you have inflation is because there's more money chasing a supply of goods. Well, you can buy goods with credit. You don't need money. I can go I can have no money. I can go into a store and I can buy all kinds of stuff even though I have no money. I can use credit. And so, credit acts like money in an economy. And so, inflation is an expansion of money and credit.
>> When speculation becomes more attractive than lending, capital markets start signaling stress before economists do. This is where Peter Schiff's thesis shifts from rates to incentives and asks whether demand for debt still exists without intervention. Credit expansion can disguise scarcity for years, then unwind suddenly. Investors focused on preserving purchasing power should pay attention to who funds deficits, not who comments on them. Next, Peter Schiff exposes why credit creation may be masking a deeper erosion in real wealth.
>> You get more credit, you get more money, you get higher prices. The Fed is basically controlling that. Controls the money supply, controls the price of credit. And and so we've had artificially low interest rates and an expanding balance sheet. That's been the source of our inflation. In order to deflate, we need to shrink the balance sheet and let interest rates go up. But if we do that, the whole house of cards that was erected on top of all that cheap money is going to come crashing down.
>> So
>> And that is That's what nobody wants. Like Donald Trump, when you talk to Donald Trump about housing,
>> Mhm.
>> he says he wants housing prices to keep rising, even though they're already unaffordable and first-time home buyers are now 40 years old because that's that's how old they have to be before they can afford to overpay for a house. Donald Trump wants houses to get more expensive because he wants the older people to stay rich or to feel rich. He wants people who bought their homes 20, 30 years ago at a much lower price to stay rich on paper. And he doesn't want uh the prices to come down. Well, if mortgage rates go up to 8, 10%, 12%, I mean, they have to come crashing down. Uh and that's where they would go. They would probably go higher than that if the Fed did the right thing.
>> This is actually what he said. So, this is You're You're right. I just I I I just pulled this up as you were mentioning this.
>> That said though is uh again, existing housing, people that own their homes, we're going to keep them wealthy. We're going to keep those prices up. We're not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn't work very hard can buy a home. We're going to
>> The public is told inflation hurts affordability while policies increasingly prioritize protecting asset values. As Peter Schiff points out here, the conflict is not between growth and recession. It is between preserving paper wealth and restoring purchasing power. If balance sheet expansion remains politically easier than allowing repricing, inflation pressure becomes structural rather than temporary. For long-term investors, nominal gains can hide deteriorating real wealth. Next, Peter Schiff reveals why keeping assets elevated may quietly transfer costs to consumers instead.
>> We're going to get We're going to make it easier to buy. We're going to get interest rates down, but I want to protect the people that for the first time in their lives feel good about themselves. They feel like they've
>> How's he going to do that? He's going to He's going to make it more affordable for people to buy homes but also stop people from owning homes to have their wealth collapse.
>> wants to make it easier to overpay for homes by getting mortgage rates down so you can borrow more money to overpay for a house instead of letting the house price come back down. See, he wants people who are benefiting from a bubble. There's a housing bubble and he's like, "I don't want the housing bubble to pop because then the people who are benefiting from the bubble won't be as rich."
>> That's right.
>> Well, they never should have been this rich. They did And it's all on paper. What is a house worth that you can't sell? Because ultimately, the house is worth what the buyer can afford to pay. And if you want to pretend your house is worth a million dollars, but the highest offer you've ever got was 700,000, your house ain't worth a million. I don't care what you think it's worth. If you can't sell it for a million, it's not worth a million.
>> Is he right though? It's not just houses. The wealthy people own stocks. If the market collapses, if the housing market collapses, we go into a recession. So maybe he's got a point there.
>> Well, he's got a point. The solution involves bursting a lot of bubbles. And so asset prices have to come down. But since he doesn't want asset prices to come down, goods prices are going to go up instead.
>> Mhm.
>> And so real asset prices are going to fall no matter what the president does.
>> Housing only feels safe until affordability and valuation stop moving together. According to Peter Schiff, lower borrowing costs can preserve prices temporarily, but cannot create lasting purchasing power. The harder question is whether policy is defending homeowners or defending the perception of prosperity. Savers relying on inflated asset values may discover inflation performs the correction more quietly than markets do. Next, Peter Schiff unravels the hidden trade-off between protecting balance sheets and preserving living standards.
>> But if he can keep asset prices propped up if he has the the help of the Fed. But then consumer prices go up. So instead of your house losing half its value, everything you want to buy doubles. And so it seems like your house has lost half its value because, you know, everything is twice as expensive and your house stayed the same, right? So um but they they they can't create real wealth out of thin air. Yeah, they could they could play around with the numbers by creating inflation. And they can make people feel that they're richer. Oh, look, look, I have a million-dollar house. Okay, you have a million-dollar house, but you have a $10,000 box of cereal in the in in in in the pantry. What is that million-dollar house worth?
>> What would you do? Let's say Trump invites you to be the next Fed chair. He says, "Peter Schiff, you're you're you're you've got Kevin Warsh's job." I mean, you're you're in a quandary here, right? You you can't raise interest rates too high
>> well, he already called me a Yeah. He already called me a loser and an and an and an idiot.
>> [laughter]
>> So, I don't I don't think he's going to appoint me. Um but look, if I was chairman of the Federal Reserve, yeah, that that that that the buck would stop with me. I mean, I would basically, you know, let everybody know the Fed is no longer uh in the business of monetizing government debt. There is no Fed put in the market. If the market drops, the market drops.
>> Okay, so the moment you say that, we're going to get a two like a 700-point drop in the Dow.
>> Oh, probably more than that.
>> Asset prices can rise for years while purchasing power quietly moves the other direction. What Peter Schiff is highlighting is that inflation can become a political substitute for market correction because it hides losses in nominal terms. The institutional dilemma appears when supporting valuation starts weakening currency confidence. Investors protecting wealth should measure outcomes in real terms, not account statements. Next, Peter Schiff exposes what happens when policy support collides with market pricing.
>> Probably [laughter] more than that. It'll drop a lot more than that.
>> You're you're okay with that as Fed chair like hypothetically like I mean, wouldn't that just have a huge ripple effect on the entire economy if the wealth effect holds?
>> Yeah. Well, yeah. Well, it's like do I want to rip the Band-Aid off or do I want to peel it off slowly? Yeah, look, I want to get it over with. I I look, I know it's going to be bad. It's just going to be worse if we don't do it. And had we done it my way, had they made me Fed chair 20 years ago and I would have done the right thing, we would be in great shape right now. And it wouldn't have been as painful to do it 20 years ago as it's going to be to do it now, but that doesn't mean you don't do it.
>> Alan Greenspan passed away. Alan Greenspan passed away today. What what was his legacy?
>> Well, he wrote the playbook that everybody is following. I I he was the the architect of the house of cards that collapsed in 2008. I blamed him for the 2008 financial crisis years before the crisis happened. Because I knew that his policy mistakes were setting us up for that crisis. And it blew up on Bernanke, but Greenspan created the problem. And I knew it and I described it for years before it blew up. Um but then uh Powell, I mean, not Powell, uh Bernanke, then Yellen, then Powell all followed the Greenspan playbook to kick the can down the road and keep interest rates artificially low and you know, they expanded the balance sheet and put us in this situation that we're in today. I mean, a a real crash, which was the topic of one of my books, you can see on my desk there, but the real crash is coming. And it's because of Greenspan and the playbook that he wrote that every predecessor and I believe it will include Warsh uh are going to follow.
>> The uncomfortable truth is that delaying correction often increases the size of the eventual reset. Peter Schiff's argument suggests the real policy divide is not growth versus recession, but immediate pain versus accumulated fragility. History shows markets tolerate discipline early and punish avoidance later. For long-term wealth preservation, the danger is assuming postponement lowers cost when it often compounds it. Next, Peter Schiff reveals why the policy framework built after 2008 may now be creating the next instability.
>> Going back to markets, we'll finish off in the last segment here. The uh you once told the media you'd be a lot richer if you had invested all your money in the Max 7 a decade ago. Uh while that was a decade ago. We can't turn back time. How what are you doing for the next decade? If the max 7 did this well in the last decade, I mean, it's not too late, Peter. What did you rotate now?
>> Yeah, that's like, you know, yeah, I would have I would be a lot richer if 15 years ago I put all my money in Bitcoin. I didn't do that either. Sure. But that doesn't mean I'm going to do it now or even a few years ago cuz Bitcoin is, you know, lower now than it was 4 or 5 years ago. So, I was wrong from a, you know, trader's position. I don't think I've ever been wrong on Bitcoin in my in my fundamental understanding of it. But as a trader, yeah, I could have made a great trade. I could have bought some of this crap 15 years ago and sold it 5 years ago and I, you know, made made a fortune. I didn't do that. Um and I didn't do, you know, the same thing with, you know, obviously a lot of these AI stocks. Now, I own a couple of them. I own some I I have a stock I'm up almost 100 X in. I mean, it may be 100 X. So, I I've I've got some money. But when I bought this stock, I didn't even know it was an AI stock. I mean, it wasn't when I bought it. It kind of became one.
>> Yeah.
>> And and so, I I I got a I got a little taste of it.
>> The biggest missed opportunity is rarely what destroys portfolios. The chase after what usually does. This is where Peter Schiff's thesis shifts from performance envy to capital survival across cycles. Investors often confuse identifying excess with timing excess, then abandon discipline near the end of trends. People protecting wealth should ask what still offers asymmetric value after enthusiasm becomes consensus. Next, Peter Schiff exposes why the next decade may reward durability more than momentum.
>> But yeah, I mean, obviously I could have made a lot more had I put a more substantial percentage of the portfolio into um these names. But I, you know, I'm more of a value investor. I I I'm not buying into hype and and and I'm trying to, you know, win it, you know, like like the tortoise, not not the hare, right? I I want I want to win and cross the finish line. I don't want to, you know, run out of breath and drop dead, you know, having the lead, you know, you know, most of the way and then I don't make it. Um so, I'm still buying what I've been buying, which is, you know, precious metals, mining stocks, commodity stocks in general, energy, agriculture, emerging markets, uh value, dividend-paying companies, foreign stocks.
>> Mhm.
>> Um and, you know, I had a great year last year. Uh best year I've had in, I don't know, maybe my career on the long side.
>> Yeah.
>> And I think that was a breakout year. And um, you know, a bit of a pull back. Still, I think we're still beating the US market year-to-date with international stocks. Uh gold stocks though now are now negative, um but not much. But, I think they're going to end up beating the S&P on the year. I think they'll end up beating the Nasdaq on the year, too. So, we'll see how, you know, how the rest of the year plays out, uh but it's not quite half over yet.
>> Markets celebrate acceleration, but durable wealth is usually built in periods nobody wants to own. According to Peter Schiff, value, commodities, and real assets remain overlooked precisely because they lack the excitement premium. The contradiction is that institutions often accumulate quietly, while public attention stays fixed on recent winners. Investors thinking in decades should separate popularity from positioning.