The System Isn’t Broken - It’s Rigged | Lyn Alden

Do you believe we're living through a slow financial collapse that the majority of people don't even recognize is happening?

I do. Yeah. And people kind of look around and say, "Why why does it seem like everything's more expensive? I'm still earning money, but it just doesn't feel like it goes as far." And a lot of times they're right. Every currency system in the world has to grow or die, at least the way they're currently designed. People feel it not just through taxes, but then through their wages getting debased, uh, and their savings, if if they're holding currency and bonds, getting debased. Uh, and you kind of keep keep adding new layers to the system, um, until by the end, it resembles theft. The best product Coca-Cola ever sold was their bonds, not their code. And what they're basically doing is they're shorting the currency. You know, they're literally shorting the thing that you're holding in your bank account and that you're saving in. Um, governments are shorting it, corporations are shorting it, wealthy individuals are shorting it. The system is based on having people hold the currency and the bonds while other people are literally shorting it. And the the least able to short it are, ironically, those at the at the bottom of the income stack. So, they're kind of getting the full damage of the inflation. So they're socializing the debt that the private sector has built up onto the public to protect the private sector to keep the economy going.

Take the risk away, um, and and lock in all the gains you've had, uh, and socialize the the losses. Once you get to the part where there's this much debt on the sovereign ledger, there's really no way out of it other than they're going to default. Afternoon, Lynn. I think we might be about to make the most important podcast of the year.

Ready?

I don't know about that, but I'll do my best.

I think I think we're going to do it. So, okay. Do you believe we're living through a slow financial collapse that the majority of people don't even recognize is happening?

I do. Yeah. Uh, and that's actually one of the the talks I gave at your conference. Uh, like, what I focused on is people always ask me, like, when, for example, will the kind of sovereign debt crisis like matter? When will you know, we talk about $39 trillion in US debt and all the debt that the UK has in other countries? When will that matter? In my view, it has been mattering. I mean, it's already the case that currency and bonds have underperformed most other assets, just because they've been devalued. And all of the kind of a lot of the rising populism we see, uh, in the US and Europe, a lot of it stems back to basically our our financial systems, uh, and kind of the imbalances that those have built, uh, uh, for years and decades now.

I think a lot of people listening might not even understand how currency works, how bonds work. How would you explain the financial system to them so they can understand the current state?

I would say that it's one giant ledger. So, in a given country, the central bank runs a ledger. Um, and then it's really a two-tier ledger. So, the central bank runs kind of the base ledger, and then commercial banks build on top of that ledger, and then they fractional reserve, uh, currency by lending it out. Uh, and so they they have something like five times more currency outstanding that's backed by like a smaller amount of base money. And so both the central bank, uh, as well as commercial banks can can basically create more money. Although only the central bank can create the base money. Uh, and the challenge is, um, all the debt builds on top of that, and you have to trust the the runs who who run the central bank, who run the government, to be able to manage that ledger properly. Um, and, you know, we think of paying taxes, and then and then the government spends, you know, and does services and stuff. Um, but they almost never kind of, uh, you know, meet the difference. Like, they they always have kind of not enough taxes and and way too much spending. Um, and no matter how much they they raise, they always kind of have a deficit. And so, in practice, uh, that gets kind of leaked out into the currency. So they they they over time, they monetize, meaning they they create new money to buy some government bonds, uh, to create more, uh, money in the system. And so people feel it not just through taxes, but then through their wages getting debased, uh, and their savings, if if they're holding currency and bonds, getting debased. And we'd kind of survived okay with this system up until say 2008. Um, some people were able to outperform what was happening with the currency. But recently, I speak to a lot of people, and everyone said life is just getting a lot harder, and they don't really understand why. Is this us living through the tail end of the system?

I think that this phase could go on for quite a while. Um, but I do think that we are at the more rocky part of it. Uh, and what's remarkable is, like, it it seems normal now, but the system is actually pretty young. I mean, it really, in the current form, it only really came into being in the early '70s. I mean, it's not that much older than than we are. Many, many people watching this have been around since before this current system was in place. Before that, of course, it was based on on precious metals. So, there was kind of like another layer below everything. Now, there's not. Um, and that even the central banking system itself, it goes back further, but still not that that long in the current form. Uh, so it's kind of like this has been this grand experiment that the whole world has done. Uh, basically, can, as a nation, instead of relying on a natural ledger, like, you know, precious metals that we don't, we don't really have the rules for. We have to just mine it and do things like that. Can we run our own ledger, you know, millions of people in a country, and and of course, our politicians can they run a ledger and sustain it over the long term? And the answer so far is that in almost every country, imbalances slowly grow, uh, and it comes out. We we see it in debt levels, but then we do see it usually in rising populism and other issues like that. But I I do think that this phase, even though we are far into it, is probably going to last longer than people think.

So, we're about 55 years into this current experiment, and when you talk about precious metals and things changing in the '70s, again, I think some people might not even know what you mean. I think a lot of people will expect this is always been the system, a system of money, but not understand that previously the money was backed by gold. Do you want to explain that?

Uh, sure. I mean, for, I mean, depends how far you want to go back, but basically for thousands of years, um, people have wanted something liquid, divisible, uh, and fairly scarce that they can use on one side of every transaction. So, instead of having to to barter for things or just kind of promise to to exchange something later, you can have a money that, um, kind of serves as one side of every transaction. Just makes things easier instead of trying to figure out how much grain I got to give you for a shelter, for example. It's not really feasible. Uh, and for a long, you know, for shells were were early, like shell jewelry was an early example that many used. Um, but of course, as technology got better and as kind of cultures all kind of ran into each other, and some were more, um, technological, and they could devalue each other's money, the world really settled on gold and silver as generally the best kind of natural ledgers, uh, just because they're scarce, they're long-lasting, they're verifiable, uh, they're fairly divisible, especially silver. One of the challenges with gold is you can only kind of break it into, you know, a piece small enough that still might be pretty valuable. So that's often why silver was kind of used along with it. Uh, and so for for, uh, thousands of years, uh, gold coinage and other types of of precious metal, um, storage has been used as kind of a universal store of value and payments. Um, but then ever since, you know, because it's it's very costly to move that around, to audit it all the time, for centuries, we've had layers built on top of that that are representations for gold and silver. And so, for example, you have a bank note, or you'll have any some other account, uh, that basically represents, this is how many ounces equivalent you have, and you just kind of tell your bank to to, you know, debit your account and, uh, credit someone else's. And so for centuries, ran on that system, until all around the world, governments got kind of, uh, constrained by it. They didn't want to, especially in World War I, they got constrained by how much, uh, their finances they could kind of, um, spend while still having that backing. So, between, you know, kind of the aftermath of World War I, and then especially into the '30s and '40s, they started to gradually decouple from precious metals. It wasn't like one in individual time. First, it was like a devaluation. Uh, and then they would say, depends on the country, but they would say things like, "Okay, so it's still backed by gold, but not for normal people." Like, if if a large foreign entity wants to exchange, you know, some some currency for gold, we'll do that, but not the normal person. And then over time, in the '70s, even that last peg was defaulted on. So we can consider a default, basically. So now, in instead of being based on precious metals and these other layers on top of it, we just have a ledger. It's just a computer system. It's just kind of a a list of ones and zeros that we use for our money.

So gold was a constraint on how much money the government could create?

Uh, more or less, as long as they wanted to keep it backed. Now, even in that system, it was still fractional reserve. And that's, I mean, that was kind of the the Achilles' heel of the whole thing, is that, um, you know, if you have a lot of gold and you give it to a bank, uh, you know, if it's a pure custodian, they'll just hold the gold for you. Like, if you have a safe deposit box, you've got very specific things in it, and they can't they can't like lend those out because you you can come back anytime and get your specific things back. But if it's something fungible, meaning kind of pretty interchangeable, like gold, if you go and deposit gold in a bank, the bank might say, "Okay, we have a thousand customers. We're holding, you know, all these all these ounces of gold." At any given year, only 10% of the customers ever really want all their gold back. So maybe we could lend some of it out, uh, and and generate a return on this. Uh, and by doing so, we can actually eliminate the cost for the depositor. Instead of charging them to to secure their gold, uh, we can actually pay them a little bit of interest. So we can, you know, get more people to come to our bank and deposit with us, not with our competitor, and we can lend it out. But then the problem, of course, is that you have all these IOU's for gold, uh, in the economy when all the different banks and custodians are doing this, and those IOU's greatly exceed how much gold there actually is. Uh, and then the government, of course, themselves also run into the issue where they, um, you know, they spend more than they tax, so they build up debt. Uh, and eventually, uh, when both the commercial banking system is kind of overleveraged, and when the government's overleveraged, they they kind of say, "Okay, we messed up." Uh, but it's, you know, it's due to this other factor that, you know, it's you can point to war, you can point to something else, and you say, "Well, now, uh, every IOU is only worth half as much gold as it was before." And so you kind of do these devaluations. So it's the ill discipline of government, its inability to keep to a budget, which is devaluing the money.

Yes. Uh, that, and just the, I would actually say it's even more fundamental than that. Uh, basically, ever since, and this is where it gets a little technical. I've argued in my book, "Broken Money," that what really kind of ushered in the modern age of money was the, um, uh, like the telecoms. Like, as soon as we had the telegraph, the telephone, as soon as we could do long-distance information transfer, which is basically the late 1800s, we opened this door where you could do fast transactions around the world, but we had no way to settle value quickly. So, prior to the all the telecommunication technology, information couldn't really flow much faster than people could could move around. Uh, and so transactions and settlements, uh, were roughly the same speed, and you only had so much use for intermediaries. Um, but in the in the kind of the modern age, when, you know, money can flow around the world at the speed of light, but gold is very physical. It's it's hard to audit. It gave a ton of power to those middlemen, those banks, those those central banks, and then the governments that are attached to them. Uh, and they've, they've, you know, they've been the ones that are kind of settling. They say, "Okay, well, we we'll hold all the gold, and if you want to beam money around, just tell us, and we'll we'll send it wherever you want to go." And people trust that. Uh, and so over time, both from just the fractional reserve nature of the system, as well as governments being unable to balance their budgets, you get over major inflation over time. Uh, a given year might not feel that bad, but occasionally during crisis, like a war or, uh, a lockdown or something like that, it'll kind of come out all at once. And so people kind of slowly get rug-pulled from not just their savings, but also their wages. Basically, everyone who has a contract, whether it's a business setting their prices, uh, or a person having a wage, uh, all of that kind of like weakens over time, partially from the government, but also just because the system itself is kind of designed like that.

So, is this a is this a failure of design? Is it a failure of, um, humans, or is it just operating as a system exactly as it should?

I think, I mean, most things go back to a failure of humans. We we're imperfect. Um, and part of why a government can't kind of meet its budgets is because, of course, people want a lot of things. They want to, in an ideal world, you don't pay almost any taxes, but you get a ton of services. Uh, so people, you, if you say, "Okay, we have to balance our budget." What do you want to cut? Um, especially in the in the core things that they want, they usually don't vote to cut things, but then say, "Okay, we'll we'll raise your taxes." Is then they say, "No, we don't want to pay more taxes either." So they kind of obfuscate it by debasing over time. Uh, I think the other one is just, every money, I I mentioned before, like, you know, kind of people had had looked around and said, "What can we use as money?" Every money does have like a certain limitation. Uh, and for gold and silver, it's it's their speed of movement. It's it's to some extent their auditability. Their divisibility has some limitations. Um, and so most financial innovations in history are kind of attempts to make money move around quicker. And even things we don't consider like technology, because they're so old, like coinage is a type of technology that allowed for quicker verification of money. You know, you, you put it into a standardized size, you put ridges on the edge so kind of evidence that no one shaved it and made it a little smaller than it should be. Uh, then things like the printing press, they allowed us to have it drastically reduced the cost to give someone like a a kind of a verified document that says, "Okay, this is a it's issued by a bank. You get a certain amount of gold or silver attached to it." So most attempts in history are trying to kind of minimize the frictions. And I think the the current one, it's not an accident that like every country in the world uses this system. Um, but it has flaws, and at the end of the day, it's, I mean, it's it's a bunch of people managing a ledger together and disagreeing.

This show is brought to you by my lead sponsor Iron, the AI cloud for the next big thing. Iron builds and operates next-generation data centers and delivers cutting-edge GPU infrastructure, all powered by renewable energy. Now, if you need access to scalable GPU clusters or are simply curious about who is powering the future of AI, check out iron.com to learn more, which is irre.com.

So, the ridges on the coins, I didn't realize this. Is that downstream from the Romans clipping the coins and debasing it?

It'd be interesting to say where the first ridges. I mean, there's there's coinage experts that probably tell you exactly what region. Um, but they, I mean, the Romans weren't the first to debase. Um, and, you know, back then, debasing was actually hard because, you know, let's say there's like a million coins throughout the the Roman Empire. I don't know how many there were. Let's say there's a million gold gold or silver coins out there. Uh, silver was popular back then. Let's say they have a million coins, and they're taxing in, you know, 100,000 coins a year, and they're spending out 120,000 coins a year. So their their vaults going down. If they want to devalue the coinage, um, they can't just snap their fingers and devalue the coinage. They actually, they have to tax it in, remelt the coins, uh, put some, like, base metal into them. So they say, "Okay, instead of 95% gold or silver, now it's 85% gold or silver." That that lets them spend more back into the economy than they taxed. And over time, of course, prices go up because there's more coins floating around for a similar amount of goods and services. Um, and, uh, now, so they would do that debasing, but then even once those coins are out there, like, if you're if you're doing business on, you know, an exchange or like with a merchant, you know, it might look like it's a normal size, but they could shave a little bit off the edges, and just every coin they get, they just kind of shave a little bit and, you know, take, you know, 5% of it off, and you wouldn't really know if you had like a smooth edge. So the ridges basically show that this coin is is roughly the size that it was issued at,

uh, without being, you know, basically fraudulent.

So, it seems to me then the the biggest problem is the misalignment between the political cycle and money. In that to win an election, it's going to be very unpopular to come out and say, "We're going to, uh, cut significant amount of spend. We're going to balance our books." You have to make kind of vague promises. We see this, say, with the Green Party in the UK at the moment. They say, "Cut bills, tax billionaires." There's no policy. But people who don't understand money think, "Well, that's a great idea." But that appears to be the misalignment which is leading to currency debasement, because once the reality of, uh, governing hits a political party, they either have a choice of raising taxes, cutting spend, or borrowing more money. When they always tend to default to the borrow more.

Yeah. And I think, um, one of the, if you kind of point to what is, aside from war, what is kind of a key reason why this this these debt levels have gotten so big and debasement's been so significant, is that when they designed their kind of social insurance systems, their entitlement systems, uh, they assumed that every generation is going to be kind of bigger than the prior generation. You know, we had a long stretch of of global population growth. So they just assumed, "Okay, so, you know, the new generation, when they work, they can pay for the older generation when they retire." But then the problem, of course, is that throughout the developed world, um, uh, fertility went down, people had fewer children. Uh, and so we got to the point where the population is not growing like it was before. So you have a fewer number of young people that are kind of, uh, in a in a burdened position to support now a much aged population. So it's top-heavy. They they kind of built these, it's basically a Ponzi scheme at the end of the day,

to always kind of pay the prior generation from the from the younger one. And that only works until you slow down, and then all these politicians kind of run into issues where it's very improper to cut those programs. It's very improper to raise taxes to pay for those programs, and so it tends to come out in the form of debt, uh, and then debasement as well. So the system itself does appear, say, in the UK, and maybe in America, it does appear to be a stable system on paper, but people are increasingly feeling like they're falling behind. How does that happen?

Uh, well, it can happen in a number of different ways. I mean, fundamentally, like in the US, for example, after World War II, so much was damaged around the world that Americans, in particular, and and and the UK was also, I mean, they were more, uh, uh, damaged by the war than the US, but compared to much of Europe, they were at least, um, uh, you know, in better shape. These places, things felt really good. Um, but then over time, as kind of the rest of the world kind of recovered and caught up, uh, and as kind of, uh, big dislocations were, um, addressed, um, people had more competition from overseas, that I think put a lot of pressure. Um, in addition, automation. Um, anytime you have a new technology, it kind of changes the balance between certain types of workers and and say, business owners or consumers of those goods and services. So automation was a big factor. Um, but yeah, at the end of the day, uh, the the way that the reason kind of people feel like they're left behind is partially because they're in a more competitive world, than they used to be. But then two, as all those forces we talked about occur, as, uh, banks fractionally lend out their currency, as governments spend more than they take in and monetize the difference at times, there's just more and more currency units in the system, and people's wages, let alone their savings. You always think of like debasement and inflation as impacting people's savings, but it also impacts their income because, you know, if you agree to pay someone, uh, £50,000 a year to do something, um, the burden's now on them every year to try to grow that number just to keep up with inflation. So £50,000 will be worth less, you know, next year than it is this year. It'll be worth even less two years from now. And in the developed world, money supply historically grows by something like 7% per year on average. Uh, that's a non-crisis year. It's like over over the over a multi-decade period, it usually averages around 7%. Developing countries, it's quicker. And if you look at what people, uh, are able to increase their salaries by every year, it might be 2%, might be 3%, might be 4%. It's rarely 7% unless they got a major promotion. Uh, basically, if they're doing similar work, they're unlikely to keep getting these 7% wages,

or a bonus,

or a bonus. Uh, and then so after say, a 5-year, 10-year stretch, they're getting a smaller share of the money supply than they were 5 or 10 years ago, just by having their salary grow more slowly than the underlying debasement. And people kind of look around and say, "Why why does it seem like everything's more expensive? I'm still earning money, but it just doesn't feel like it goes as far." And a lot of times they're right. It it generally doesn't go as far.

And it's hidden sometimes through, um, products becoming smaller, shrinkflation, ingredients changing in certain products. Um, there's different ways they try and hide the inflation, but they can't always do that.

Exactly. And there's also, there's also just genuine productivity growth. So on average, uh, we get better at making things than we were decades ago. You know, our technology improves, our processes improve. Uh, and so if you had say, a fairly stable money supply over time, things should get cheaper because we're more efficient at making them. And that's generally, if you compare most prices of things over the long arc of time, to gold, can generally buy you as much or more than it did, you know, centuries ago, just because over time you've gotten more efficient at making things, but not much more efficient at mining gold. Just so people understand that's because gold is scarce, and if you deise divide the amount of money there is into the gold, um, you will get a a better share of the gold.

Or basically, if you, if you take all the goods and services in the world, they're growing more quickly. There's there's more things you can buy, and and gold itself is only growing at a pretty slow rate. So it makes it so that each kind of unit of gold generally lets you buy more goods and services than you could a long time ago, not way quicker, but but over time, it gets a little bit more, um, things get more affordable in gold terms. The problem is that for for fiat currency, it's the opposite. Fiat currency grows more quickly, usually, than goods and services grow. And so there's more dollars, there's more pounds chasing a slowly growing pool of goods and services. And when times are good, like when we're getting way more productive, you might have say, 7% money supply growth, but things get say, 3% more efficient to make. So kind of their natural kind, let's call it their gold relative price goes down a little bit. So it feels like say, 4% inflation, because you get 7% more money supply growth, but 3% kind of more stuff, or or more efficiency in buying those stuff. Uh, and so you kind of feel that 4% difference. Um, but then over time, that keeps compounding, and then it really kind of comes out all at once when you have setbacks in productivity. So, um, either because you reach some sort of technological ceiling, or more commonly, because you have war. War is negative productivity. You're literally spending money to blow other productive things up. Uh, and then in today's world, we have blockages for energy and things like that. And that's where years of kind of hidden inflation can kind of feel like it comes out all at once, because we're no longer having those productivity offsets for the ever-growing amount of money supply.

So whilst we hear the headlines of GDP growth, uh, inflation, the rises inflation, um, is it really actually more important that people understand what scarcity is and what productivity is?

I think so. Yeah. I I mean,

we failed to do that. I I mean, it depends on the country, the schooling system, but I think on average, one of the biggest misconceptions is people, they think that inflation is just the price increases. Uh, when I think the the bigger picture is that it's it's the money supply growing, only being offset a certain amount. Uh, and so they're kind of they're kind of showed one number, you know, like that's inflation. And if you earn interest, you can keep up with that inflation, but really, the actual number is bigger, and that's a that's a hidden number that interest, like interest on your bank account, your bonds, doesn't generally keep up with that real number.

So, but what is the real number? Is that hidden from us? Is this the changes to the,

uh, money supply growth? And it's it's it's public knowledge, but it's not common knowledge. I mean, you can generally look up any country's money supply growth. Uh, but it's just not how we're wired. It's not how we're taught to think. It's not how we're wired to think. Um,

it's not how the government wants us to think.

Probably not. Probably not.

No. I don't think people truly understand scarcity, which is, I think, a significant problem. And we should probably talk about there are ways and people who win significantly within the system. If we talk about the expansion of the money supply coming from the government, obviously expands the money supply, but the majority, as I understand it, the majority of the expansion of the money supply comes within the banking system, and those who are able to take on large amounts of debt and acquire the assets when inflation hits, they're the people outperforming the market.

Generally. Yes. Um, one of the kind of the statements I've used before is like, the best product Coca-Cola ever sold was their bonds, not their Coke. I mean, if you if you look at some of these, some of these companies, whether it's Coca-Cola, um, or, um, let's let's pick a, uh, a British one, like British American Tobacco, or whatever. There there's US companies, British companies, many of them have been profitable literally for decades straight. They've never had a year without profit. And you look at their balance sheet, and like, let's say Coca-Cola has $40 billion in debt. And it's like, why does I mean, Coca-Cola's been around forever. Why do they have debt? And literally the answer is because they they can, they choose to. It's an arbitrage. They can issue bonds, let's say before this, you know, last few years of inflation, they could issue bonds at like 3%, 2% for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, sometimes even longer. I mean, Disney did like a century bond once. Uh, they can just, they can issue these these bonds, lock in these these really low borrowing rates. And what they're basically doing is they're shorting the currency, right? Right. So, the current supply is growing at, let's say, 7% a year. They're borrowing it, only paying 2% 3% on their bonds, and then they're they're using it to buy more valuable things. Maybe they make an acquisition. Maybe they buy their own stock back. Um, and so over the long arc of time, the winners are those that are able to short the currency for the lowest rates for the longest amounts of time, while owning scarcer things, real estate, business equity, that kind of thing. Uh, and so, you know, they're literally shorting the thing that you're holding in your bank account and that you're saving in. Um, governments are shorting it, corporations are shorting it, wealthy individuals are shorting it. Um, even people that, you know, are, you know, middle class or upper middle class and have property, they're generally shorting it. And the the least able to short it are, ironically, those at the at the bottom of the income stack that don't have assets that that, you know, aren't aren't, you know, going to get, uh, good loan terms. And so they're kind of getting the full damage of the inflation because they their wages are getting devalued. What little savings they have are getting devalued. Uh, and they've not really gotten onto that asset treadmill of owning scarce things and shorting the abundant things, which is currency.

And they probably don't even understand how this works. I think a lot of people don't truly understand how it works or know how they can even move from one side of the game to the other.

I think, well, I think yeah, most people, I mean, on average, there's any, like, there's a lot of things I don't know about multiple subjects, right? Just just focusing on the money system happens to be one of the things I I know. Many other people, they're an expert in something else, uh, and knowing the the details of the financial system are just not what they focus on. But unfortunately, it's such an important area that it affects everyone. Um, and I think, I mean, the other factor, of course, is even when you know the system, if you start or basically from scratch, it's hard to kickstart that that process. You know, once once you have assets, once you're shorting currency attached to those assets, uh, it tends to snowball. It's pretty easy to maintain it. Um, but it's hard to kind of go from zero to one. Uh, that that's where, you know, people have to work super hard, save a lot of extra money, uh, potentially, uh, get, you know, retrained or or educated in something to to have higher income, or or take the risk of starting a business. That's a, you know, a more challenging set of steps. Um, that of course, once they get past that, they're, you know, things get a little easier.

But there, like I say, there's essentially two players to the game. If everybody understood how it worked and was trying to short the currency and long the assets, would that would that just essentially crash the system? Does it require peasants on the other side having their life debased to allow it to work?

Pretty much. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, basically the money only works as long as people are holding it. Um, and that's also why developing market currencies fail more quickly, is is, um, it's harder for them to kind of maintain the system in a stable way. Um, and there's not a lot of reason for them to want to hold the currency. They'd rather, you know, if they're going to own currency, they'd rather own dollars or pounds, not, you know, pesos. Uh, and so entities don't want to hold the currency, and so it collapses quicker. But yeah, basically the system is based on having people hold the currency and the bonds while other people are literally shorting it, um, and growing it by shorting it. Ironically, when you when you when you borrow money, or when a bank lends money, it's creating more broad money. It's literally levering up the money. You're putting more broad currency units into the system. So, by shorting it, you're also helping to grow the number of units, and you're benefiting. And those that are unlevered, uh, that are just earning that money, or that are storing some of that money in a savings account, they're the ones that are losing.

Well, so I'm just reorgaging my house at the moment. I've been offered a rate, I think it's about 4.3%. Um, and so over that period, we would expect the money supply to expand 7 to 10%. So I am essentially in that scenario shorting the market. I'm a net beneficiary.

Yes. And that's every year. Every year, not, you know, over the course of say, a 25-year term, the money supply might be growing by 7, 8% a year or more, and you're getting, you know, you're paying four or 5% interest. Um, and that's not, I mean, that's not even the most extreme example. I mean, corporations can can borrow even less for less interest than you can. Um, but yeah, the closer you are to that kind of source of money creation, the more you can short currency, uh, and not get so over your skis that, you know, if the house price goes down a little bit, or you lose your your your income's temporarily impaired, that you'll default. As long as you kind of don't get overleveraged, that's that's historically been the winning strategy: short currency, own scarce things. Uh, and it, yeah, there are people on the other side that are unable to do that, and they're getting the the negative effects of that.

But that is the vast majority of the voting population. It's very, I think, I think there's a small number who hugely benefit, who understand the system now to arbitrage it. There are others who may be net beneficiaries without realizing it. They just own a good home, and they do own assets. It hasn't crossed their mind. There may be those treading water, and a large number of people who are falling behind, which is why we get the populism. I think if enough people understood it, you might even get a revolution.

Uh, potentially. Uh, unfortunately, every time currency fails, they usually, like we have now, kind of decades and decades of of instances of this, unfortunately.

And whenever a currency fails, people temporarily default to a currency that hasn't failed yet, like dollars, for example, but then they just restart the system, and they they kind of get enticed to trust it again, and they go back to trusting it, and then years and decades go by, and another set of politicians is in power, and the same thing happens. So, unfortunately, people kind of were almost like stuck in in the same loop.

It's like an infinite loop. Um, unless you had a politician who came out who could win popular support by explaining how this works. Malay has done it to some extent. How much have you looked at what he's been doing?

Uh, I mean, he he is, uh, knowledgeable on economics. That's that's true. Uh, I think the challenge is that whenever someone kind of enters that system, especially because most places are not dictatorships, someone can't just come in and and just do whatever they want. There's there's other people that have power. They and they all are kind of, uh, working with each other to figure out how we're going to, you know, can we can we raise that tax? Can we can we cut that issue? Can we can we cut that spending there? Um, so even, you know, he, if you ask him, would you like the money supply to grow? He'd probably say no, but Argentina's money supply is still growing, just because the fundamental system is still functionally similar, even though you can dial some knobs around to to slow it down.

So, so the system as it is really, it should lose its legitimacy because it, it is a a system of extraction upwards from the poorest and middle class to the wealthy.

Yes. Or at least, um, the money part is.

The the fiscal transfers, uh, and that's partially why many governments have these fiscal transfers. It's an attempt to kind of offset that. Um, so, um, in the US, it it'd be Medicaid, it'd be food stamps, it'd be, um, various types of of say, free public schooling, for example. That's an attempt to kind of offset that siphoning that's happening. And people, that part's more visible. They they see the the kind of the top-down flow, but they don't see that behind that top-down flow, there there's this sucking sound. There's there's this this value being siphoned. Yeah. From the from the bottom to the top.

But is is it to offset it or is it to quell rebellion?

Is it part of bread and circus?

I mean, I this this goes governance goes back literally millennia. Um, um, and, you know, before, uh, kind of the current era, uh, when information couldn't flow as quickly, um, when, you know, governance was generally smaller, on average, people were more local, um, there's only so many services they could provide. In the modern era, people have kind of come to expect more. We kind of added it used to be the the basic kind of function of government was to provide security. The Lord would say, "Okay, you're all peasants. I'm the Lord, and I'm going to tax you, and I'm going to set the rules. Uh, but I'm going to make sure that the barbarians don't come and burn down your your place and your farm." Right? That's that's my end of the bargain. And that's kind of the, whatever country you look at, that's kind of the basic arrangement that's been around, you know, for thousands of years. And really, in this kind of modern era, um, do we have we added more and more services to it? We say, "Okay, well, we're going to do schooling. We're going to do more infrastructure." Uh, and then mainly what governments are now is military and insurance. You know, it's like they they operate the military, but then they also have these big, usually social insurance programs. Um, whether it's healthcare, whether it's retirement systems, they operate these big ledgers, and that's the part they that the people see and that they vote for.

So, they are they are things that they create to ensure the system can continue. But but this is a this is a system where the engine of it is debt.

Yes.

So what happens if we stopped the debt part? Would it collapse or would it reset?

Uh, well, this goes back to the flaw of how the system's designed. Whenever money is lent into existence, the interest on that loan is not lent into existence at the same time. And so the way it works is basically that the system always has to grow, or it collapses. So it must grow.

It must grow. That at least the current, the the fractional reserve banking system, kind of the two, the having a base ledger and then this fractional reserve banking system layer on top of it, that is designed so that it must always grow, or it dies. Now, it can go a year or two without growing. I mean, there there are occasional years, um, where money supply could be flat or slightly down, um, but over a multi-year period, uh, especially a multi-decade period, but even even a handful of years, every currency system in the world has to grow or die, at least the way they're currently designed.

Right. So if it has to keep expanding, else it collapses, then wealth disparity will have to keep expanding until it collapses, hence revolution. And governments have promises to keep the system alive, otherwise it collapses. So our choice is either a continuation of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, or collapse.

For the most part, that's how it works. In theory, it depends on what you're spending money on and who you're taxing. Um, not every country has the same level of wealth concentration. I mean, Japan's an example where they don't have very high wealth concentration on average. And if you look at what what the government spends money on, they're not really spending much on military. Uh, and then even though it's a very old society, um, they actually spend pretty, they keep healthcare costs in check. Um, and so, uh, the combination of things, uh, makes it so that even though their current supply keeps growing, they don't really have that growing wealth divide because they they've toggled the numbers in a way that that is fairly harmonious. Uh, there, um, so it other issues compound, like including savers getting devalued and all this, but you don't necessarily see that that wealth concentration that we see in the United States, that we see in, uh, parts of Europe.

Is there a structural limit to this system beyond the collapse? If we end the expansion of debt, but the expansion within the world that we do have the expansion, is there a structural limit?

I mean, they can always add zeros. And that's literally like Turkey or Iran. I mean, when they when you go through major major inflation and the numbers reach into the, you know, comical, it takes a billion units to to buy a bottle of water, they just shave six digits off the end and kind of consider a reset. Um, and so that's that's, you know, it works until nobody wants to hold that currency anymore, and then it literally can just restart if people don't have another alternative.

And how does it restart? Like, if you look, I'm sure you've done this, you look back at history when debt levels have reached the say, I mean, compare the UK or the US. What tends to come next? Yes, we can go a little bit further, but what what happens when it does break, and how, what, how can it break? How will people even know?

So usually it breaks in two phases. Um, first, it breaks in the private sector, and then it breaks in the public sector. So, in the private sector, because you have this fractional reserve banking system, you build up more and more and more leverage, until you have, and every time you have like a minor contraction, because it must always grow or die, um, they will stimulate to try to keep it growing again. And so you'll go through these like cycles of debt where you kind of like get leverage, and then you kind of delever a little bit, and then you get way more leverage, and you delever a little bit. So you have this kind of higher highs and higher lows.

Is that QT?

Uh, no, that's just that's interest rates. Okay. Uh, just banks lending money, people borrowing money, corporations borrowing money, growing money supply, and whenever, um, you know, that lending

Slows down, they cut interest rates to try to encourage more borrowing. Uh, and you know, occasionally when it gets overheated, they'll raise interest rates to try to slow down lending. So they, they, they're moving the knobs on this centralized system, and they're always growing it.

And the problem is when they hit zero interest rates. So, over the course of say, from the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, um, they would always kind of cut to lower interest rates than the prior cycle, encourage even more debt to build up. The problem is when they kind of go all the way to zero interest rates, and debt is extremely, uh, like, like, like households, corporations, and banks are extremely levered relative to the base amount of money in the system. Way more IOU's for money than there is money. It starts to kind of crumble, and even when they cut interest rates to zero, or in some cases slightly negative, it still doesn't solve the problem. And that's when you get that kind of popping of that, that private sector debt bubble.

And then historically, what happens almost every instance is the government says, "Okay, we're not going to let this all collapse. We're going to, we're going to do big fiscal injections. We're going to spend a lot of money. We're going to monetize it." Meaning, we're going to, we're going to do QE. That's where QE enters the picture. We're going to, we're going to create more base money, buy our own bonds, spend more money into the system. And what that does is that kind of gradually transfers debt from the private sector onto the public sector balance sheet, that, that sovereign debt, basically. So that the US is indebted, or the UK is indebted, and it kind of does partially delever the private sector, but then it's all on the public ledger now.

And historically, when that gets extremely levered, there's really nowhere for it to go. A government's almost never going to default on units they can print themselves. So it just prints way more units and it defaults through purchasing power. And then if they manage that poorly, it spirals out of control, literally hyperinflates. The, the money becomes worth nothing. Uh, in kind of developed market history, they'll generally do like a partial devaluation. So they'll say, double the money supply, devalue the debts, uh, but then they kind of get the wheels back on the on the track. Uh, and they say, "Okay, now we're going to stabilize." And then they, they start that whole multi-decade process again.

>> Nothing stops this train.

>> Yeah.

>> I want to talk to you about my new sponsor, SLY. So, one of the things that happens with making this podcast and recording shows is that I'm constantly traveling, especially out to the US to record interviews. And one of the most annoying things that I have to deal with is getting to another country and figuring out what to do with my phone because either you're going to get hammered with roaming charges, or you're just trying to find a SIM card at the airport. And so that's why I've started using SLY. Now SLY is an eSIM app from the creators of NordVPN that gives you affordable mobile data in over 200 destinations worldwide. And listen, the setup is really simple. You just download the SLY app, pick a data plan for the country you're traveling to, install the eSIM once, and when you land, your phone just connects to the local network. There are no roaming charges, no swapping SIM cards, and no airport kiosk to deal with. And listen, if you travel a lot like I do, it's a genuinely useful app. You can get 15% off SLY data plans by downloading the SLY app and using my code, Peter McCormack.

So they're socializing the debt that the private sector has built up onto the public to protect the private sector to keep the economy going.

>> Yeah. And I mean, and one of the, it always tends to work out, of course, it'll depend on the country. Um, but like, for example, in the US, when we had the, the 2008 crisis, banks were bailed out. Um, and, you know, bankers, they, they had one year of not really getting bonuses, and, you know, there were layoffs in the industry, but then they go right back to making a lot of money, uh, rather than kind of facing the consequences of having levered themselves so much. And that's, that's, I think, where the system becomes truly toxic is we talked before about how the winners in the system are the ones that are shorting the currency, owning scarcer things. Um, and that does come with some degree of risk. Uh, but the worst there is that when they're doing that for years and decades, they're constantly winning. And then finally, a crisis happens that would actually punish them for having leverage attached to their assets. The, the government comes in and says, "No, no, we're going to stop this from happening, and we're going to bail you out." So, it's like we, we kind of lock in, we kind of take the risk away, um, and, and lock in all the gains you've had, uh, and socialize the, the losses.

Is there, um, when you look at what's happening now, is this comparable to what happened in the 1940s, pre-1940s?

>> Uh, it's similar, and that's why these debt cycles have certain patterns that can be watched. Um, I've argued before that the, the 2008 crisis looked a lot like the Great Depression. Um, uh, meaning that was like the peak of the, the private, uh, debt bubble. Um, whereas what we're seeing now in this more public, uh, debt level issue looks a lot more like the 1940s. Um, and I was making that comparison. I mean, that was before Russia invaded Ukraine. So before we were even at wars, let alone Iran now, but before there were any major kind of wars. Um, it was saying, I was saying like the system now looks like the 40s. Um, and it's going to likely play out similar in terms of inflation and debasement. And I was like, hopefully we don't get, you know, an actual war, but, you know, now we're even in that territory, too. But yeah, functionally, it looks a lot like the 1940s.

>> So, is war helpful?

>> It, I mean, it's helpful as a distraction sometimes. Um, it provides a reason to, you know, instead of policymakers saying, "Hey, we messed up our own ledger," they generally want someone to blame. In a developing country, they'll often say that like outside speculators in the currency broke our currency. It's not our fault. It's, it's an outside force. Uh, and in, in developed countries, yeah, it's often war. It's often, um, justifying it through that type of activity.

Do you think it's fair to say the system is, is a system of theft?

>> I think, well, I don't think that that people got together and it was like a peace meal thing that kind of grew over time. Every time you're, you're adding something new, you're kind of solving a prior problem, which was, for example, merchants in Venice wanted ways to move money around quicker. So, they started using a shared ledger, an account to just make that process easier. And then you want your account to talk to some other account. So, those banks link up and all. So, over time, you have more and more banks. And then you want them to be able to, uh, move money around quicker. So, then they go and make a central bank. Uh, and you kind of keep, keep adding new layers to the system, um, until by the end, it resembles theft. Uh, and occasionally there is nefarious, kind of design as part of it, but a lot of it is just come out of solving prior problems and creating new problems along the way. Um, and just the incentive structure isn't great. So, a lot of decisions don't really come home to roost for 20, 30, 40 years when the politicians are out of office and the voters that voted for that can no longer, enough time's gone by that they can't link what's happening now to votes they or their parents made decades ago. Um, so I think a lot of it comes down to separating in time the, the downsides of decisions from those decisions being made.

So, so it is then just an experiment. We're in an experiment.

>> We are. Yeah. We're in like a 55-year experiment. We're, we're a little longer when you, when you kind of go back to central banking.

>> And it's an experiment we could argue that has failed on a level of fairness across society.

>> Um, I think so. I think the, this to steal me in the opposite view, people would say, well, in this past 50 years, uh, most accounts of poverty in the world have gone down. So the number of people living in extreme poverty has gone down. So, uh, even being poor in a developed country looks different than it did 50 years ago. Um, and so they'd say, well, look, the system worked. Uh, my general argument against that is, um, really, what worked? What a huge piece of, of human flourishing over the past 50, 100, 150 years has been the discovery and usage of hydrocarbons. Um, one barrel of oil has the energy equivalent of thousands of hours of human labor. Um, so it's, it's, you know, by, by harnessing coal, gas, oil, and then hydro, and, and, you know, nuclear, and all that, uh, geothermal, but really the hydrocarbons component is what's, what's, you know, new and huge in the world that has done a lot to alleviate poverty. And the current system's kind of been alongside that. And people say, well, that's, that's evidence that it's working. And I would say, no, it's, it's, it's our technology, it's our energy that's working. And the financial system itself is just a layer on top of that. And I would say it solves certain problems. I mean, money moves quicker than it used to. Um, but it has these other failings. Um, and unfortunately, it kind of rewards central policymakers and gives them, I think, undue levels of power. I think it's one thing to have a, a taxing and spending authority. I mean, that's something that just, if, if people dissolve the government, the first thing they do is make another government. Um, so governments, it's like a vacuum. Like there's no, like the phrase is like nature abhors a vacuum. So if you somehow make a vacuum, air will flow into it, uh, and just do its best to, you know, kind of go where there's nothing. Same thing's true for government. Um, but I think where you get that toxic mix is when you have that spending and taxing authority, and then they're also managing the underlying ledger. So they can always just debase the difference. And basically, it's an invisible tax on top of their normal taxing and spending authority.

>> So the anti-federalists were, were right in their prediction?

>> Uh, by arguing that as things centralize, it, it creates problems.

>> Yeah.

>> Um, I would say at least in, in the money system, yes, the more you centralize it, um, the, basically the rug-pull capability increases. So like going back to that, we talked before about Rome's debasement. It was actually a long process to debase because they had to tax in the coins, melt them, respend them into the economy. But in the modern system, um, they can just overnight, with a stroke of a pen, double the number of currency units or, or, you know, increase them by 30% like they did during, for example, the lockdown stimulus. Um, and it, it just, it centralizes power in a way that I think is, it doesn't work with the kind of incentives that the politicians have in place to generally optimize things on four or five-year terms.

And I think from my understanding, it's fair to call this a Ponzi scheme. Um, but all Ponzi's eventually break. I remember when I went to Colombia, I met somebody from Venezuela. He explained to me over how overnight his entire savings were lost. And I think, look, there is the slow bleed of people's savings, the, uh, slow bleed of their purchasing power because their wages don't keep up, but there is a general risk of hitting severe devaluation in this country. We've talked about Egypt before, where they halved the currency overnight, I think twice, is it now recently?

>> Yeah, they've had a number of of basically, you know, very quickly cutting the currency in half, um, and, and, you know, dramatically increasing the, the supply.

But are there scenarios where that kind of situation could happen in the UK, across Europe, or the US? And how would people know it's coming?

>> Well, the closest example would be the World War, um, that was, you know, because it was such a, a damaging time for productivity. Uh, and such a, you got the combination of lower productivity and way more currency because no government could make that math work with taxes. So, they just kind of spent money in the economy for war. Um, now, because developed, the main difference between a developed country and a developing country, obviously poverty and, and other factors are a big thing, but from a financial perspective, developing countries, they often have to borrow in dollars or sometimes euros or, or other currency, but usually dollars. Um, and so they have this added kind of instability on their system, which is they actually, they actually owe debt to foreigners that they can't print. Um, and so they're running their own kind of flexible ledger while they're kind of borrowing, quote unquote, hard currency. Um, and so they're operating these currency mismatches. Developed countries have the advantage that they're mostly borrowing in their own currency. Um, so they, they have that lever where they can just kind of usually gradually disperse a problem. They say, "Okay, the numbers aren't working, but, you know, we'll, you know, leak that out over, over many years through debasement, and people won't really notice too much." Um, and really, when that gets called out is usually some sort of productivity damage happens. War is the biggest one. Um, it could be a, you know, in ages past, it could be a famine. It could be some sort of, that's when kind of the, the problems that have built up kind of all get called at once. Um, so if you avoid war and avoid things like that, the system can generally go a lot longer than you'd think. Um, but as soon as something unexpected happens, that's generally when even a developed country can look like a developing country in terms of it, its currency and bonds.

>> So, so this could go on for years, decades?

>> Yes. I mean, one, one of the, I mean, the kind of the biggest example is Japan. So they're, they're further out on, on the aging curve than anyone else. Um, now they have the advantage of, they were extremely productive in the 80s, the '90s, uh, the '70s, '80s, '90s, kind of the whole, kind of the post-war period, really. Uh, so they built up one, a huge current account surplus, uh, and huge, uh, domestic savings. So even though they have a lot of debt, they actually own tons of foreign assets. Um, and so they're, they're kind of now in that, in that harvesting phase where, you know, their, their public finances look really bad, their, their trade surplus is not what it used to be, but because they've got that, you know, generation past of having worked so hard, they've actually got a lot of like, you know, reserves that they can kind of gradually tap into and they can extend that time very, very, very far before like a major crisis or, or financial reset occurs. Um, with Europe and the US, we probably don't have quite that long of a runway. Um, but I, I think, you know, the system can last for decades longer unless we blow it up with war and energy shortages and stuff.

>> But it will mean financial repression.

>> Yes. And that's, so historically, when you, when you have that private debt bubble, it pops, and then you rotate it onto the public ledger. The last kind of process there is they do financial repression, meaning they hold their interest rates kind of artificially below the growth of the money supply. So people are kind of holding currency and bonds. Sometimes they're even forced to. They might do capital controls to say, okay, like in the US, we literally banned the ownership of gold, which is insane. Like for, for the land of the free, but you couldn't own a benign yellow metal because it was, it was competition compared to what they wanted to do with the currency. So, they kind of force everyone to hold the currency. They don't pay you interest, uh, that, that kind of meets the growth rate of that currency. And over years or decades, they will try to basically siphon that value away and kind of reset the system.

So, why do they continue to raise taxes if they face this? Anyway, we've seen in the UK discussion around wealth taxes, um, raising capital gains tax to, uh, the level of, uh, income tax. They've talked about exit taxes because we've had so many people leave the UK. If taxes are so unpopular, why don't they just do this all through debt?

>> Uh, because it would, the taxes are basically a way of slowing down that process.

>> Okay. Uh, if, if in theory, just the government just didn't do any taxes, it just spent all the money into the, into the system every year, either through debt or even just debasement, um, borrowers would stop lending money to them, because they'd say, when your, your deficits now, like in the US, we would have like a $7 trillion deficit instead of a $2 trillion deficit. I don't have the UK numbers on hand, but it'd be a much larger deficit, way faster bond issuance, flood the whole, you know, all the buyers would just have way too many bonds on their hands to buy. So they basically, there'd be a buyer strike. So the central bank would have to buy the country's own debt, and therefore you'd get way faster inflation. So taxes are kind of like the speed break that helps them balance the equation. Um, and it's, it's, so it ends up being a multi-tool thing. They, they directly tax, they, they pull in currency. Uh, so that's the transparent part, and then the other transparent part is because taxes are quite unpopular. The last part is what they do with debasement. This is like a, like a slow-motion horror movie. It feels horrific because I know what you see, and you see it with a lot more clarity than I do, but I see it as well, and I've seen the impact, but it doesn't feel like there's any way out of it. Is there any way out of this? I mean, if you were a policymaker, Lyn, what would you do?

>> Uh, there's really, the, once you get to the part where there's this much debt on the sovereign ledger, there's really no way out of it other than they're going to default. Uh, and then the question is, what does default look like? Is it all at once? Is it nominally? Uh, and in a developed country, it's almost always through debasement. You, you, you never default on the, you know, it's not, it's not like the government says, okay, we owed you dollars or pounds that you're not going to get back. They say, okay, we're going to pay you all the dollars and pounds, but we're going to sharply devalue them because we're going to print so many more of them.

>> So default is socializing the debt on the, the, um, is socializing the debt onto the voters.

>> Yeah. Defaulting, we often think of it as just failure to pay back. But in, in, effectively, it's failure to pay back, um, the value that you borrowed. So government.

>> Yeah. Yeah. That's, I mean, yeah, when, when a private sector entity defaults, it's they just can't pay it back. But when the currency printer itself defaults, it's, they pay it back, but it's just, it's, it buys you less food and real estate and insurance and healthcare and whatever than it did when you, when you lent them that money in the first place.

And so that's, that's a guarantee to happen now.

>> I mean, it's already happening. So, um, it's been happening.

>> Or the rate at which it's going to happen is going to increase.

>> Um, I think we could see another like COVID level type of that, because that was like a very fast rate there. That was, in the US and in many parts of Europe and in many parts of the world, we saw a pretty rapid rate there. We've since slowed down. Um, but if enough things kind of go wrong at once, um, you could get back there, even higher. Um, uh, but I think in general, it's, apart from kind of crises kind of pulling it forward, I, I think it'll be probably more moderate than many people think and just be stretched out over a very long period of time. And I think that goes back to the incentive issue that because the system is designed so it's actually really hard to totally collapse, it allows it enables and it incentivizes that kind of intergenerational decision-making where a politician can do things now and kick the can down the road for someone to solve decades later on another generation. And I think that's kind of the, that's why things get so indebted is because short-term decision-makers are kind of optimized to to optimize for their term, their next two years, three years, four years, five years, at most a decade.

But can't, can't we just tax billionaires and fix this?

>> Uh, I mean, it depends. It depends on, I mean, generally speaking, um, in the US, for example, we have a system where as you make more money, you generally pay more taxes. Some people, they can make so much money that they actually pay a lower tax rate than someone in say, the upper middle class or kind of the, the lower end of the wealthy spectrum. Um, so there are certain kind of loopholes that could be addressed. Um, I, I think it was, um, Gundlach, the CEO of DoubleLine Capital, he was, you know, he's a billionaire. He's like, you know, before you boost my tax rate from say 50% to 70%, how about you go after the person who's somehow paying 15%? And get that up to my level before we just keep getting the numbers higher. So I think there, there's a discussion around certain loopholes that can be fixed so you don't have someone who's say making more money than someone else but paying less somehow. Um, but the problem is, once you are already taxing wealthy people a certain amount, um, it's, it's, if you raise it above a certain level, they have a much higher incentive to want to leave that jurisdiction. It's less incentive to start a business and hire people in that jurisdiction. Um, and so that, that's kind of the effective limit of of how far they can go.

It could they not, if you had a smart government, couldn't they work much harder at just reducing their spend levels, cut, you, yeah, you know, spend from certain departments or cut whole departments, try and boost productivity, and try and, I mean, even balance the books to begin with, if they slowly paid off the debt, even if they spent 100 years doing it, could that work?

>> Uh, in the past, there, there have been instances where that, that can work. Um, it's just, it's always very unlikely, uh, for it to work. Um, and one of the, I mean, especially in the modern time, one of the challenges, and they, they encountered this in the US when they did the whole DOGE program. The idea was, you know, we're going to find all this fraud and and waste and cut it out. And the, there are of course massive pockets of fraud and waste. But when you look at, say, the US system, and this is true for, for most developed market, uh, systems, the vast majority of the spending is the social, like the, the social insurance programs, basically the retirement, the healthcare system, that kind of stuff, as well as the military. And the number, the amount of money in the US was actually going to say, federal workers and, um, federal, like buildings and, and things like that. That's actually a pretty small percentage of the pie chart. That's why trimming that was challenging because they, they committed not to touch the big stuff. So they're trying to kind of squeeze pennies where they can at the other stuff. But the actually the core issue was the, those programs themselves are just large.

>> Well, it's like here in the UK, the National Health Service, the pensions, welfare, it's a large, it's the largest sector of public spending.

>> Yes. And that's, um, I mean, I, I don't know current polls, but it's unpopular to cut.

>> Well, the NHS is very unpopular to cut. Anything that's seen as a cut to the National Health Service is seen as, uh, uh, selling off the, the NHS to the private sector by rich people. It's never seen as,

>> a way to make it more efficient.

>> Okay. So, like imagine we talk about Steve. We don't actually know who Steve is, but Steve's got a couple of kids. He's listened to the show right now. He's terrified. He's his wages haven't really gone up for the last few years. Everything's getting more expensive. What, what do you advise to Steve, or even young people who are looking out there at this and thinking, "What opportunity is there for me?" What would you advise people?

>> That's the challenging thing. Um,

>> especially once someone has kids, everything gets more complex.

>> Of course, when someone's young, you can tell them to hustle.

>> Yeah.

>> Uh, you know, work, work extra hours, uh, get ahead. Um, uh, but once you kind of have all these other, like calls on your time, it's hard to do that. Um, so I mean, really the only advice is to, you know, take, take appropriate risks where you can. Uh, try to find ways to boost your income. Um, try to cut spending on on unnecessary things. There's, there's kind of research that shows certain types of spending really boost your happiness, and other types of spending don't. You're just kind of keeping up with the Joneses. You're, you're just kind of spending for appearance sake.

>> Flash car.

>> Yeah. Um, and of course, if someone happens to be way into cars, then then that might give, give them a lot of joy. But for a lot of people, it's fixing pain points is what really kind of boosts happiness. Um, but at the end of the day, there's really, there's, it's hard to get out of it unless you can get ahead. Meaning that you can, um, boost your income, keep your expenses in control, and then invest the rest into assets that then kind of start lifting you off of this financial repression scenario because you're now, you're now the asset holder that your, your things are getting inflated, you're shorting the currency, you're in good shape. Um, but that's a, you know, that's a multi-year process to to get there.

>> Well, usually at this point, I say to people, you should really research this thing called Bitcoin. And, uh, it's quite interesting because the history of the show used to be a Bitcoin show. Uh, and it hasn't been now for 18 months. And we have new listeners who, you can see, they switch off when we start to talk about Bitcoin. They don't understand it. They think it's a scam. Uh, they think crypto is a scam. Uh, as you know, I think you're the most brilliant macro analyst in the world, yet you are pro Bitcoin. So what would you say to these people?

>> I would say that, um, when we kind of analyze, like when people around the world look at money they want to hold, um, what they're ultimately looking for is usability and scarcity. Uh, and so there, there's a, there's a hierarchy out there. So if, like people in Egypt, for example, they would rather generally hold dollars than Egyptian pounds because dollars lose value less quickly. So the Egyptian pound, the supply of those might increase by an average of 20% a year, every year. Just the number of pounds is going up by 20% a year. It's a huge runaway growth. So they say, "I want to own dollars." And they can't put their finger on why, but the dollar is holding up better. And a lot of it's because the dollar is only growing by 7% per year on average. So instead of holding this thing that's growing by 20%, they want to hold the thing that, that's growing by 7%. Um, and then gold is often people that, that, you know, they live in the US, they live in the UK, they want even scarcer money, they will often buy gold. Uh, and that, you know, the supply of that on average is based on most estimates increases only by about 2% per year, or even a little bit less around the whole world. Uh, as, as kind of miners, uh, you know, bring more out of the ground, refine it, we rarely ever lose much of the existing gold we have because it gets repurposed. So the supply of gold is growing by say, 2% a year. Uh, but then the cost for that is volatility. So you say, okay, I don't want to hold dollars. I want to hold gold. Uh, but in exchange for that kind of longer-term appreciation, they have to take on the risk that it might be, be, uh, worth less than three years or five years. Uh, even though it's growing at a slower rate, just because it's volatile. More people buy it, more people sell it. It can, it can get in a temporary bubble. It can, it can get depressed. Um, and so they can kind of start taking that kind of near-term risk to store their value quicker. And of course, uh, real estate is an option. High-quality equities are an option. And Bitcoin, one of the advantages is that there's zero long-term supply growth. So if developing markets currencies are growing by double digits a year, developed market currencies are growing by high single digits a year, gold's growing by 2% a year, Bitcoin's not growing at all after a certain point. Um, and so as long as the technology functions and as long as the network effects make it so that, um, uh, one currency kind of captures most of the market instead of, you know, tons and tons and tons of currencies out there, they're holding something that's that's truly scarce and it gives them certain, uh, resistances to debasement. Uh, with the cost being that just like gold can be volatile, Bitcoin being a smaller and newer and less understood asset is even more volatile. So it can go down sharply in a short period of time. Uh, and, uh, but that's an exchange for holding something that's scarce and actually does protect your purchasing power over the 17 years that it's existed.

>> It's come full circle to understanding scarcity.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Fine. The thesis. I understand the thesis. I, I hold Bitcoin. But even at that moment, how do you help people understand its money? Because we grow up understanding money. As a kid, we're given a till with coins and a little pretend shop and we go to the shop with our parents. We want a toy car or a chocolate bar pack. They give us some money. We get to use money and money just becomes part of our life. Even if it's digital, and even gold, we, we've come to understand and, uh, accept it as part of the economy. We know people wear it. We know it goes into products. How do you, how do you legitimize Bitcoin as this weird invention that turned up, you know, 17, is it, 17 years ago? Um, is all digital, is, you use these terms like sats, and how do you legitimize Bitcoin to people?

>> Um, I think one is just describing it as another way of running a ledger, right? So,

>> uh, we talked before about how our currency systems are basically ledgers. So the central bank literally has effectively a spreadsheet, and then commercial banks build a second layer spreadsheets that are on top of that central spreadsheet, and it's literally just a bunch of people in a room running this ledger. Um, and Bitcoin is similar, uh, except instead of like a council of a handful of people running that, that ledger, it's designed to be decentralized. Um, so the rule set for how new coins are created, uh, how coins are kind of transferred from one entity to another, that's all kind of distributed among the, the users of that currency. Um, and then the, in order to, to move or add units, uh, it takes energy to do so. So, Bitcoin uses proof of work. So instead of like a, with a fiat currency, you can just snap your fingers if you're the policymakers, and you can just add a lot of currency units to the system. Uh, with Bitcoin, no one has that capability, even the creator of it, if he's still around, uh, no one has that capability. And so it's, it's effectively just a way of of using energy and code to run a decentralized ledger. And, you know, in the beginning, I think it was right for people to not trust that it would be legitimate because there have been multiple attempts at kind of, uh, private currencies, uh, in the past. Um, the technology had to kind of show over time that it actually is stable. You know, a system can seem like it's stable for a little while and kind of work until eventually some flaw just grows and then it, it eventually cascades. So I think it being around for a while, like the legitimacy comes partially from the Lindy effect, meaning that for many types of things, the, the longer it has existed, the longer it will continue to exist. Um, that's true for most things other than life forms because we have kind of an eventual end date. Um, but whether it's a language, whether it's a cultural norm, or something, um, uh, that if something's been around for a while, there's usually a reason it's been around for a while. It's kind of, it's proven its stability through multiple, kind of periods. And, you know, Bitcoin is only 17 years old, but that's, you know, in, in terms of technology, that's pretty old. Uh, and this, the longer it goes on, the more it proves that there is this decentralized ledger. It is working. Uh, it has pros and cons, just like any other type of money, but it is an alternative that people can hold. They can hold it, you know, they can hold it their own custody, uh, and no one can debase it, and they just have to withstand the volatility that comes from holding that, as well as having some understanding of how the tech works, even though you don't have to know every detail, kind of like how we don't have to know every detail of the financial plumbing system to use dollars or pounds.

>> So it's certainly worth, uh, spending a bit, bit of time, forgetting everything you've heard if it's negative, and understanding Bitcoin a little bit.

>> I think in general, understanding money is really important. Um, whatever other work we do, whatever skill sets we have, we can't get away from money and it's, and it's kind of impacts on us. And so I do think it, it pays to study money to some degree, to spend some hours to understand how money works. And that by extension includes Bitcoin. I think, uh, I think any sort of reasonable study of money in the modern age, uh, you can start with commodity money, you know, gold and silver and other types of commodities. Then you can get to ledger money, you know, fiat currencies, nation-state money, bank money. Um, but then in, in the current world, studying Bitcoin, uh, is, is, I think, really important because it shows you what the alternatives are.

>> I mean, you mentioned your book earlier, Broken Money, by the way, go and buy the book. Um, and if the current system is broken, if the money is broken, could Bitcoin be a system that replaces it?

>> I, I think it has the properties where it could. Um, uh, it would have to be much, much larger than it is now, um, and that would dampen the volatility, but really, there's nothing that would prevent it from working other than, um, people. Um, I mean, it's, if you look at, I mean, the, the way it scales, Bitcoin can do about as many transactions per year as Fedwire. So, as the US centralized system, it does about as many transactions per year, ironically, as Bitcoin. Um, and it yet it settles, and it sounds like a fake number, but a quadrillion dollars a year and settles on the Fedwire system. Um, and of course, on top of that, you have all the, the banking system and things like that. Um, and so Bitcoin has the capability to scale through layers. Those, those layers have already been developed. You know, there's, there's always kind of more research being done. Um, but there is a layered stack that works. Um, and it would, I don't think people would turn to it until the existing systems fail, or at least, like, at mass. I mean, obviously, early adopters do. Um, but yeah, it's a, it's a functional system that, that can work, uh, instead of a centralized ledger.

>> At least, at least 17 years of history shows us this. I think we need more time to prove it, but so far, it's working.

>> I want to talk to you about one of my new sponsors, which is Monetary Metals. Now, if you're like me, you probably spend a lot of time thinking about sound money and how to protect yourself from currency debasement. Now, for some people, that's Bitcoin. For others, it's gold. For me, it is both. But here's the thing about gold. Most of it just sits in vaults doing absolutely nothing. Monetary Metals is changing that. They let you earn a return on your physical gold holdings, but they pay it in gold itself, not dollars. So, instead of your gold just sitting there, it can generate more gold for you. So, to put it simply, if you deposit 100 ounces and earn around 4% at the end of the year, you're going to have 104 ounces of gold, regardless of what ever happens to the price of gold in dollars. And in a world where fiat currencies are constantly losing value, earning a return in actual gold ounces is pretty cool. It's essentially making your gold productive instead of idle. Now, if you hold gold and want to learn more, check them out at monetaryheymetals.com/cormac. That is monetarymetals.commack.

One more question then I want to talk about your book, your new book. Okay. So if we are living through this slow systemic decline that most people don't even yet recognize, um, what would you say people should be paying attention to on a daily basis right now?

>> I mean, that's, it depends on what they do. I think, I mean, to end on a slightly more optimistic note,

>> yeah, the, the financial system itself is in decline, meaning that we, we built up all these debt, high debt levels in our system mainly through intergenerational promises, like, and, and the combination of a generation promising itself something and then not having the population growth that has made that as possible as they thought it would be. Um, and now kind of the chickens coming home to roost, as it were. Um, but underneath the surface, I mean, technology on average gets better over time. Um, people, you know, people have a lot more options now than they did decades ago in, in many parts of the world, at least most parts of the world. Um, it's like, there's a lot to be grateful for, and not everything is in decline. Um, even though our financial system is. Um, and, you know, people can get kind of trapped into the social media bubble and doom scrolling. Um, but when you go outside and you know, focus on your health, focus on your family, focus on what's good in life, you know, hopefully there's light at the end of the tunnel.

One more question on this. Have you looked at AI as a potential fix to this? Could that lead to the productivity boom and solve these financial problems?

>> Well, so the short answer is that the more productivity you have, the more it extends the current system before you have like, say, a major inflationary reset. Um, and so whether it was like blue-collar automation with like the manufacturing automation, AI is basically that for like more white-collar type of work. It is a productivity boost, um, over time. Um, but it doesn't fundamentally change any of the things we talked about. And of course, it creates winners and losers. Um, it, it, you know, gives people a lot more optionality to start businesses at a lower cost because now they have more tools available. Uh, it allows people to save money on things that used to be expensive to do. But also, it, you know, there are people whose salaries, um, are, you know, at risk of being devalued because they, they were trained in something that software can do more effectively than it could say five years ago. Um, and so they might have to shift to new things. So AI doesn't just magically fix any of what we talked about. But that's why policymakers, that's why they, a lot of times they don't focus on addressing things now because they hope that by growing the ledger at a moderate pace, they hope that enough technology will come online to keep disguising the inflationary kind of money supply that they're, that they're causing by having these productivity offsets. You know, if productivity can go up by 5% a year instead of say 3% a year, it can, it can hide that seven or eight percent money supply growth more effectively. Um, but of course, then it, it shows up in, in other pockets. I mean, you can't, you can't just print new homes. You can't print healthcare. You can't print energy. Um, and software has kind of been a cheat code. Uh, like when you look at old, old kind of science fiction movies, um, generally speaking, they, they overestimated how good our aerospace capabilities would be. They overestimated a lot of our, like our mechanical growth of things, but they underestimated how powerful in many ways computers and screens and electronics could be. That's the part that's kind of surprised to the upside for, for many decades.

Amazing. All right, let's talk about your new book. I have a copy.

>> Uh, The Soulguard Incident. Yes.

>> Yes. Uh, I have a copy. I'm saving it for when I go on holiday. Uh, I've gone back to reading books from audiobooks, actually.

>> Really?

>> Yes. Yeah. Because do you know what I found with an audiobook? You don't pause and replay paragraphs. And I was finding that I was listening something, you know, and I was like, "Oh, I, I didn't understand that." And then I was trying to rewind, going to get to the point, and I realized with a book, um, that you just take your time on a paragraph.

>> I've been rereading a lot of books I've read previously. So I'm going to read this when I go on holiday, but you've gone from writing about broken money to a novel.

>> Yes. I think, I mean, because Broken Money, it's about the past, present, and future of money, but the majority of it is the past and present. You know, it's basically just, you know, analyzing what money is, how it works, what some of the future options are. Um, to try to, you know, we talked before about how a lot of people don't know how this works. Um, and so it does its best to educate people. Um, this, you know, speculates about the future and it kind of, uh, takes certain trends, extrapolates them, and sees how they could go awry. Could, could you know.

>> So is this the sequel to Broken Money, weirdly?

>> You could call it that. I mean, for the most part, I mean, people need hobbies. Um, I, I've used the phrase before that no one, no one should write a book unless they feel that they kind of have to. Like, you know, Broken Money, I didn't write it to make money per se, right? There's almost anything else I could have worked on would have a better return than sitting down in the tedious process of writing a book, but it was like the, the foundations of the structure of that book just built in my head and it was too distracting not to write it. Uh, and this, I've had this story just bouncing around in my head for over a decade and I was like, I don't know, when am I ever going to have time to write it? Um, but eventually I prioritized it. I think part of what happened was technology, now that we have AI, technology is catching up to what I envisioned in the book. And I was like, if I don't write this soon, instead of being science fiction, it's going to be like historical fiction. So I was like, I, I got to, I got to get it out.

Was it harder or easier to write The Broken Money?

>> Uh, harder because, uh, it's, it required new skill sets. Uh, with Broken Money, I mean, I, I've written you well over a million words of non-fiction.

>> Wow.

>> Um, and, and you know, so, so putting, you know, a book together like Broken Money, while it was a new challenge, it wasn't like a totally different type of writing. It was just kind of taking my existing writing, my existing ideas, and just, uh, making a very polished version of that. Uh, whereas this required, you know, learning fiction prose, which is not the same as non-fiction prose, and kind of just polishing up on skill sets that I didn't have before. I had the story in my head. I had, kind of, I had a good grasp of say, pacing, pacing and character development, but for me, the hard part was, how can I actually write it effectively?

Have you sold the film rights?

>> Uh, no.

>> No. Yeah. And you put a young me on the front cover.

>> It kind of looks like.

>> I wish I looked like that still. Lyn, uh, some new listeners to the show won't know that we've known each other a long time now. Can't remember the last time, the first time we spoke was probably six, seven years ago, and I've probably interviewed you like 15 times. But it's a real pleasure having you here in the studio and thank you for coming to my conference. I wish you the best with this. I can't, I can't wait to read it and let you know what I think. Do you want to tell anyone about anything else? Your amazing newsletter.

>> Uh, no, people can. Yeah, they can go to LynAlden.com. They can check out my books, Broken Money or or The Stogard Incident. And thanks for having me on. Always happy to, always happy to be here.

>> Thank you for coming and thank you to everyone for listening. We'll see you soon.