0:06

You've had a dynamic where money

0:09

has become freer than free. If

0:11

you talk about a Fed just gone

0:13

nuts, all the central banks going nuts.

0:15

So it's all acting like safe haven.

0:17

I believe that in a world

0:19

where central bankers are tripping over

0:21

themselves to devalue their currency, Bitcoin

0:24

wins. In the world of fiat

0:26

currencies, Bitcoin is the victor. I

0:28

mean, that's part of the bull case

0:30

for Bitcoin. If you're not paying

0:32

attention, you probably should be. And

0:36

Jason Calcanus was tweeting about

0:38

this, I was quote tweeting

0:41

him last night, about this idea

0:43

that to fix the housing crisis, we

0:45

just need to build a million affordable

0:48

homes to bring the prices down,

0:50

flood the market with more supply.

0:52

And I'm saying, commenting that the

0:54

problem, I don't think can be

0:56

fixed by some sort of central

0:58

planning of expansion of supply by

1:00

one million homes. The problem is

1:03

that people are using. real estate

1:05

as a store value asset

1:07

when it really should be

1:09

a consumption good with some

1:11

premiums that can exist due

1:13

to location, size, aesthetic, whatever

1:16

it may be. Yeah, no, I think that's

1:18

definitely the case. I think homes

1:20

in the S&P 500 are essentially

1:22

Ponzi's. If you really break it

1:25

down, like it's like, okay, if

1:27

someone's gonna pay more for it's

1:29

not based on the traditional valuation

1:31

metrics anymore. and it's this is

1:34

a big problem I have when

1:36

I listen to you know people

1:38

on like CNBC and it's like oh

1:41

well they're always like trying to

1:43

justify like some sort of rational

1:45

valuation metric and then the market

1:47

shifts and then they're like just

1:49

changing their whole call like oh

1:51

well you know invidia's got this

1:53

growth earnings and so therefore this

1:56

is a very fair valuation and

1:58

then invidia goes down 30% And

2:00

it's like, well, we knew

2:02

that their growth was going

2:04

to have to slow down

2:07

at some point. So they're

2:09

always retrofitting the valuation. And

2:11

I think the reason they're

2:13

doing that is because it's

2:16

not really based on that

2:18

anymore, that when the stock

2:20

market was the kind of

2:22

place for elites to invest

2:24

money. and they looked at

2:26

it and they did DCFs,

2:28

and a lot of times

2:31

they actually did discount a

2:33

dividend model. So a lot

2:35

of times they literally looked

2:37

at it like, what is

2:39

a fair multiple of dividends,

2:41

like for the cash flow?

2:43

And at a certain point

2:45

between passive investing and between

2:47

401k and the massive shift

2:49

between defined benefit plans. as

2:52

the pension system in the

2:54

United States to define contribution

2:56

plans and 401k, it simply

2:58

became like a financial mechanism

3:00

to basically shift wealth into

3:03

the older generations based on

3:05

what younger people would contribute.

3:07

and it started to really

3:09

divorce from valuation fundamentals and

3:11

housing did the same thing

3:14

which is I think what

3:16

you're saying they became substitute

3:18

store value assets because there

3:20

wasn't a really good store value

3:23

asset and obviously as you and I

3:25

know Bitcoin is designed to be the

3:27

perfect store value asset and and that's

3:30

what's slowly taking place is people starting

3:32

to realize that. Yeah as I was

3:34

telling I was in DC last week

3:36

for the Bitcoin policy institute event.

3:38

catered around content, sort of

3:41

putting forth the idea of

3:43

this strategic Bitcoin Reserve, and

3:45

I was highly encouraged by the

3:47

amount of senators and representatives

3:49

that were in the room

3:52

seriously digesting the content

3:54

and taking our perspective seriously.

3:56

It seems like things have

3:59

definitely shifted. with the second

4:01

Trump administration, which is why we're

4:03

catching up, because the last time

4:05

we caught up was right before

4:07

the new year, and you had

4:10

laid out your ideas for

4:12

what was going to happen,

4:14

particularly the effects of the

4:16

incoming Trump administration on the

4:18

markets. And so far, what

4:20

you predicted or what you

4:22

said would happen when Trump got

4:25

in the office has played out.

4:27

almost perfectly in terms of

4:29

markets crashing, a quick crash,

4:31

a reset with these tariff

4:33

policies and other economic policies.

4:36

And people are running around

4:38

like the hairs on fire, but

4:40

I think if you take a

4:42

step back and you just approach

4:44

this analytically and objectively, many people

4:47

are saying that Trump has no

4:49

idea what he's doing and pointing

4:51

at the markets as evidence of

4:54

that. you rightly called at the

4:56

end of last year that this was

4:58

probably going to be what they were

5:00

going to do out of the gate to

5:03

reset things. Yeah, I mean, I'm

5:05

getting more bullish every day. I mean,

5:07

it's like, I looked at it back

5:09

then and I thought like there's a

5:11

lot of stuff being priced in that

5:14

like is not taking into effect what

5:16

I would call reality. And it's like,

5:18

you know, it's like, okay, we're going

5:21

to, you know, you know, decrease

5:23

inflation to 2%. We're going to

5:25

make housing affordable. We're going to

5:27

pump up the stock market. We're

5:29

going to get manufacturing back here.

5:32

The list could go on and

5:34

on of what was promised. And

5:36

it's like there's no magic wand

5:38

that can just be waived and

5:41

this happens. The only potential way

5:43

this happens is through a series

5:45

of events. And that part of

5:47

that series was going to have

5:49

to be a interlude of uncertainty.

5:51

of, you know, is this really

5:53

going to work? Is it really

5:56

going to produce the growth at

5:58

the end of the light? the

6:00

end of the tunnel, and that

6:02

during that period of uncertainty, I

6:04

was like, there's definitely going to

6:07

be, you know, a sell-off. And

6:09

I basically said in December, I'm

6:12

like, a 10 to 30% sell-off,

6:14

and that was a wide range.

6:16

But if you had to do

6:19

a point estimate on it, it

6:21

would have been a 20% sell-off,

6:23

and I still think that could

6:26

be about right. On Bitcoin,

6:28

I had looked a

6:30

lot at monthly charts,

6:32

and I actually, I

6:34

wrote down some numbers,

6:37

like the monthly close

6:39

high in 2021 was 61K

6:41

more or less. The

6:43

monthly closed low in 2022

6:46

was roughly 16K, and that's

6:48

a 44K spread. And if

6:50

you add that 44, to

6:52

the previous high of 61,

6:55

you get 106 and that had

6:57

been my initial target was around

6:59

a 106 range and I think

7:01

we got to like 108 or

7:04

something like that and I said typical

7:06

thing to happen when you

7:08

get a move like that

7:10

is you retrace 50% of

7:12

it and the 50% retracement

7:14

was $83,774 on a monthly

7:16

basis and we literally last month

7:18

in February closed like within

7:20

a hundred bucks of it.

7:22

You know, like we closed

7:24

Feb at like 83, I

7:26

don't know, it was something

7:28

within 100 or 200 dollars

7:30

of a 50% retracement of

7:32

those monthly highs. And my

7:34

point was that would be a

7:37

normal retracement on a monthly level,

7:39

intermonth we'll see what we're

7:41

going to see, and then I

7:44

think we ramp back up, and what

7:46

we do is we do another 44

7:48

K on top of that 106 K.

7:50

and that's going to get us to

7:52

150. And that's my 2025 year and

7:54

target. I think we could do more

7:56

than that, but I still think we're

7:58

at looking at 150. Bitcoin by the

8:00

end of the year. It's a nice humble

8:03

pump. Many people are calling, I'm

8:05

not sure if you saw this

8:07

Josh Mendel character pop out of

8:09

out of nowhere. He made the

8:11

84,000 on March 14th call and

8:13

he was within a hundred,

8:15

a couple hundred dollars. He's

8:17

calling for $444,000, but I think,

8:20

whether it's 440, that would be

8:22

incredible. 150, just going up would

8:24

be, would be good, because I think it

8:26

would validate. the long-term thesis

8:29

that Bitcoin is something that's here

8:31

to say that people should

8:33

own and marching towards 150 is

8:35

a validation of that thesis I

8:38

think. Yeah and I think I think

8:40

what what is possibly going to

8:42

happen and I can't guarantee it

8:44

obviously but I think what we

8:47

could be seeing is the beginning

8:49

of a divorce between the NASDAQ

8:51

and Bitcoin and I think that's

8:53

a very important thing to happen

8:56

and for it to begin to

8:58

break down that strong historical correlation

9:00

with risk on. And I think,

9:02

you know, there could be fundamental

9:04

drivers for it. So we could

9:07

see, for example, the NASDAQ go

9:09

down lower, and then we could

9:11

see some positive announcements of, say,

9:13

states or, you know, some sovereign

9:15

in the Middle East saying we're

9:17

going to put in a Bitcoin

9:19

reserve. And all of a sudden

9:22

the market needs to say, Bitcoin

9:24

is not the NASDAQ. Like, and

9:26

this is, I think this is

9:28

a huge maturity point for Bitcoin.

9:30

I've, I predicted it in one

9:32

of my, I put out a

9:34

post at the end of 24,

9:36

like top 10 predictions for 2025.

9:38

And one of them was that

9:40

during this year, Bitcoin's gonna break

9:42

its super hyper strong correlation with

9:44

the NASDAQ. And I think if

9:46

it can do that, like, that's,

9:48

that's gonna be huge and that's

9:50

gonna be a big thing for

9:53

Bitcoin. And I, I think. It

9:55

hasn't done it yet and you

9:57

know we will see what happens

9:59

but You know, like I said, a

10:01

lot of the things I predict, they

10:03

don't happen next week. They take a

10:06

few months to play out, but hopefully

10:08

by the summer or the fall, we'll

10:10

start seeing that Bitcoin is not trading,

10:12

you know, as a high beta, you

10:14

know, NASDAQ play. Stuff freaks.

10:16

Do you have a credit card? Are

10:18

you getting cash back or airline

10:21

points or points for some other service?

10:23

Guess what? Those are shit coins. You

10:25

wanna be stacking groundbreaking news for

10:28

you. The team at fold. has

10:30

finally released the Bitcoin Rewards

10:32

credit card. They have a wait list,

10:34

and will be distributing the

10:37

cards later this year. So you want to

10:39

get on the wait list, full plus

10:41

members are going to get unlimited 2%

10:43

Bitcoin back on this credit card.

10:46

If you get on the wait list, there are

10:48

up to $200,000 in prizes that are going

10:50

to be given out. So get on it

10:52

as quickly as possible. Go

10:54

to tftc.io/fold and get on the

10:57

wait list there. If you're on

10:59

the wait list, you have the potential to

11:01

win some of the prizes. Check it out.

11:03

Suffrice! This rip of TFTC was brought

11:05

to you by our good friends at

11:07

Coinkite. They make the Cold Card Q.

11:09

My favorite hardware wallet, the most secure

11:11

hardware wallet on the market. As you

11:14

can see, it's got the Blackberry

11:16

Form Factor. Full keyboard. It's got

11:18

two secure enclaves. You create your

11:20

private public keys. Offline. The device

11:22

never has to go online. Never does

11:24

go online. So you keep your Bitcoin.

11:27

If you have your Bitcoin on exchanges and

11:29

you're looking to get it off secure

11:31

it in the best way possible, pick

11:33

up a cold card queue. Go to coinkite.com,

11:35

find the cold card queue, use the

11:37

code TfTC for 5% off. If you're a power

11:39

user of Bitcoin, if you're running a

11:42

business on a Bitcoin standard, if you're

11:44

just a Bitcoin or wants to secure

11:46

a Bitcoin, get the most secure hardware

11:48

wallet on the market, go get the

11:51

cold card queue. It's a beautiful thing.

11:53

During our last conversation, I want to

11:55

dig into the policy. out of the gate

11:57

with this Trump admin during our last.

11:59

a lot of the focus was

12:02

on Treasury Bissent and comments

12:04

he's made in the 12 to

12:06

18 months leading up to the

12:08

2024 election. Obviously we talked about

12:10

doge and tariffs and the

12:12

effects that will have on the

12:14

policy and then I'm not sure

12:17

on the economy, excuse me. I'm

12:19

not sure if you caught this

12:21

yesterday, but Treasury Secretary

12:23

Bissent was on Meet the press

12:25

and he had this one line

12:27

that signaled to me that essentially

12:29

confirming the quarter of years. I

12:32

know it's common. Yeah, I mean,

12:34

let them meet flat screens. The

12:36

American economy is not let them

12:38

meet flat screens. And I

12:40

thought that that line was incredible,

12:42

not only for how eloquently or

12:44

not even eloquently how simply it

12:47

described what the American dream should

12:49

be. It's not about being able

12:51

to go out and buy a

12:54

80 inch flat screen for $300.

12:56

It's about being able to. pull

12:58

yourself up from your bootstraps and

13:00

honestly and earnestly believe that you

13:03

have the ability to go out there

13:05

and make something of yourself and

13:07

climb the economic ladder. And I

13:09

think that line signals where

13:11

this administration is thinking from a

13:14

policy perspective, which is the stock

13:16

market is not the economy. We

13:18

really need to reinvigorate the middle

13:21

class and bring true wealth and

13:23

productivity back to the American

13:25

economy. Yeah, I mean, I mean, when

13:27

we talk last time and I

13:29

was like, okay, the market's probably

13:31

going to go down and it's

13:33

not going to look pretty for

13:35

a while. And I said, look,

13:37

you know, they're going to come

13:39

out there with messaging, you know,

13:41

they're going to blame the Democrats,

13:43

they're going to blame, you know,

13:45

ridiculously high deficit to GDP spending,

13:48

they're going to, and in many

13:50

ways, they're going to be right.

13:52

What they're trying to do, in

13:54

my opinion, is they're trying to

13:56

thread the needle and save us

13:58

from a complete financial... collapse. That

14:01

if we had continued on the

14:03

path, let's just go into a

14:05

weird universe where Kamla Harris won

14:08

and they just said, okay, let's

14:10

just keep doing what we're doing.

14:12

Let's keep doing seven, eight percent

14:14

deficit to GDP. Let's keep doing

14:17

government spending up the Wazoo. Let's

14:19

let, you know, US debt go

14:21

from 36 trillion to 45 trillion

14:24

in the next. five or six

14:26

years. And at the same time,

14:28

the economy is going to be

14:31

growing, which is going to do

14:33

what? It's going to push up

14:35

the 10-year yield, it's going to

14:37

put up interest rates, which is

14:40

going to do what to our

14:42

net interest expense, it's going to,

14:44

you know, balloon out of control.

14:47

And we're essentially going to head

14:49

for another great depression. Like I

14:51

really felt, and I still feel,

14:54

like if we just would continue

14:56

on that path, that is what

14:58

was our destiny. And I think

15:01

what they're trying to do, and

15:03

I don't know if they will

15:05

be successful, I want to be

15:07

clear, I think what they're doing

15:10

is a thread the needle strategy

15:12

that has a lot of moving

15:14

parts to it, that, you know,

15:17

things could, you know, go off

15:19

the rails. But if they're successful,

15:21

I think what they're trying to

15:24

do is they're trying to realign

15:26

us to a path of sustainability.

15:28

hot parts of it and cold

15:30

parts of it. I call it

15:33

a salsa and sour cream strategy

15:35

where, you know, if you look

15:37

at salsa and sour cream, they're

15:40

usually paired together because there's something

15:42

called like capsaicin or something within

15:44

sour cream that dulls the salsa.

15:47

And so they've got different things

15:49

where they're like, okay, we're going

15:51

to fuel the economy by forcing,

15:54

you know, longer rates down. That's

15:56

going to drive down mortgage costs.

15:58

Eventually, and this is a huge

16:00

part of it, is housing, I

16:03

think, that's going to unlock people

16:05

doing second mortgages, and there's over

16:07

$13 trillion. of equity that Americans

16:10

have in houses that can be

16:12

unleashed. So I think they've got

16:14

all these salsa components, but right

16:17

now we're getting a big dollop

16:19

of sour cream. We're getting tariffs.

16:21

We're getting decreases in government spending,

16:23

which has been juicing the economy

16:26

for many years. So we're getting

16:28

a lot of cooling components now.

16:30

I think the salsa components are...

16:33

waiting in the wings and they're

16:35

doing it in the right order

16:37

which is first you had to

16:40

cool things down bring down interest

16:42

rates bring down oil and then

16:44

you start to unleash all of

16:47

these like What are in essence

16:49

inflationary components? Because what you're doing

16:51

right now is you're putting in

16:53

deflationary components. I think actually terrorists

16:56

are deflationary. I don't think they're

16:58

inflationary at all. So they're introducing

17:00

deflationary components right now. We've also

17:03

got a massive secular deflationary component,

17:05

which is AI. So we've got

17:07

all these deflationary components that we're

17:10

facing right now. I think that's

17:12

what the stock market is reading.

17:14

And then what they're going to

17:16

do is then all of a

17:19

sudden in the summer and the

17:21

fall, I think, at least the

17:23

salsa and the hot components that

17:26

are just going to fuel this

17:28

back to 7,000. So that was

17:30

my prediction. It was like, we're

17:33

going to come in, we're going

17:35

to have a 10 to 30%

17:37

correction, it's going to be V-like,

17:40

and we're going to rebound quickly,

17:42

and we're going to end the

17:44

year closer to 7,000 on the

17:46

S&P, 150, and be set up

17:49

for basically one of the best

17:51

economic times we've been set up

17:53

for, but there's going to be

17:56

a period and it's going to

17:58

be substantial and it's not going

18:00

to be fun in the first

18:03

half of the year where we

18:05

go down and people get scared

18:07

because they don't believe in it

18:09

and because they don't believe in

18:12

it. but I still don't think

18:14

they believe in it yet and

18:16

that's why I think we've probably

18:19

got further down to go but

18:21

we are setting up for a

18:23

little bit of a bounce here

18:26

but I think if we get

18:28

to a certain point I'd probably

18:30

be ready to sell that bounce

18:33

but I think we'll probably bottom

18:35

sometime in May or June not

18:37

in March. How would you grade

18:39

the execution of this salsa and

18:42

sour cream policy so far? It

18:44

could be better but I totally

18:46

see their point. So like some

18:49

people are like, oh, you know,

18:51

Trump is being too harsh and

18:53

he's like, this is the way

18:56

I guess I could analogize it.

18:58

Let's just say you've got one

19:00

car to sell your car salesman

19:02

and if you sell this car,

19:05

you hit your monthly bogey. So

19:07

you need the unit sale. But

19:09

you also want the commission and

19:12

let's say you get a commission

19:14

if you sell that car over

19:16

$30,000. And you're dealing with a

19:19

potential buyer. Well, you're going to

19:21

want to try to sell for

19:23

$35,000 or $40,000 and hit your

19:26

commission. But what really matters to

19:28

you is hitting that unit sale

19:30

so you hit your unit goal

19:32

and collect whatever that bonus might

19:35

be. And then on the other

19:37

end, you got a buyer who

19:39

really needs the car. But on

19:42

the same time, he wants to

19:44

save money. And so if you

19:46

go into that negotiation and the

19:49

guy who needs the car is

19:51

like... oh I really really really

19:53

need this car I'll do anything

19:55

for it you know you're being

19:58

stupid and the same thing with

20:00

the salesman if he's like oh

20:02

I just need to get this

20:05

sale I don't even care if

20:07

I make a commission on it

20:09

I just need the sale and

20:12

and that's Europe or that's China

20:14

and then you know Trump on

20:16

the other end is is kind

20:19

of the car buyer if you

20:21

will of these products and so

20:23

they're both coming in with a

20:25

bunch of rhetoric that is not

20:28

anywhere near how they truly feel

20:30

on the issue and so At

20:32

the end of the day, Europe

20:35

really needs the sale. They need

20:37

the units. they can't just give

20:39

up the American market. Their economies

20:42

will collapse. On the other hand,

20:44

Trump, as the car buyer, and

20:46

as his car buyer, hypothetical car

20:48

buyer, really needs the car, like

20:51

he doesn't want to give up

20:53

the European market either. So they're

20:55

both just. jaw-boning, they're talking their

20:58

game, they're, and this is the

21:00

thing that always happens with Trump,

21:02

is like Marco Rubio, little Marco,

21:05

and they're playing their hands, and

21:07

now he's his right-hand man in

21:09

the Secretary of State. It's not

21:12

like a normal guy in the

21:14

street where you walk up to

21:16

the guy in the street and

21:18

you say something mean and nasty

21:21

to him and he doesn't want

21:23

to have anything to do with

21:25

you. These people are playing hardball,

21:28

they're playing big stakes and they're

21:30

not going to let comments or

21:32

ruffled feathers get in the way

21:35

of the deal that's ultimately in

21:37

their best interest. And so right

21:39

now you've got everybody playing hardball,

21:41

whether it's Canada, Mexico, Europe. They're

21:44

all talking their game. Trump's playing

21:46

his hardball. He's all talking. And

21:48

I knew this was going to

21:51

come. That's what I said was

21:53

basically going to be the cause

21:55

of the sell-off, is that for

21:58

him to get what he wants

22:00

into place, there's just going to

22:02

have to be this period where

22:05

people are basically at each other's

22:07

throats. And at the end of

22:09

the day, though, these people, I

22:11

think, can be counted on to

22:14

do more or less what's in

22:16

their interests. And then there are

22:18

things that are differing interests. I

22:21

think, for example, Europe has a

22:23

different interest vis-à-vis Ukraine than America

22:25

does. So I think, you know,

22:28

like, terrorist is one thing where,

22:30

like, ultimately, we want to keep

22:32

a trading alliance together. I think

22:34

on the other hand, there are

22:37

certain reasons why Europe is more...

22:39

concern with Russia than the United

22:41

States is. And so there are

22:44

areas where we overlap and we're

22:46

gonna. eventually come together, I'm pretty

22:48

confident about that. And then there

22:51

are other areas where we might

22:53

diverge and those things will play

22:55

out how they play out. But

22:57

as far as the economy is

23:00

concerned, I think nobody wants to

23:02

go back to not having the

23:04

American markets open to them. And

23:07

ultimately, some sort of solutions will

23:09

be found out. And once those

23:11

get found out, once they get

23:14

resolved, once the rules of the

23:16

road become clear. And then the

23:18

salsa starts getting added on, which

23:21

I think is things like expanding

23:23

second home mortgages, government guaranteed, which

23:25

I think could be a sovereign

23:27

wealth fund with Bitcoin, with gold,

23:30

that is then used to kind

23:32

of leverage up the US balance

23:34

sheet. Once those things get going

23:37

into deregulation, lower oil prices. Like

23:39

once those things then get into

23:41

place, then the market's going to

23:44

take a step back and say,

23:46

whoa, we misread this whole thing.

23:48

Trump was a master, he played

23:50

it wonderfully, and I'm not like

23:53

a Trump sickle fan, I don't

23:55

think he's a perfect guy, and

23:57

I disagree with him on some

24:00

issues. I think he's too strong

24:02

in favor of Israel, for example,

24:04

but like I do think that

24:07

eventually this is going to play

24:09

out in a good way for

24:11

the US economy and for the

24:14

US stock market. and Bitcoin in

24:16

gold. This rep was brought to

24:18

you by great friends at Unchained

24:20

as Bitcoin's role in the global

24:23

financial landscape evolves. Understanding its potential

24:25

impact on your wealth becomes increasingly

24:27

crucial. whether we see measured adoption

24:30

or accelerated hyperbiquinization, being prepared for

24:32

various scenarios can make the difference

24:34

between merely participating and truly optimizing

24:37

your position. This is important freaks.

24:39

This is why Unchained developed the

24:41

Bitcoin calculator, a sophisticated modeling tool

24:43

that helps you visualize and prepare

24:46

for multiple Bitcoin futures beyond traditional

24:48

retirement planning. It offers deep insights

24:50

into how different adoption scenarios could

24:53

transform your wealth trajectory. What sets

24:55

this tool apart is the integrator.

24:57

with the unchained IRA, the only

25:00

solution that combines the tax advantages

25:02

of a retirement account with the

25:04

security of self-custity. In any future

25:07

state, maintaining direct control of your

25:09

keys remains fundamental to your Bitcoin

25:11

strategy. Go explore the potential futures

25:13

at unchained.com/TfTC. Bitcoin is going up.

25:16

Make sure you're protecting it the

25:18

right way. Make sure you have

25:20

a good partner that is unchanged.

25:23

Go to unchained.com/TfTC. External factors and

25:25

variables that could throw a wrench

25:27

in all this, do you think?

25:30

Is it something like Ukraine? Israel,

25:32

whatever it may be. I think

25:34

Israel is a big one. Yeah,

25:36

I think Israel is a big

25:39

one. Because, you know, there's a

25:41

guy, a well-known professor from University

25:43

of Chicago, John Meersheimer, he wrote

25:46

a book called the Israel Lobby,

25:48

and he's basically spelled out how...

25:50

There's a weird situation between the

25:53

United States and Israel, which is

25:55

there's just a very, very powerful

25:57

lobby of United States citizens who

26:00

also happen to be Jewish and

26:02

perhaps even Israeli citizens, dual citizens,

26:04

that are very powerful and that

26:06

contribute a lot to political campaigns

26:09

for congressmen, for senators. And so

26:11

sometimes the U.S. winds up doing

26:13

things that are not in the

26:16

United States' interest, but are in

26:18

the interest of Israel. And in

26:20

this, we've seen this escalation over

26:23

the weekend with the Houthis, and

26:25

it seems relatively clear that Nan

26:27

Yahoo wants to try to take

26:29

out Iran. possibly just to take

26:32

out their weapons capability, but he

26:34

could have broader aspirations. He was

26:36

in charge, I believe, back in

26:39

2003, 2004. for when we were

26:41

in Iraq. And he wanted us

26:43

to continue after Iraq to go

26:46

into Syria and different things. Like,

26:48

and Israel is in Syria now.

26:50

So Israel is in Syria. They've

26:53

got positions in Lebanon. Like, this

26:55

whole Israel thing is probably the

26:57

biggest wild card in the whole

26:59

mix. And it's also something that

27:02

I think is complicated by the

27:04

fact that there is a very

27:06

strong. lobby on behalf of the

27:09

state of Israel in the United

27:11

States, something that, for example, Ukraine

27:13

doesn't have. Yeah. And I think

27:16

if the history of the 21st

27:18

century has taught us anything, it

27:20

said meddling in Middle East affairs

27:22

doesn't always work in our best

27:25

interests and is never as easy

27:27

as it may seem at the

27:29

onset. I mean, Syria is a

27:32

perfect example. I think Tulsi Gabbard

27:34

did an incredible job of sort

27:36

of predicting exactly what would happen

27:39

there would happen there if we

27:41

Let the rebel forces take out

27:43

Assad and lo and behold, within

27:46

a few months, Syria is a

27:48

complete shit-show with ISIS taking over

27:50

and slaughtering religious minorities, particularly Christians.

27:52

And I completely agree. I think

27:55

I could see catering to the

27:57

whims of Israel's once in that

27:59

part of the world could... distract

28:02

us from what we're trying to

28:04

do at home, which I think

28:06

is extremely admirable, worthwhile, and where

28:09

it should be, is just resetting

28:11

the American economy to make sure

28:13

that we don't live in a

28:15

world where let them eat flat

28:18

screens is the economic policy here

28:20

domestically. Yeah, exactly. And I mean,

28:22

if you look at, you know,

28:25

I mentioned something earlier, like just

28:27

Europe's interests might slightly diverge, I

28:29

think from the US, I think

28:32

it's... It's easy to think, you

28:34

know, that Europeans are being silly

28:36

with wanting to support Ukraine, but

28:39

I think if you look at

28:41

European history over the centuries, Western

28:43

Europe has always wanted the resources

28:45

of Russia. They've always wanted it.

28:48

Germany did, even if you go

28:50

back further, Britain, France. I mean,

28:52

they looked at the resources that

28:55

Russia possesses, and then they had

28:57

this, you know, kind of Western

28:59

European superiority complex, where they just

29:02

looked down upon Russia and the

29:04

Slavic peoples and they've constantly wanted

29:06

that. And I think when you

29:08

look at like, for example, Germany

29:11

and you see that Germany was

29:13

brought to their knees a little

29:15

bit by this Ukraine issue, given

29:18

their dependence upon Russia for oil

29:20

and natural gas, I think there's

29:22

almost a legitimate... you know, like

29:25

national interest in some of these

29:27

Western European states to say, we

29:29

want to be able to control

29:32

Russia because they are our primary

29:34

source of oil. And this is

29:36

not too dissimilar to 1970s, 1980s,

29:38

when the United States was at

29:41

its largest point of being a

29:43

net importer of energy. And we

29:45

were brought to heel. by Saudi

29:48

Arabia and OPEC doing, you know,

29:50

price controls and boycotts on sending

29:52

oil to the U.S. and we

29:55

had the famous oil lines in

29:57

the United States and only odd

29:59

number license plates could get oil

30:01

on this day. And the United

30:04

States came out and basically said

30:06

like this cannot go on. And

30:08

there are recently declassified documents from

30:11

like Kissinger under Nixon. where they

30:13

were drawing up plans to invade

30:15

Saudi Arabia because the point was

30:18

like we cannot be held hostage

30:20

for oil or energy. by the

30:22

Middle East and I think in

30:25

some sense Western Europe has felt

30:27

oh my gosh we're being held

30:29

hostage by Russia and and so

30:31

they have this almost almost legitimate

30:34

I don't I don't want to

30:36

like give a blessing to it

30:38

but it's an almost legitimate national

30:41

interest of like we need we

30:43

can't let Russia be so independent

30:45

with their huge nuclear arsenal. And

30:48

if we can weaken them in

30:50

any way, that's a real big

30:52

benefit to us. But that completely

30:54

diverges from the United States' interests,

30:57

which is if we really, you

30:59

know, become aggressive against Russia, we

31:01

drive them more into the arms

31:04

of China and if Russia and

31:06

China are together. And then also

31:08

Russia's been developing a lot of

31:11

strong allegiances with India because India

31:13

needs Russian oil. You know, that

31:15

puts us in a negative spot.

31:17

And so I think there's a

31:20

legitimate, this could be like a

31:22

second concern. So number one, there's

31:24

a divergence between US interests and

31:27

Israeli interests. And then two, there's

31:29

a divergence between US interests and

31:31

European, Western European interests. And so

31:34

what the United States is really,

31:36

I think, needs to do is

31:38

extricate itself a little bit from

31:41

being a, you know, protective uncle

31:43

to Europe and I think Trump's

31:45

willing to do that. I think

31:47

he also needs to do that

31:50

to Israel but I think that's

31:52

more difficult to do because of

31:54

the strong lobbying controls and positions

31:57

that are there with with Israel.

31:59

I completely agree I think as

32:01

it pertains to Western Europe specifically

32:04

I think it's easier to sort

32:06

of cut ties and say hey

32:08

we're not the productive. protective uncle

32:10

anymore because of the what's happening

32:13

socially and politically over there in

32:15

terms of their a version it

32:17

seems these days to Western liberal

32:20

values of freedom of speech and

32:22

secure borders, which weren't values here

32:24

until recently. But I think it's

32:27

much easier from the Western Europe

32:29

perspective to be like, hey, you

32:31

guys are going a little nuts

32:34

right now. Well, we need to

32:36

get things in order at home

32:38

to make sure that we're unstable

32:40

footing. And so if you guys

32:43

want to go about this, you're

32:45

going to have to go alone.

32:47

I think the argument is made.

32:50

significantly stronger when you consider the

32:52

amount of money that's been sent

32:54

that way for the war in

32:57

Ukraine over the last five years

32:59

or excuse me three years. So

33:01

there, yeah, when it comes to

33:03

Israel, they do have a lobbying

33:06

stronghold and obviously it is a

33:08

hyperbitriolic topic that that brings about

33:10

a lot of a lot of

33:13

blowback if you try to approach

33:15

it. But I think if you

33:17

if you just state don't bring

33:20

religion or ethnicity into it and

33:22

just label it as state actors

33:24

interacting with each other. It's like,

33:27

hey, I don't want to get

33:29

dragged into more Middle Eastern wars.

33:31

It hasn't worked out for us.

33:33

It's not in our best interest.

33:36

There's no reason to because there's

33:38

actually a propensity for a number

33:40

of powerful Middle Eastern states to

33:43

strongly ally themselves with the United

33:45

States. So, you know, countries like

33:47

Saudi Arabia, which feel threatened by

33:50

Iran, are really like... like itching

33:52

to just, you know, solidify partnerships

33:54

with the United States and actually

33:56

even, even with Israel, and it's,

33:59

it's just not a good situation.

34:01

And so these are the big

34:03

things that I think are worries

34:06

on the market, there are things

34:08

that could get in the way,

34:10

but I think at the end

34:13

of the day, these will be

34:15

navigated through. I think they've always

34:17

been navigated through, and I think

34:20

really when you look at things

34:22

like tariffs, They're really being thrown

34:24

out there as like a reason

34:26

for the market to sell. off

34:29

or what have you, I don't

34:31

think it really is about terrorists.

34:33

I think what Trump is trying

34:36

to do with, you know, reinstituting

34:38

manufacturing in the US is a

34:40

complete realigning of the global monetary

34:43

order. The post- 1971 monetary order

34:45

where the United States Prince Treasuries

34:47

People sell their goods cheaply into

34:49

the United States, the U.S. exports

34:52

treasuries, those treasuries float around the

34:54

world as currency for the world.

34:56

I think that system is breaking

34:59

down and that's one of the

35:01

reasons why you're seeing things like

35:03

the German stock market do well

35:06

this year is because people like

35:08

China, which have historically sold in

35:10

the United States, taking those dollars

35:13

and yes some of those dollars

35:15

they bought US treasuries but a

35:17

lot of those dollars got sent

35:19

into US real estate and also

35:22

the US stock market and saying

35:24

okay maybe we're not going to

35:26

sell as much into the United

35:29

States anymore therefore we can't buy

35:31

as much US assets anymore therefore

35:33

let's buy European assets and this

35:36

is one of the fundamental drivers

35:38

of the break between Bitcoin and

35:40

NASDAQ. is, Bitcoin is not a

35:42

US asset, right? Now, China does

35:45

have restrictions on Bitcoin. However, their

35:47

citizens, and given the nature of

35:49

Bitcoin, are still able to own

35:52

it. And they're doing that in

35:54

large numbers. They're also buying gold,

35:56

another neutral asset. And so this

35:59

break from, for example, the Chinese

36:01

buying the NASDAQ, buying invidia. is

36:03

part of what's going on here

36:06

and I don't think it's necessarily

36:08

because of tariffs. I think it's

36:10

I think it's more of a

36:12

broader change in the monetary order,

36:15

which has simply been US print

36:17

more treasuries, increase our national debt,

36:19

supply the world with dollars, dollar

36:22

cents, cheap goods. Once the BRICS

36:24

nations basically said, you know, we

36:26

don't want to play that game

36:29

anymore, then I think the United

36:31

States, especially I think Besson understands

36:33

this, like that is no longer

36:35

a sustainable. path for the next,

36:38

let's say, five to 10 years.

36:40

It might have been sustainable for

36:42

another two or three years, but

36:45

eventually it was going to hit

36:47

a roadblock and it wasn't going

36:49

to work anymore. And so we're

36:52

getting this complete reordering and in

36:54

this intermediate period where people are

36:56

like, okay, the traditional buyers of

36:59

NASDAQ, US real estate, Bitcoin, they're

37:01

now buying other assets. causes a

37:03

dislocation that causes, you know, a

37:05

price drop. But what will happen

37:08

is that people will then begin

37:10

to realize, okay, for every one

37:12

of those buyers, there's going to

37:15

be another new buyer, which is,

37:17

okay, United States citizens, for example,

37:19

are going to have higher real

37:22

wages. They're going to be a

37:24

larger manufacturing group, which is going

37:26

to cause reinvestment. So instead of

37:28

foreign direct investment from China buying

37:31

US real estate, it's going to

37:33

be companies wanting to put up

37:35

data centers or it's going to

37:38

be, you know, like I said,

37:40

a rejiggering of the Fannie Mae

37:42

Freddie Mac system that unleashes second

37:45

mortgages that. you know, lead to

37:47

Home Depot and low stock going

37:49

up and then there's going to

37:52

be certain, probably incentives for first-time

37:54

home buyers. I think they're going

37:56

to be putting in certain things

37:58

like government cap mortgages, like things

38:01

that we just really have not

38:03

seen. These are things that are

38:05

outside of the Overton window, things

38:08

that we thought... know we wouldn't

38:10

see and that if they were

38:12

done let's say in January would

38:15

have just caused inflation and the

38:17

stock market to spike so high

38:19

it would have led to a

38:21

collapse but once we cool things

38:24

off a little bit once we

38:26

do that's our cream then they're

38:28

going to come in with the

38:31

salsa ideas and there are going

38:33

to be things like okay guess

38:35

what we're doing a government backed

38:38

Fannie and Freddie home loan for

38:40

first-time home buyers that is capped

38:42

at three and a half percent.

38:45

And, you know, these are things

38:47

that are not outside of the

38:49

realm of possibility under a Trump

38:51

administration and that can just totally

38:54

stoke this demand and start driving

38:56

this internal virtuous circle of demand

38:58

that's going to replace this external...

39:01

virtuous circle of demand that has

39:03

existed for decades. So we're essentially

39:05

transferring the entire flow of capital

39:08

from Plan A, which was again,

39:10

US print dollars, go out, dollars

39:12

come back, recycle back into the

39:14

US to buy US assets, to

39:17

dollars are going to begin to

39:19

be printed within the United States

39:21

for recirculation within the United States.

39:24

And I think there will be

39:26

some inflationary impacts to that and

39:28

that's what I think is also

39:31

going to be beneficial for gold,

39:33

Bitcoin, and the stock market, but

39:35

it's not going to begin to

39:38

occur until probably the summer or

39:40

fall of this year. And once

39:42

people start to see, okay, this

39:44

is what's going on, then I

39:47

think there's going to be a

39:49

mad rush and we're going to

39:51

have a ridiculous... you know, climb

39:54

and that's how I can easily

39:56

get to my 150 Bitcoin by

39:58

end of the year target. How

40:01

does the Fed play into this?

40:03

Do they need to play ball?

40:05

Particularly for that mortgage idea. It

40:07

seems like rates would have to

40:10

be lower the Fed funds rate,

40:12

at least to justify it. I

40:14

think part of the Trump administration.

40:17

is to neuter the Fed. It's

40:19

to take the Federal Reserve out

40:21

of the picture. The Federal Reserve

40:24

is an anachronism. It is a

40:26

holdover from the days of the

40:28

Gold Standard. The Federal Reserve existed

40:30

in 1913 because there was a

40:33

point. where the government needed gold

40:35

to back its currency. And the

40:37

only way you could get gold

40:40

is you go to rich people.

40:42

And the only way you could

40:44

access those rich people was to

40:47

go through banks. And so the

40:49

Federal Reserve was created as a

40:51

go between the wealthy and the

40:54

government. And this is the initial

40:56

creation of the Bank of England

40:58

1694, William III. He had basically

41:00

borrowed money from wealthy people. He

41:03

could not pay it back. He

41:05

was involved in a war with

41:07

France. And he went to these

41:10

wealthy people and said, I need

41:12

to borrow more money because I'm

41:14

involved with the war with France.

41:17

And the wealthy people said, we're

41:19

not going to lend you any

41:21

money, King William, because you're not

41:23

good for it. But what we

41:26

will do is if you give

41:28

us a charter, and this was

41:30

the charter of the Bank of

41:33

England, if you give us a

41:35

charter to print paper money, we

41:37

will collect paper money or collect

41:40

golden silver from the population, take

41:42

it into the Bank of England.

41:44

issue them paper notes, give you

41:47

that gold and silver at interest.

41:49

So basically what it was was

41:51

take money from the people at

41:53

no interest and then loan it

41:56

to the sovereign at interest. That's

41:58

that is the basis of a

42:00

central bank from the beginning of

42:03

time. It is to fund the

42:05

government through the people's money while

42:07

bankers and rich people collect interest

42:10

rates. and it was necessary because

42:12

money had been based on gold.

42:14

Once we left the gold standard,

42:16

and this has not completely sunk

42:19

into people yet, is that there's

42:21

no need for a federal. And

42:23

the United States could issue United

42:26

States notes. They could do whatever

42:28

they want. And I think when

42:30

Besson talks about, he says, reprivatization

42:33

of the economy. And when they

42:35

talk about, we're going to utilize

42:37

the asset side of the balance

42:40

sheet of the United States. I

42:42

think these are comments that are

42:44

hinting at that taking away. of

42:46

power from the Federal Reserve. So

42:49

what they're going to do is

42:51

they're going to bring monetary policy

42:53

into the United States Department of

42:56

the Treasury. And let's say, for

42:58

example, they set up a sovereign

43:00

wealth fund, and Bitcoin is in

43:03

it, gold is in it, cash

43:05

flows from oil and lease contracts

43:07

are in it, maybe they might

43:09

take some of their massive real

43:12

estate holdings and start selling those

43:14

off to private companies, renting them,

43:16

renting them out, renting them out,

43:19

renting them out. to federal agencies

43:21

and then those federal agencies pay

43:23

rent and comes into the sovereign

43:26

wealth fund for cash flow. So

43:28

there's all kinds of ways that

43:30

they can manipulate this Treasury balance

43:33

sheet, the sovereign wealth fund balance

43:35

sheet, to essentially bring in assets.

43:37

And then what they can do

43:39

is they can start monetizing that.

43:42

in a way that in the

43:44

past, only the Federal Reserve has

43:46

been able to do. It's always

43:49

the Federal Reserve balance sheet, like

43:51

people talk about, oh, well, they

43:53

increase the Federal Reserve balance sheet.

43:56

And so what they're going to

43:58

do is they're going to be

44:00

like, okay, we're going to take

44:02

the sovereign wealth fund and we're

44:05

going to issue a you know,

44:07

the quote unquote Maralago Accords that

44:09

have been talked about. We're going

44:12

to issue a 50-year treasury bond

44:14

with zero coupon back by gold,

44:16

you know, which would behold in

44:19

this sovereign wealth fund. So I

44:21

think there's going to be ways

44:23

that they are literally going to

44:26

strip away power from the Federal

44:28

Reserve, and they're not doing it

44:30

yet because they know they cannot.

44:32

control Powell. And I don't think

44:35

they want a public fight with

44:37

Powell because they know they can

44:39

replace them, you know, a year

44:42

from now and he'll be gone.

44:44

And they'll have somebody in there

44:46

that's going to play ball. So

44:49

this plays into, for example, the

44:51

gold revaluation. So the US gold

44:53

on the. Treasury's balance sheet is

44:55

valued at $42.22 an ounce. This

44:58

is based on Nixon and 73,

45:00

revalued it to that level. According

45:02

to different laws, and this is,

45:05

I actually went in and I

45:07

researched all these laws, it's like

45:09

the Gold Reserve Act of 1934,

45:12

there was another big thing that

45:14

allowed the president to revalue gold.

45:16

part of the AAA, the Agricultural

45:19

Adjustment Act of 1933. There's a

45:21

specific clause in there known as

45:23

the Thomas Amendment. At the time

45:25

it was called the inflation amendment

45:28

because it was the legal mechanism

45:30

that allowed Roosevelt to revalue gold

45:32

from $20 to $35 an ounce.

45:35

So there are all of these

45:37

legal and you know the Trump

45:39

administration loves to do it They

45:42

just been using the alien enemies

45:44

act of 1793 like they love

45:46

pulling this stuff out of the

45:48

woodwork and I think they're going

45:51

to be pulling out the Agricultural

45:53

Adjustment Act of 1933 and the

45:55

Gold Reserve Act of 1934, and

45:58

they're going to be revaluing gold

46:00

to $3,000 an ounce, they're going

46:02

to get an $800 billion injection

46:05

from the Federal Reserve, debt-free, interest-free.

46:07

That's essentially QE. That's massive QE,

46:09

that's money printing. And so they're

46:12

going to take over the monetary

46:14

policy. And you know, there are,

46:16

you know, hiccups in that. So

46:18

a lot of people really quick

46:21

is just so people know is

46:23

they've talked about. this, but I

46:25

don't know if they've actually researched

46:28

the legal precedence of it. So

46:30

that Thomas Amendment in the Agricultural

46:32

Adjustment Act that allows the president

46:35

to revalue gold, it limits him

46:37

of revaluing it at 50% of

46:39

the value, which would mean at

46:41

$42, he could only revalue it

46:44

up to like 60. But it

46:46

doesn't necessarily say like how many

46:48

times he can do it or

46:51

whatever. So I think there's going

46:53

to be ways that that they

46:55

can do it, but it's not

46:58

so simple as just, okay, okay.

47:00

one day Trump's going to announce

47:02

Gold's 3,000. I don't think he

47:05

has the authority to do that,

47:07

given the laws, but I do

47:09

think that there's going to be

47:11

a path to do this. And

47:14

this is going to, this is

47:16

the retaking control of money from

47:18

the bankers and bringing it back

47:21

to the people. This is the

47:23

same thing that Andrew Jackson did

47:25

when he got rid of the

47:28

Second Central Bank of the United

47:30

States. I think that the era

47:32

of central banking dominance is coming

47:34

to an end. That's a good

47:37

thing, I think. A great thing,

47:39

a great thing, a great thing.

47:41

Going back to your explanation, am

47:44

I understanding it correctly, specifically the

47:46

sovereign wealth fund sort of returning

47:48

the U.S., maybe not to a

47:51

pure Goldback currency system, but the

47:53

sovereign wealth fund itself will be

47:55

built up of neutral assets and

47:58

cash flows. that the incoming monetary

48:00

system will be based off of

48:02

at least here in the US

48:04

internally? Well, so still very bullish

48:07

on golden Bitcoin because I think

48:09

one inflationary system is going to

48:11

be replaced by another inflationary system.

48:14

So we're still going to maintain

48:16

a fiat system, but the control

48:18

is no longer going to be

48:21

in a central bank. essentially beholden

48:23

to the city banks and JP

48:25

Morgan's of the world. So, you

48:27

know, If you look at who

48:30

owns the Federal Reserve branches, if

48:32

you go, okay, not the FOMC,

48:34

which is the open market committee,

48:37

but if you look at the

48:39

Federal Reserve Bank of New York

48:41

or the Federal Reserve Bank of

48:44

Chicago and you say, who owns

48:46

those banks? Those are corporations that

48:48

are owned by JP Morgan, City

48:50

Group, Morgan Stanley. This is public

48:53

knowledge, you know, the Federal Reserve

48:55

in fact, I think it was

48:57

in 2017, someone had sent a

49:00

FOIA request to the Federal Reserve

49:02

Bank of New York and said,

49:04

who are your shareholders? What's the

49:07

cap table? And surprisingly, they actually

49:09

answered the letter and they said,

49:11

number one, we are not a

49:14

government agency and we're not under

49:16

the FOIA and we're under no

49:18

obligation to release this information. But

49:20

in the interest of transparency, we're

49:23

going to tell you and the

49:25

top two shareholders were JP Morgan

49:27

and Citibank. That's who owns the

49:30

Federal Reserve of New York. So

49:32

what's happening is that these large

49:34

banking institutions which have essentially milked

49:37

the American people for over 100

49:39

years since 1913 and the founding

49:41

of the Federal Reserve the same

49:43

year that the income tax came

49:46

in. They are now being push

49:48

to the side as secondary institutions.

49:50

Now I'm not saying that means

49:53

their stocks are going to go

49:55

to zero and JP Morgan and

49:57

Morgan Stanley aren't going to make

50:00

money. They're going to make money.

50:02

But I think that the days

50:04

of someone like a Powell being

50:07

unilaterally in charge of US monetary

50:09

policy are going to be over

50:11

and it's going to be brought

50:13

more into the treasury. And this

50:16

this is his. whole set of

50:18

concerns with that because once the

50:20

Treasury gets a hold of it

50:23

you get the political bias to

50:25

print money and do this and

50:27

so that becomes very inflationary and

50:30

I still think at the end

50:32

of the day, we're heading for

50:34

a massive inflationary spike. That once

50:36

we get through this tumult that

50:39

we're going through right now, some

50:41

of the companies, if you look

50:43

at the stock market that are

50:46

going to, in my opinion, do

50:48

the best coming out of this,

50:50

are going to be things like

50:53

industrials, materials. commodity companies not necessarily

50:55

oil because I think energy is

50:57

being purposefully kept down. So I'm

51:00

not bullish on something like the

51:02

XLE or the energy sector EDF,

51:04

but something like an FCX, like

51:06

a Freeport McNerann, which is a

51:09

copper and gold producer. Like I

51:11

think these are going to be

51:13

like companies that might do better

51:16

on a percentage basis than an

51:18

invidia or an apple starting in

51:20

say June and this year until

51:23

June or December of 2026, because

51:25

these commodities are now becoming the

51:27

basis of the monetary system, which

51:29

is what they should be. The

51:32

basis of the monetary system should

51:34

not be a fiat currency that

51:36

can be printed at whim. It

51:39

should be commodities, and it should

51:41

be oil, it should be gas.

51:43

And then if you want a

51:46

neutral asset that can act as

51:48

an arbitrator, between all of these

51:50

countries as they try to manipulate

51:53

their currencies and play trade wars,

51:55

you want a neutral asset. Historically,

51:57

that neutral asset has been gold,

51:59

but Bitcoin can also serve as

52:02

that neutral asset as well. And

52:04

I think when we talked last

52:06

time, I talked about a world

52:09

where both Bitcoin and gold began

52:11

serving this neutral monetary asset thing.

52:13

You talked about maybe it could,

52:16

why doesn't it go to just

52:18

one or the other? And I

52:20

tended to think that there are

52:22

certain reasons why certain foreign central

52:25

banks prefer gold. They feel maybe

52:27

Bitcoin is a little U.S. dominated

52:29

different things and that that's why

52:32

gold would be a big part

52:34

of it, but that I also

52:36

felt Bitcoin will be a big

52:39

part of it as well as

52:41

the digital assets economy, tokenization is

52:43

going to explode. You've got SACS,

52:46

the cryptos are, like as assets,

52:48

as securities, as everything starts getting

52:50

traded on the blockchain and people

52:52

say, wow, digital assets are, you

52:55

know, the future, then they're going

52:57

to say, what's the ultimate digital

52:59

assets store value that's going to

53:02

be Bitcoin? Bitcoin is going to

53:04

become part of institutional portfolios, it

53:06

already is. And so it's very

53:09

bullish for Bitcoin and gold, and

53:11

I think there's room for both,

53:13

and that's, you know, my opinion.

53:15

I know some people have different

53:18

opinions, but my opinion is that

53:20

both Bitcoin and gold can serve

53:22

as neutral monetary assets. Over the

53:25

course of the century, it makes

53:27

sense that you would want a

53:29

natural reserve asset hedge against Bitcoin,

53:32

a case it does become U.S.

53:34

dominant, but I do think Russia

53:36

and China certainly have good exposure.

53:39

Definitely not public about it, but

53:41

I would be shocked if they

53:43

didn't have massive exposure to Bitcoin

53:45

as well. And you mentioned something

53:48

in passing about the introduction of

53:50

the income tax around 1913 1913,

53:52

obviously that... has been a big

53:55

meme for Trump, this shift from

53:57

internal revenue service to external revenue

53:59

service. Do you think the pot

54:02

and obviously last week Lutnik was

54:04

on the on the media trail,

54:06

basically saying we're going to eliminate

54:08

income taxes for individuals making less

54:11

than $150,000 a year. Do you

54:13

think there is real momentum behind

54:15

this idea of eliminating income taxes

54:18

in the United States and this

54:20

threshold? of $150,000 is simply a

54:22

first step in that direction. Yeah,

54:25

I mean, I really do. I

54:27

think I think they can do

54:29

it. I don't think there's any

54:32

reason why they can. can't do

54:34

it and I think that it

54:36

will be a net positive and

54:38

here's why. There are a lot

54:41

of people in this country who

54:43

don't work because of income taxes.

54:45

So I mean if you go

54:48

and you get a job and

54:50

you make $50,000 a year and

54:52

the government takes $20,000 of that

54:55

and you're left with $40,000 and

54:57

if you went on benefits you

54:59

could collect more or less let's

55:01

call it 25 or 30,000 dollars

55:04

and you say I just worked

55:06

the whole year for 10,000 dollars.

55:08

Then you've got a bunch of

55:11

people that are not stupid and

55:13

they're doing that mental calculus and

55:15

they're saying if I can just

55:18

get myself down to living on

55:20

SNAP benefits and living in section

55:22

8 housing and not paying any

55:25

taxes and in and because of

55:27

inflation that level is much higher

55:29

than most people would think. Like

55:31

a lot of people might think,

55:34

oh, as long as you're making

55:36

30 grand, you're better off working.

55:38

No, no, no, no. Given the

55:41

safety net, you need to make

55:43

$60,000, $70,000 a year before it

55:45

makes any sense for you to

55:48

take a job. Otherwise, you're probably,

55:50

and not only that, but because

55:52

of the gig economy, because they

55:54

can say, okay, you know what,

55:57

I'm going to use your... driver's

55:59

license or I'm going to use

56:01

my brother-in-law's driver's license and I'm

56:04

going to go drive Uber and

56:06

you know and there are so

56:08

many ways to rig the system

56:11

so that it doesn't make sense

56:13

for you to work and pay

56:15

in at under a hundred grand

56:18

like it totally makes sense to

56:20

cut out taxes under a hundred

56:22

grand maybe a hundred fifty is

56:24

a little high right now but

56:27

in the coming years it'll it'll

56:29

eventually get there so I think

56:31

what it is is it's like

56:34

We need to motivate people to

56:36

take full-time jobs. And we need

56:38

that because we're going to... need

56:41

to fill full-time jobs. I had

56:43

some data here. I had run

56:45

the other day. This was, I

56:47

had gone back to the December

56:50

2019 BLS payroll report to look

56:52

at, you know, jobs broken down

56:54

between foreign born and native born,

56:57

which is how the BLS breaks

56:59

it down and compare it to,

57:01

from December 2019, which was the

57:04

last month before COVID really hit

57:06

under Trump. and then December 2024

57:08

under Biden. And I looked and

57:11

it was native-born 2019, 131, 281,000

57:13

jobs. In 2024, so five years

57:15

later, native-born jobs were 130,560,000. for

57:17

a net loss of 716,000 jobs.

57:20

So between 2019 and 2024, the

57:22

number of Native-born Americans holding a

57:24

job in this country went down

57:27

by 716,000. If you look at

57:29

foreign-born, in December of 2019, that

57:31

number is 27,223, and then you

57:34

go to 2024. It's 30,729,000 for

57:36

an increase of 3,500,9,000. So between

57:38

2019 and 2024, we created over

57:40

three and a half million jobs

57:43

for foreign-born individuals, and we lost

57:45

716,000 jobs for native-born individuals. And

57:47

that is BLS numbers. That's not

57:50

me. I mean, these numbers are

57:52

probably even light. So in other

57:54

words, we created millions upon millions

57:57

of jobs for foreign-born people under

57:59

the Biden administration, and we lost

58:01

716,000 jobs for Americans. And the

58:03

last thing I'll add... is the

58:06

increase in unemployment, because this is

58:08

key. At the end of Trump,

58:10

there are only 863,000 foreign-born people

58:13

in the country on unemployment. By

58:15

the end of Biden, it was

58:17

over four and a half million.

58:20

And so we created all of

58:22

these jobs for foreign-born, but we

58:24

skyrocketed the unemployment payrolls for foreign-born.

58:27

And American-borns didn't get. anything. Now,

58:29

there was a slight decrease in

58:31

the native-born working-age population, a slight

58:33

decrease, like 300,000. So because of

58:36

Baby Boomers retiring, you know, the

58:38

baseline didn't increase. But it's ridiculous.

58:40

It's ridiculous. And this is what

58:43

we did. And last thing I'll

58:45

add, this is the monthly treasury

58:47

statement, which the Treasury Department puts

58:50

out. Nice picture Alexander Hamilton on

58:52

there. I mean, in February, this

58:54

came out a couple days ago,

58:56

we ran a deficit in February

58:59

of $307 billion, and we had

59:01

total tax receipts of $296 billion.

59:03

Meaning, we spent over $600 billion

59:06

last month, and we only took

59:08

in $296, and we're at $1

59:10

trillion. billion dollar deficit so far

59:13

this fiscal year, which is a

59:15

40% increase from last year. So

59:17

these things just cannot continue. We

59:20

cannot keep printing money, ad infinitum,

59:22

running up deficits, providing jobs for

59:24

foreign-born individuals as they explode our

59:26

unemployment. I mean, that's what's been

59:29

going on. So he's trying to

59:31

stop this and That's obviously going

59:33

to cause some dislocations in equity

59:36

markets which have been used to,

59:38

you know, I've seen figures as

59:40

high as 150,000 per illegal immigrant

59:43

as far as stimulus to the

59:45

economy when you factor in all

59:47

the government support over a 12-month

59:49

period. So, you know, this is,

59:52

this is, this is what we

59:54

have to deal with. I mean,

59:56

it's reality. I would love to

59:59

overlay the foreign-born additional jobs with

1:00:01

remittance numbers as well, because that's

1:00:03

another thing that you have to

1:00:06

say, a lot of these people

1:00:08

are taking jobs away from native...

1:00:10

United States citizens, you would hope

1:00:13

that they're at least spending the

1:00:15

money within the country, but I

1:00:17

would not be surprised of remittance

1:00:19

numbers went up commensurately with that,

1:00:22

that growth as well, which would

1:00:24

signal that they're making money here

1:00:26

and sending it abroad. Which they

1:00:29

absolutely are. They absolutely are. And

1:00:31

Besson said this on, I think

1:00:33

it was Face the Nation or

1:00:36

another interview, he said, we're going

1:00:38

to see real wage increases for

1:00:40

American workers. And I think the

1:00:42

use of real wage increases is

1:00:45

key because... That doesn't necessarily mean

1:00:47

we're not going to, we're going

1:00:49

back to 2% inflation anytime soon.

1:00:52

It just means that wages are

1:00:54

going to increase more. And had

1:00:56

under the Biden administration, the border

1:00:59

been closed, even though I think

1:01:01

we would have suffered inflation because

1:01:03

of what we did during COVID,

1:01:06

I think real wages would have

1:01:08

kept up with it. But because

1:01:10

of this, because of flooding the

1:01:12

market with millions and millions of

1:01:15

foreign-born workers, wages did not keep

1:01:17

up with inflation. And so that's

1:01:19

really the big problem. I mean,

1:01:22

if you look at it at

1:01:24

the end of the day, if

1:01:26

you're 35 years old, you got

1:01:29

two kids, you're $40,000 in credit

1:01:31

card debt, you owe $10,000, $20,000

1:01:33

on a car, and you've got

1:01:35

a job, the best thing that

1:01:38

can happen to you is high

1:01:40

inflation. but your wages go up

1:01:42

even more because that high inflation

1:01:45

is going to bring down the

1:01:47

real value of your car debt

1:01:49

of your credit card debt. The

1:01:52

worst thing that can happen to

1:01:54

you is low inflation with wages

1:01:56

that don't even meet that, because

1:01:59

then the real value of your

1:02:01

debt stays the same and your

1:02:03

real wages don't go up. So

1:02:05

if Trump wants to really help

1:02:08

out his base, and I think

1:02:10

this messaging isn't there yet, but

1:02:12

eventually it's gonna come, we're gonna

1:02:15

have three to five percent inflation,

1:02:17

but wages are gonna go up

1:02:19

four to six or seven percent.

1:02:21

And so you're gonna have real

1:02:23

wage increases, inflation. This is going

1:02:25

to inflate the stock market. It's

1:02:28

going to inflate Bitcoin. It's going

1:02:30

to inflate gold. And it's going

1:02:32

to, you know, my. ridiculous prediction

1:02:35

was like end of the Trump

1:02:37

administration. We're at S&P 15,000 because

1:02:39

I think we need to inflate

1:02:42

our way out of this mess

1:02:44

and that's also not only going

1:02:46

to help Trump's base who's in

1:02:49

debt, but it's going to help

1:02:51

the United States government, which is

1:02:53

obviously $36 trillion in debt. So

1:02:55

we need to inflate away the dollar,

1:02:57

kill the bondholders, and you know,

1:02:59

that is just uber bullish for

1:03:02

Bitcoin and gold. So in terms

1:03:04

of capital deployment at the

1:03:06

end of last year, you said

1:03:08

you were heavy in the cash

1:03:10

and you predicted that we'd have

1:03:12

this to molt to start the

1:03:15

Trump administration after a period of

1:03:17

time, we'd begin to recover as

1:03:19

you're saying today, later this summer

1:03:21

or fall. So with that in mind,

1:03:24

how is your allocation strategy

1:03:26

been? Are you buying as as

1:03:28

the market falls? Are you holding,

1:03:30

waiting for a dropout to come in

1:03:32

in size or what? How are you

1:03:34

approaching this? Well, I'm looking for

1:03:36

certain signals. I think we've

1:03:39

seen signals in the very

1:03:41

short term that we could

1:03:43

be due for a nice

1:03:45

balance. So we're recording this

1:03:47

on St. Patty's Day. This

1:03:49

week, we have the Federal

1:03:51

Reserve meeting on Wednesday. We

1:03:53

have VIX options expiration coming

1:03:55

up next week at the

1:03:57

end of the first quarter.

1:04:00

So I think there's some

1:04:02

volatility to be had heading

1:04:04

into this April 2nd event

1:04:07

and that that could present

1:04:09

sometime between now and say

1:04:11

April 2nd could present a

1:04:13

period where it's time for

1:04:16

me to start deploying some

1:04:18

of that cash. I haven't

1:04:20

yet. So I've still held

1:04:22

on to it. I've still

1:04:24

thought there's further to the

1:04:26

downside, but I don't want

1:04:28

to get too cute about

1:04:30

it because then the market

1:04:32

can get away. So I've

1:04:34

been saying to myself, if

1:04:37

we see the S&P hit

1:04:39

15% down, I need to put

1:04:41

like a third of that money to

1:04:43

work. If we go down to 20%

1:04:45

I'll still have another third. If

1:04:47

15%'s the low, then... you know,

1:04:49

I probably need to start putting

1:04:51

some money in at 10% because

1:04:53

I don't want to wait for

1:04:55

it to go up. But I

1:04:57

need to see what's happening as

1:05:00

these things occur. So for me,

1:05:02

I'm very careful around this April

1:05:04

2nd timeline and it happens to

1:05:06

go aside with the end of

1:05:09

the quarter. And the other thing about

1:05:11

the end of the quarter is we

1:05:13

saw at the end of 2024 last

1:05:15

week of December, we saw a big

1:05:17

cell off. This has to do with

1:05:20

like repose and there are

1:05:22

weird things that happen. So

1:05:24

like European banks have different

1:05:27

rules than American banks. So

1:05:29

certain European banks need to

1:05:32

have certain amounts of

1:05:34

liquidity only at the end of

1:05:36

a quarter. Like they get looked

1:05:39

at by their regulator, what are

1:05:41

your balances that you know,

1:05:43

March 31st? And so you

1:05:45

see liquidity a lot of

1:05:47

times. recently getting drained from

1:05:50

the system around end

1:05:52

of quarters. And that happens

1:05:54

to coincide with this April

1:05:56

2nd. So this is a

1:05:58

short term call. and those can

1:06:01

always be wrong, so take it

1:06:03

with a grain of salt. But

1:06:05

I'm thinking we're probably looking for

1:06:07

like a 5500 to 5,000,

1:06:09

somewhere below 5,500 in the

1:06:11

S&P, around the first week of

1:06:13

April, last week of March, that

1:06:16

will be a point where it's

1:06:18

like, even if it stinks from

1:06:20

hell to high water, I just

1:06:22

have to hold my nose and

1:06:24

put some money in. because now

1:06:26

it's going to be down like

1:06:28

15% and it just is going

1:06:31

to make sense to do it.

1:06:33

I think with Bitcoin, I've been,

1:06:35

you know, like I said, keeping

1:06:37

an eye on that, my read

1:06:39

on that was $83,774 as a

1:06:42

monthly close. When it gets below

1:06:44

that, I think it's a good

1:06:46

point to go into it. I've

1:06:48

been playing it short term.

1:06:50

because I think we

1:06:53

still have to get

1:06:55

through this transition period

1:06:57

before we get a

1:06:59

longer term holding period.

1:07:01

So I'm not like

1:07:04

deploying huge amounts

1:07:06

into it yet. Gold, that

1:07:08

I think we had a

1:07:10

breakout last week. So I've

1:07:12

been heavy into gold. My

1:07:14

work, we had a Fibonacci

1:07:16

level at $2, 1968. on

1:07:18

the futures contract. We broke

1:07:20

above it last week. I

1:07:23

think we're heading to 3,100

1:07:25

on gold in the next

1:07:27

week or two could definitely

1:07:29

push up beyond that. So

1:07:31

I think that all these things

1:07:33

are starting to come into

1:07:35

place. It's going to be

1:07:37

getting very interesting. But I

1:07:40

think with the terrorists,

1:07:42

the Fed meeting, the options expiration,

1:07:44

all coming up, the quarter end,

1:07:46

and all the wonky stuff that

1:07:48

happens around quarter end, that we're

1:07:51

getting close to a point to

1:07:53

start putting money to work. And

1:07:55

that doesn't mean we can't still go

1:07:57

down a little bit more in a...

1:08:00

But like this is a, like, like

1:08:02

I said, don't try to get too

1:08:04

cute. Like, you know, so far so

1:08:06

good, you sold when it was 6100,

1:08:08

like get some back in if

1:08:11

it goes down to 5,000. And

1:08:13

then if you're wrong, you know,

1:08:15

and it goes down further, put

1:08:17

some more in. So that's where

1:08:19

I'm at. I'm looking and I

1:08:21

have a feeling like we're getting

1:08:23

ready for a first deployment of

1:08:25

this cash hall in the next

1:08:28

week or two. Awesome. Yeah, it'll be

1:08:30

interesting to see historically,

1:08:32

Bitcoin has sort of been

1:08:34

the leading indicator alarm bell where

1:08:37

it dumps first and then recovers

1:08:39

first as well before markets

1:08:41

ultimately. Tank. It would be

1:08:43

interesting to see if that moved

1:08:46

to the mid-70s last week or a

1:08:48

couple weeks ago. Was that or if

1:08:50

it's just a tremor before a bigger

1:08:52

drop-down? Yeah, well, I mean, they

1:08:54

want to do it. I mean,

1:08:56

they had Besson on and Saxon

1:08:58

Fox this weekend. I think they've

1:09:01

got a game plan. Cynthia Lumis

1:09:03

put it out in a podcast

1:09:05

about a month ago. She said,

1:09:07

number one, they're going to try

1:09:09

to get the Genius Act passed,

1:09:11

which is the stable coin bill.

1:09:13

Then they're going to try

1:09:15

to get regulatory clarity. on

1:09:17

digital assets, who's under SEC,

1:09:20

who's under CFTC, commodity versus

1:09:22

security type questions. And then

1:09:24

they're going to talk about

1:09:26

exactly what's happening with the

1:09:28

Bitcoin Strategic Reserve. And I

1:09:30

think that lines up nicely

1:09:32

with Bessent talking about. with

1:09:34

Ludnick that they're going to

1:09:36

get the sovereign wealth fund

1:09:38

stood up within 12 months

1:09:40

and that was like back in

1:09:43

January. So we're on the end of

1:09:45

the year. So I think we've got

1:09:47

a game plan, A, wait for the

1:09:49

stable coin bill to be passed, B,

1:09:51

wait for some regulatory clarity. If

1:09:53

that happens sometime in the summer, like,

1:09:55

you know, we're setting the stage for

1:09:57

then C, which is sovereign wealth fund.

1:09:59

which is gonna be Bitcoin. And I

1:10:02

think, frankly, I like, I'm not even

1:10:04

really that concerned about the sovereign wealth

1:10:06

fund. There were a lot of people

1:10:08

in 1971 when the US went off

1:10:10

the gold said, you know what, gold's

1:10:12

gonna plummet and it skyrocketed. So I

1:10:15

think Bitcoin stands on its own merits.

1:10:17

You know, I don't think it needs

1:10:19

a sovereign wealth fund to be, you

1:10:21

know, what it is. I think that.

1:10:23

If it happens, it could be a

1:10:25

short-term catalyst. But I think at the

1:10:27

end of the day, what Bitcoin is,

1:10:30

as everybody gets more comfortable,

1:10:32

the world is getting more

1:10:34

comfortable with digital assets. They're

1:10:36

getting comfortable with tokenization. Once

1:10:38

securities get tokenized, the dollar

1:10:40

gets tokenized, stable coins get

1:10:42

legitimate regulatory backing. Once all

1:10:44

of this stuff starts to

1:10:46

happen, people will start to

1:10:48

see digital assets as real

1:10:50

money, and then they'll start

1:10:53

to say, well, what is

1:10:55

the goal of digital assets?

1:10:57

And obviously, that's Bitcoin. And

1:10:59

people will begin to say, OK,

1:11:01

this is digital gold. This is what

1:11:03

it's purported to be by Satoshi. This

1:11:05

is why it's called mining. It was

1:11:07

created, you know, a peer-to-peer cashless payment

1:11:10

system, yes, but also a store of

1:11:12

value. And so I think all of

1:11:14

that's going to happen, and I think

1:11:16

the peer-to-peer cash list is coming too.

1:11:18

I think with Nausder and different, you

1:11:20

know, elements that are being put into

1:11:23

place to be layered onto lightning so

1:11:25

that we can get to a place

1:11:27

where people don't need visa or MasterCard

1:11:29

or the U.S. government or anybody. And

1:11:31

once people realize the power of that,

1:11:33

then the potential is exponential. And I've

1:11:35

always told people, I don't know what's

1:11:37

going to do better over the next

1:11:40

12 months on a percentage basis. Gold

1:11:42

or Bitcoin, I feel pretty damn confident

1:11:44

that Bitcoin is going to do a

1:11:46

lot better than gold on a percentage

1:11:48

basis over the next five or 10

1:11:50

years. So that's where I'm at with

1:11:52

gold, Bitcoin, stocks, everything. I'm very bullish,

1:11:54

but I'm just not ready to pull

1:11:56

the trigger at this point in time, but

1:11:59

I'm getting close. It's great to

1:12:01

know. And should we just do this

1:12:03

quarterly now? Maybe we meet

1:12:05

up at the middle of Q2 and

1:12:07

see where things are. That would be

1:12:10

perfect. I would love to do

1:12:12

it and see if we're hitting,

1:12:14

we're tracking. I appreciate coming on

1:12:16

and love these conversations, so

1:12:18

thank you, Marty. Thank you,

1:12:21

Mel. It's always fun with

1:12:23

you, because I think you, out

1:12:25

of everybody that I... Speak with

1:12:27

in terms of macro and markets on

1:12:29

this show you have the most unique

1:12:31

perspective and That's one thing we're trying

1:12:34

to do here moving before we actually

1:12:36

have an idea for an app that

1:12:38

we want to spin up is Tracking

1:12:41

predictions that are made on the show

1:12:43

and And in letting people know who's

1:12:45

who's actually been right and so

1:12:48

far less the first two episodes. I

1:12:50

think your calls have been spot on

1:12:52

so Thank you. I think the first

1:12:54

one I came on, I said

1:12:56

S&P 6,000 by end of the

1:12:58

year. Next one I came on,

1:13:00

I said, we're ready for a

1:13:02

dump in the first half. And

1:13:04

I'm not trying to blow it

1:13:06

up. But you know what? It's

1:13:09

funny because I do have, you

1:13:11

know, people want to follow me,

1:13:13

Mel Madison, one on Twitter. I

1:13:15

only have like two or three

1:13:17

thousand followers and like, honestly, I

1:13:19

don't really try. I'm out here

1:13:21

doing my own. thing. I love

1:13:23

investing. I had a 20 plus year

1:13:25

career startups, financial services, Duke NBA, you

1:13:27

know, made my money, quote unquote, and

1:13:29

I do my thing and I just

1:13:31

put it out there. So I'm not,

1:13:33

I don't always do the slickest things.

1:13:35

I don't have really nice like 10

1:13:37

post threads and stuff. But like there

1:13:39

are nuggets in there. So if you

1:13:42

want to get some of these nuggets

1:13:44

when they come across, follow me at

1:13:46

Mel Madison One or check out my

1:13:48

website Mel madison.com or I wrote a

1:13:50

book to called Quas. It's kind of

1:13:52

a financial thriller about corrupt central

1:13:54

banks that people might find interesting

1:13:56

has to do with the blockchain

1:13:58

as well. I that's what I

1:14:01

do I I love just coming out here

1:14:03

and talking about this stuff. about this stuff.

1:14:05

And I think if I ever really

1:14:07

got serious about trying to market myself, maybe

1:14:09

I could do well. But But it's just

1:14:11

not what I do. I just

1:14:13

love coming out, talking, sharing my views sharing

1:14:15

these types of conversations. having these Well, thank

1:14:18

you for doing it and thank you

1:14:20

for coming on the show. you And

1:14:22

we'll link to all that in the

1:14:24

show. show. And we'll link to enjoy your in the show.

1:14:26

Day. it's Mel. Go enjoy your same Thank you. day. All

1:14:28

right. peace and love freaks. Picking!