[SPEAKER_00]: Earlier today, Kevin Worsh testified for the first time as Fed Chairman before Congress.
[SPEAKER_00]: Today he was before the House of Representatives.
[SPEAKER_00]: Tomorrow morning he'll be before the United States Senate.
[SPEAKER_00]: before I get into talking about the hearing, and I'm going to spend most of today's podcast discussing this.
[SPEAKER_00]: I want to focus attention on some economic data that was introduced or released earlier this morning before the testimony began, and that was the inflation data for June.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the markets I suppose were concerned prior to the release that maybe we wouldn't get the good news on inflation that investors had been hoping for because we had a sell-off in the bond market yesterday.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, the yield on the 10-year treasury got up to 4.62.
[SPEAKER_00]: I believe was the high.
[SPEAKER_00]: And on the 30 year, we got to about 5.11.
[SPEAKER_00]: So these were new highs for this leg of the move up in bond yields and down in bond prices.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I think this is just the beginning of a much bigger move.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's coming.
[SPEAKER_00]: Also, we had about $100 an ounce sell off in Gold yesterday.
[SPEAKER_00]: Gold traded back below $4,000 an ounce, although it didn't close below $4,000.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I believe one of the reasons that Gold sold off sharply yesterday was the anticipation of today's inflation report.
[SPEAKER_00]: that may not have come in as good as had been hoped, but also I think traders were trying to price in some type of hawkish statements coming from wars during the congressional testimony.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I think they wanted to sell gold into these news events.
[SPEAKER_00]: But again, this still mixes the bigger picture.
[SPEAKER_00]: that inflation is good for gold.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's not bad for gold, but in recent years, and I've highlighted it on this podcast, how ridiculous this is.
[SPEAKER_00]: But the markets react to stronger than inflation news as a sign that the Fed has to fight harder to win the battle against inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: And gold ends up being collateral damage in that inflation fight.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because it means the Fed's gonna have to hike rates or not cut rates or whatever the markets expect.
[SPEAKER_00]: it means the fed will be tighter than what it might otherwise have been if the inflation numbers were lower.
[SPEAKER_00]: But all of this misses the bigger picture that the fed has already lost the inflation battle.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's what all these hotter than expected inflation numbers.
[SPEAKER_00]: show.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so the fact that inflation keeps coming out worse than expected is not bearish for gold because it means the Fed is going to have to fight harder to beat it.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's bullish for gold because it means the Fed can't fight hard enough to beat it and that inflation already won.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, I think inflation has been above the Fed's 2% target for almost six years.
[SPEAKER_00]: If the Fed had the intention or the wherewithal to bring inflation down to 2%, it would have already done it.
[SPEAKER_00]: The fact that it's been talking about it for six years, yet has not achieved this objective despite constantly predicting that inflation will be back in 2% in two years.
[SPEAKER_00]: And again, I went over in prior podcasts that this prediction is not based on any concrete evidence.
[SPEAKER_00]: The Fed just predicts that inflation will be back to 2%, because that's their target.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so they just predict that they're going to achieve their target and they come up with a two-year timeframe just randomly out of the blue.
[SPEAKER_00]: So it's all just hope, but it never happens.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the reason that inflation is not back below 2%, is because the Fed can't bring it down to 2%, without doing a lot of other things that it doesn't want to do.
[SPEAKER_00]: And we've been focusing on the fact that Kevin Worst has said that inflation is a choice, and again, that came up in today's hearing, but it is a choice that Kevin Worst is going to make.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, he's already made that choice.
[SPEAKER_00]: He's just not letting the public know that he's made the choice.
[SPEAKER_00]: He's just be guessing them with the rhetoric.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, let me get to the inflation numbers that came out this morning.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the expectation for inflation in June headline was for minus 0.1 and that would be a big improvement over the plus 0.5 from the prime of.
[SPEAKER_00]: We actually got minus 0.4.
[SPEAKER_00]: So a much bigger drop
[SPEAKER_00]: in the May CPI, then had been expected.
[SPEAKER_00]: Year over year, in the prior month, we were at 4.2% year over year, CPI increase.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because of the lower increase or the drop in June,
[SPEAKER_00]: The year-over-year increase is now just 3.5%.
[SPEAKER_00]: So that's a big drop from the prior month, and it's lower than the 3.8 that had been expected.
[SPEAKER_00]: Good news there, right, on lower inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the core, X-food and energy, was unchanged on the month.
[SPEAKER_00]: Versus the expected rise of 0.2, which was what we had in the prior month.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the year-over-year core went from 2.9
[SPEAKER_00]: May to 2.6 in June.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the markets immediately celebrated Bon Yield's Fal Bon's Rose and Gold Spike the $100 in House.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, first of all, it's not even really good news on inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because the main driver,
[SPEAKER_00]: of the 0.4% drop was the oil price decline.
[SPEAKER_00]: Oil was down about 30% in May.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why?
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, because supposedly the war with Iran was over, we had the MUU, we had the ceasefire, so oil prices went down 30%.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, now the ceasefire is off, the war is back on, and oil prices which are now back up at $80 a barrel as of right now, oil prices are up 20% so far in July.
[SPEAKER_00]: So July is only half over.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's possible that the entire drop in oil prices that we enjoy in,
[SPEAKER_00]: May or in June rather because the war was off are going to be taken away in July because the war is back on.
[SPEAKER_00]: So why even celebrate what really amounts to a meaningless number?
[SPEAKER_00]: What's more important
[SPEAKER_00]: is that we're way above two percent and we're not going to get anywhere near two percent no matter what the Fed does and of course what's more problematic is that these are the government numbers, the official government measures of inflation which may be capture half of the actual price increases that Americans are forced to endure.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, gold gave up about half of its $100 gain by the end of the day.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think gold ended up closing up about 50 bucks on the day.
[SPEAKER_00]: We closed just above $4,000 and 50 silver up about $1,000, closing it 5858.
[SPEAKER_00]: It got clobbered a couple of bucks yesterday.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I think the most significant action was in the bond market because the bond market lost
[SPEAKER_00]: By the end of the day, the yield on the 30-year treasury was back up to 5.1.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the 10 year is back to 5, 4.59.
[SPEAKER_00]: So almost the high water marks, despite this better than expected inflation number.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now one of the reasons there could be some nervousness surrounding tomorrow's release of the PPI.
[SPEAKER_00]: We're going to get that tomorrow morning before we get day two up on Capitol Hill.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the producer prices have been coming in a lot hotter.
[SPEAKER_00]: then consumer prices.
[SPEAKER_00]: Of course, the producer prices are also going to benefit from the drop in oil prices that we had last month, which is pretty much being undone.
[SPEAKER_00]: this month.
[SPEAKER_00]: So again, I don't know why the markets would pay attention to such backward-looking data that is really irrelevant, but that's what they do.
[SPEAKER_00]: And this is how these algorithms are programmed and they trade off the numbers.
[SPEAKER_00]: I just think that people should take advantage of any of these moves.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact,
[SPEAKER_00]: When people believe that inflation, higher inflation is bad for gold.
[SPEAKER_00]: When in fact gold is an inflation hedge.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the more inflation we have, the more you need to hedge yourself, should take advantage of this misguided idea.
[SPEAKER_00]: that higher inflation is somehow bad for gold, because it means the Fed has to fight harder to bring inflation down, what it really proves is that the Fed can't bring inflation down.
[SPEAKER_00]: It doesn't have the wherewithal or the ability to do it because of all the other problems that would be exposed.
[SPEAKER_00]: if the Fed were to do that.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that kind of brings me to the discussion of today's hearing before Congress.
[SPEAKER_00]: And what's the most frustrating part, of course, about the entire hearing, is that they're there to discuss inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: And nobody, except maybe wars, but he doesn't want to let the cat out of the bag.
[SPEAKER_00]: But the entire discussion centers around a term that nobody properly defines.
[SPEAKER_00]: Everybody acts as if inflation is rising prices.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it's not.
[SPEAKER_00]: I've talked about it on this podcast many times.
[SPEAKER_00]: Inflation is an expansion of the supply of money and credit.
[SPEAKER_00]: That is what is being inflated.
[SPEAKER_00]: You can't inflate a price.
[SPEAKER_00]: You would inflate money supply,
[SPEAKER_00]: And if you're going to have a discussion about inflation, but you're misdefining what the term means, then your whole discussion is meaningless.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because prices go down, inflation is a whole different problem that causes the general price level to be higher than what it otherwise would have been absent the inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: It doesn't even mean that prices go up.
[SPEAKER_00]: It can simply mean that inflation prevented prices from going down.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now again, the government tries to tell us that prices going down would be horrible.
[SPEAKER_00]: How would it be horrible?
[SPEAKER_00]: Especially when so many people are suffering from high prices.
[SPEAKER_00]: Look how much food prices have gone up over the past several years.
[SPEAKER_00]: Would it be such a disaster if they came down?
[SPEAKER_00]: Of course not.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, why do they have to keep going up?
[SPEAKER_00]: If the problem is food prices are too high,
[SPEAKER_00]: Having a target of, well, let's have them go up another 2% a year, that doesn't solve the problem of prices being too high.
[SPEAKER_00]: That makes them higher.
[SPEAKER_00]: What would solve the problem is that prices actually came down.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that would solve a lot of problems.
[SPEAKER_00]: Consumers want the price of everything to go down.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yet, according to the government, that would be a disaster.
[SPEAKER_00]: The government is there
[SPEAKER_00]: from the pain of being able to buy stuff for less, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: This is what the government is selling us on.
[SPEAKER_00]: So that's the biggest problem is a misunderstanding of the term.
[SPEAKER_00]: But then the other thing that really frustrates me, always about these hearings, is that you've got all these congressmen and women.
[SPEAKER_00]: that are upset about inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: And they're asking if Fed, what are you going to do about it?
[SPEAKER_00]: What's your plan?
[SPEAKER_00]: How are you going to stop this inflation?
[SPEAKER_00]: Meanwhile, they are part of the reason that we have inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: It takes two to do the inflation tango.
[SPEAKER_00]: Congress has to spend money, it doesn't have.
[SPEAKER_00]: It has to have deficits.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then the Fed monetizes those deficits.
[SPEAKER_00]: and the Fed artificially suppresses interest rates in large part to make it possible for the government to finance those deficits without having a crowding out of fact on private credit and pushing up interest rates.
[SPEAKER_00]: So it is the Congress, and of course the president, because he's signing on to all this spending.
[SPEAKER_00]: And
[SPEAKER_00]: The Fed, it's a combination of monetary and fiscal policy working hand-in-gloaf.
[SPEAKER_00]: That is why there is inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yet the very Congress men and women that are voting for the deficit spending, that is ultimately the source of the Fed of the inflation that the Fed creates, they're yelling at the Fed as if they have nothing to do with it.
[SPEAKER_00]: They need to look in the mirror and recognize their own responsibility.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that, of course, the Fed, Fed shares, they always did eye their responsibility, they want to blame tariffs, they want to blame the war, they want to come up with all kinds
[SPEAKER_00]: about where inflation is coming from, the cause of inflation is right there in that hearing.
[SPEAKER_00]: It is being caused by all the representatives and the Fed.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're discussing a problem that they've created and they're pretending that there's some exogenous solution.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then when wars talks about how, oh, we're gonna do things differently.
[SPEAKER_00]: We're gonna solve the problem.
[SPEAKER_00]: without actually getting into what we need to be done to solve the problem, which is why they're not going to solve the problem.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, we got a quick commercial break.
[SPEAKER_00]: So stick around as soon as we come back, I'm going to get into the hearing and the Q&A.
[SPEAKER_00]: All right.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the first thing that Chair Wars said that really caught my attention,
[SPEAKER_00]: was when he talked about how many people work at the Federal Reserve.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I never really thought about how many people work there.
[SPEAKER_00]: I had no idea it was 23,000.
[SPEAKER_00]: The Federal Reserve of employees 23,000 people.
[SPEAKER_00]: What the hell do these 23,000 people do?
[SPEAKER_00]: Why do we need 23,000 people to set interest rates?
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, one person should be able to do it.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's what the 13 members of the FOMC that vote, I don't know where all these people are coming from, first of all, the Fed shouldn't even be involved in setting interest rates, the free market should do that.
[SPEAKER_00]: So we don't really need any employees.
[SPEAKER_00]: But 23,000 people at the Fed I mean talk about inflation, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: We've had an inflation in the number of people who work at the Fed.
[SPEAKER_00]: When the Fed Reserve first opened its doors for business, it was November 2nd, 1914.
[SPEAKER_00]: I looked this up.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I knew that the Fed Reserve Act was passed in 1913.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like, you know, like this Jacob tax, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: It was a horrible year for America.
[SPEAKER_00]: It was a two-fer.
[SPEAKER_00]: because we got the income tax and the Federal Reserve during the same year.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, you know, 1913 is probably the worst year in US history as far as bad legislation.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I looked it up.
[SPEAKER_00]: We, the Fed didn't start.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's operations until the following year, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Because they had to set it up.
[SPEAKER_00]: Once the Federal Reserve Act authorized the creation of the Fed, they had to set it up.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they opened for business November 2nd, 1914.
[SPEAKER_00]: On that day, they had 40 employees.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's it.
[SPEAKER_00]: So 40 people were able to do the entire job that the Federal Reserve was created to perform.
[SPEAKER_00]: Here we are over 100 years later.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it doesn't take 40 people.
[SPEAKER_00]: It takes 23,000 people to do the job.
[SPEAKER_00]: This shows you.
[SPEAKER_00]: In and of itself is a reason to get rid
[SPEAKER_00]: Because a hundred years ago, or more than a hundred years ago, in 1914, they didn't have any computers.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, they didn't have any of the labor-saving devices that we have today.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, they didn't even have carbon paper, I don't think.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, they had a typewriter.
[SPEAKER_00]: They didn't have a photocopy machines.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, what did they have back then?
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, yet with the technology that was available
[SPEAKER_00]: It only took 40 people to run the Federal Reserve.
[SPEAKER_00]: If that was the case, we should just need one now.
[SPEAKER_00]: The problem is the Federal Reserve is doing so many things that it was not created to do.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's why there's 23,000 people there.
[SPEAKER_00]: We're wasting all this money.
[SPEAKER_00]: We're wasting all the human resources.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, one of the things that maybe AI can do, I would like to abolish the Fed, but if we're not going to abolish it, why not just automate the entire thing?
[SPEAKER_00]: Why not just have an AI agent?
[SPEAKER_00]: do all the monetary policy, just program it up, fire all 23,000 people, and just let, you know, claw, you know, or X-A-I do the whole thing, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: We'd save a fortune, you know, my dad used the joke that we could replace the entire FOMC with a bunch of parents.
[SPEAKER_00]: because they really don't do much, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Cut interest rates, expand credit, print money, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: There's not that much that they can actually do.
[SPEAKER_00]: So we could train some parents to do the job.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, so I thought that initially stuck out that there were 23,000 people.
[SPEAKER_00]: Fed has got to be one of the biggest employers in the country to 23,000 people.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, so one of the, I think, important admissions that worse made.
[SPEAKER_00]: And this is something that, you know, I was not a money-morning quarterback here.
[SPEAKER_00]: I was criticizing this policy in real time as the mistakes were being made, not just here in the US, but in Europe, in Japan.
[SPEAKER_00]: Worse admitted with an hindsight, you know, that a key mistake that the Fed made was that it attempted to raise the inflation rate.
[SPEAKER_00]: they were trying to get a little bit more inflation and that that was the reason that we ended up with a lot more inflation and that that was a dangerous policy to deliberately try to raise the inflation rate which is what I was saying for years that it shouldn't be the 2% is a target
[SPEAKER_00]: 2% should be the ceiling, which again is where the 2% number came from.
[SPEAKER_00]: It was introduced in New Zealand.
[SPEAKER_00]: The first central bank to have an inflation ceiling of 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: How that ever became a target, I don't know.
[SPEAKER_00]: It didn't mean that if inflation was 1%, you had to work to get it to 2%, it meant that as long as it was under 2%, it was okay.
[SPEAKER_00]: 1% was better than 1.5 because you were further beneath the ceiling.
[SPEAKER_00]: But as the inflation rate got close to 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: If it got to 1.8, 1.9, that would mean you'd have to act because if you didn't act, it might get above 2.
[SPEAKER_00]: But the way we were conducting monetary policy, the way the ECB was conducting monetary policy, if we were 1.8 that wasn't enough, that the central bank had to tweak the rate up to 2%, which was ridiculous.
[SPEAKER_00]: If you're at 1.8%, why not leave well enough alone?
[SPEAKER_00]: Hey, we're pretty close to 2%, why risk going over 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: And in fact, we even made it worse in the U.S. And I criticized this real time when we got a little bit above 2%, the Fed came up with an ass-enine approach called inflation averaging and said we now have to make up.
[SPEAKER_00]: For all the years of being below 2%, we now need to run above 2% for a little bit to average the inflation down, which at the time I said was complete nonsense and Kevin Wars now agrees with that.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why should we have to tell Americans, look, because you got lucky for a few years and your prices only went up by 1.8% a year,
[SPEAKER_00]: or not lucky you got jipped right you didn't get the 2% inflation that we promised you you got ripped off and your cost of living only went up 1.8% so now we're going to get you even now we're going to we're going to make sure you get 2.2% inflation for a while so you can get the 2% average that you're hoping for right that that's effectively what they were saying.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I said real time, okay, if they're going to target an average rate of inflation of 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: What are they going to do when inflation is way above 2%, and now it requires inflation below 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: to bring the average down.
[SPEAKER_00]: I said, are they going to target an inflation rate below 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: No, what did they do with inflation averaging?
[SPEAKER_00]: They tossed it.
[SPEAKER_00]: As soon as it became inconvenient, they abandoned the whole concept, which means, and this is what I said at the time, the real goal.
[SPEAKER_00]: was to enable more inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they made up this BS that they had to average inflation up, but the minute the shoe was on the other foot and they needed to average inflation down, forget about, oh, we don't want to average inflation anymore.
[SPEAKER_00]: We just want to bring it down to 2%, no matter how many years it's above 2%, and no matter how far above 2%, it is,
[SPEAKER_00]: Our goal is not to try to average it down.
[SPEAKER_00]: We just want to bring future inflation to 2%.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the minute you get way above 2% trend, you're never going to get back down, which shows that the whole policy is nonsense.
[SPEAKER_00]: And of course, there's all sorts of reasons that I've gone over that over time that the 2% target is all a bunch of BS.
[SPEAKER_00]: It was all about justifying inflation and the only time the Fed ever had a 2% target was when they were below it.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they can use it as they can excuse to have higher inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: We never had a 2% target when it was 4 or 5 or 6%, the Fed invented it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, of course, they made that bed and now they got a lie in it, which they can't.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, another thing that Worse talked about.
[SPEAKER_00]: was regime change at the fed now he's he's using this word right not not me right he's talking about regime change meaning that he's a new regime well you know the regime change at the fed is about as legitimate as the regime change in Iran because nothing has changed I don't care how different people think warship is
[SPEAKER_00]: or how much of a difference he wants to create by putting distance between himself and his predecessors, although he had nothing but kind words to say for Alan Greenspan who recently passed away and I mentioned that in a podcast.
[SPEAKER_00]: But no matter how much he wants to say that there's been regime change, it's the same regime.
[SPEAKER_00]: Nothing has changed.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, wars is trying to pretend that things have changed because he's hoping that that will make his job easier, that somehow pretending that he's gonna succeed where Paul failed, that somehow that's gonna play Kate the Marquis, that maybe we're gonna get lower bond yields or stronger dollar just based on the fact that he's saying that he's different.
[SPEAKER_00]: even though what he's doing proves that he's exactly the same, but the only way that regime change at the Fed would actually work to lower inflation is if we also got regime change in Congress and then to White House and we're not getting that.
[SPEAKER_00]: Again, Congress is demanding lower inflation while at the same time running massive deficits that are producing the inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: You can't have it both ways.
[SPEAKER_00]: You can't run massive deficits and then complain about inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: because the inflation is what's necessary to finance those deficits.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, of course, that is why Congress helped redefine inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they can do that.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they can promote and vote for these big spending bills to pretend that you get something for nothing and then rail against inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because the public doesn't understand
[SPEAKER_00]: that the deficit spending is the cause of inflation because it results in the expansion of the money supply because if the Congress isn't taking the money from you in taxes, it has to get the money somewhere.
[SPEAKER_00]: It gets it from the Fed.
[SPEAKER_00]: The Fed expands the money supply.
[SPEAKER_00]: The Fed creates inflation to cover the spending.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so inflation is your tax.
[SPEAKER_00]: and on multiple occasions, wars refer to inflation as they tax.
[SPEAKER_00]: That is why it's a tax.
[SPEAKER_00]: It pays for government spending.
[SPEAKER_00]: So they can't have their cake and eat it too.
[SPEAKER_00]: Although that's what they try to do by lying about what inflation is.
[SPEAKER_00]: So because there's been no regime change,
[SPEAKER_00]: inflation is not going to change.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's going to continue to get worse just like it has in the past.
[SPEAKER_00]: We are going to go anywhere near 2% inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't care how many times wars wants to say that he will deliver price stability.
[SPEAKER_00]: He will deliver it.
[SPEAKER_00]: It isn't going to happen.
[SPEAKER_00]: And in fact,
[SPEAKER_00]: He doesn't even know how to define price stability, because he came up with his own definition of price stability.
[SPEAKER_00]: And what he said was that price stability
[SPEAKER_00]: is when prices go up by an amount, that's not too large that people worry about it, that they talk about it, that they complain about it.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's the definition of price stability.
[SPEAKER_00]: No, it's not.
[SPEAKER_00]: Price stability means stable prices.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, look up stable in the dictionary.
[SPEAKER_00]: What does it say?
[SPEAKER_00]: Stable means the same.
[SPEAKER_00]: They remain the same.
[SPEAKER_00]: price stability is not prices that rise, just not enough for you to complain about it.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the problem is Americans begin to accept inflation as the way of life, as like the cost of capitalism.
[SPEAKER_00]: So just because Americans get used to and accept high inflation, and so they don't complain about it anymore, that doesn't mean that the Fed's got to green light to keep creating it.
[SPEAKER_00]: No, price stability means prices that remain stable.
[SPEAKER_00]: It doesn't mean prices going up just not so much that you're worried about it.
[SPEAKER_00]: whether you're worried about it or not.
[SPEAKER_00]: And of course, as I said earlier, sometimes inflation stops prices from going down.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that is a bad thing.
[SPEAKER_00]: A lot of people don't realize that prices would have gone down.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're robbed of that benefit that they never even realized they were gonna get inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: The government steals the benefit of falling prices right out from under us.
[SPEAKER_00]: So we don't even realize.
[SPEAKER_00]: that the cost of living would have been lower.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because the government created inflation that prevented prices from going down which would have meant our standard of living would have gone up.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, got another commercial break and I'm gonna keep on talking about this and a couple more topics on the other side of the break.
[SPEAKER_00]: So stick around.
[SPEAKER_00]: All right, I am discussing day one of the Kevin Worsh congressional testimony, day two with the U.S. Senate tomorrow.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm kind of going over some of the key points and by the way, I'm just scrolling through my x page because in real time as I'm listening to this testimony, I'm like firing off posts.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now some of the posts, like I put on after the fact, I'm trying to space them out a bit.
[SPEAKER_00]: But another reason why, if you're not following me on X, you should follow me.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I'm right all these posts myself.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't have somebody else doing it for me.
[SPEAKER_00]: These are my thoughts as they come to mind.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I'm putting them out there.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm less than 10,000 followers from 1.6 million now.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like I said, I'm adding about 100,000 followers a month.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the pace at which I'm gaining followers has been picking up, which I take it as a good sign.
[SPEAKER_00]: more people are listening to me.
[SPEAKER_00]: So if you're not a follower on X, make sure and follow me, and then repost my stuff, every time I post something, repost it, like it, comment on it, because that will draw more attention to it, and more people will get to know the truth.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because the truth is coming from me.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's so many lies coming from so many other sources.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's good to get the truth.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay, so another thing,
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay, so again, I'm reading just from my own posts to remind myself of what I want to discuss here.
[SPEAKER_00]: So again, very frustrating that
[SPEAKER_00]: Worsh is not holding the members of Congress accountable for their role in creating inflation, and probably that's because when you live in a glass house, you don't throw stones, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: So why should Worsh accuse Congress of creating inflation when they can turn around and do the same thing?
[SPEAKER_00]: So everybody pretends that neither of the other party is responsible, meanwhile they both share responsibility, but this is a bunch of theater.
[SPEAKER_00]: for the public, although one of the things that the Democrats tried to do, and you know, wars didn't want any part of it, and he was very easily side-stepping this.
[SPEAKER_00]: The Democrats had valid points here.
[SPEAKER_00]: I agreed with all the points they made.
[SPEAKER_00]: They were just making them in the wrong form.
[SPEAKER_00]: But they were trying to get worse to condemn Donald Trump for his grifting for the $2.2 billion that he made ripping off the public and exploiting the presidency for his own personal gain.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, Donald Trump and the Trump family could not have made anywhere near $2 billion last year.
[SPEAKER_00]: other than Trump being president.
[SPEAKER_00]: It was the fact that he was president that gave him the popularity to dump all these meme coins and to make all this money and to generate all the hype and hysteria surrounding not only the meme coins but his stocks and all that.
[SPEAKER_00]: And there's a lot of other dealings.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's a lot of articles that have now been written really exposing what the Trumps have done.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the Republicans look like complete hypocrites because they criticize the Biden's yet they're looking the other way when the Trumps outbiding the Biden's by a wide margin.
[SPEAKER_00]: But you had the Congressman trying to get worse to condemn the president, which he's not going to do.
[SPEAKER_00]: Trump just appointed the guy.
[SPEAKER_00]: He's not going to start picking a fight with him.
[SPEAKER_00]: It was a wrong place to bring this stuff up.
[SPEAKER_00]: But the points were valid.
[SPEAKER_00]: and also the conflicts of interest with Trump regularly.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, the court threw out the settlement that Trump made with himself, which I criticized the day I read about it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Trump sued the IRS for $10 billion because a subcontractor, not even the IRS itself, a subcontractor leaked some information from his tax return.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so, Sue's for $10 billion.
[SPEAKER_00]: What the IRS did to Trump was nothing get better to what they did to me.
[SPEAKER_00]: Because in my case, it was the IRS itself that leaked information.
[SPEAKER_00]: And they leaked information about a grand jury investigation, a criminal investigation about me.
[SPEAKER_00]: That was supposed to be top secret.
[SPEAKER_00]: That was leaked.
[SPEAKER_00]: and caused me real damage.
[SPEAKER_00]: Trump didn't get any damage from that leak.
[SPEAKER_00]: Where was he damaged?
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, he didn't have any damages.
[SPEAKER_00]: I had actual damages.
[SPEAKER_00]: My whole business was destroyed because the IRS leak confidential, grand jury information to the media.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yet when I filed a lawsuit, back in thrown out a court, I get nothing.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I filed it appeal, but who knows, I might lose that.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I had real damages caused by an actual IRS leak.
[SPEAKER_00]: Trump doesn't have any damages, but then he negotiates the settlement with himself.
[SPEAKER_00]: He runs the IRS, and so he gets this sweetheart deal where his entire family, now can't be audited, can't be fine, is totally forgiven for any past defense that they may have had with respect to taxes.
[SPEAKER_00]: All their businesses that they're related enterprises, the whole family, the kids, the IRS can't touch them, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Who knows what they've done, I'm sure they've done a lot.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's why they did this, but the court,
[SPEAKER_00]: correctly throughout this settlement by saying there was no adversary party you can't settle something with yourself.
[SPEAKER_00]: Donald Trump was in charge of the IRS.
[SPEAKER_00]: He negotiated a deal with himself.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so of course he came out with a great deal but this didn't even come up really in the hearing but I had this was a news story that came out this week that the court threw this thing out.
[SPEAKER_00]: But anyway, so I digress, let me get back to the hearing.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, a comment that Worsh made that I thought was ridiculous.
[SPEAKER_00]: And he's supposedly a smart guy.
[SPEAKER_00]: And he is a smart guy.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm not saying he's not smart.
[SPEAKER_00]: But clearly, he maybe he doesn't completely understand monetary policy.
[SPEAKER_00]: Which again, is part of the criteria for being fed chairman.
[SPEAKER_00]: You've got to, you know, they give you a test on economics.
[SPEAKER_00]: and only the people who failed the test are considered as candidates to be at the Fed or to be to chair the Fed.
[SPEAKER_00]: But worse said that he prefers using interest rates as a monetary policy tool than the Fed's balance sheet.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I don't like either.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I especially don't like the balance sheet.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I would agree with, with wars there, that the Fed should not be using its balance sheet.
[SPEAKER_00]: And all, it should reverse all the quantitative easing.
[SPEAKER_00]: But he said the reason that he prefers interest rates is because he says that does in favor one class over another.
[SPEAKER_00]: Of course it does.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, first of all, yes, QE obviously favors the class who owns the assets that the Fed is buying, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: So if the Fed is using its balance sheet to bail somebody out by buying up some toxic asset that they own, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: They're obviously benefiting.
[SPEAKER_00]: But artificially low interest rates also have clear winners and losers who wins from low interest rates, debtors, the debtors win, who loses the creditors.
[SPEAKER_00]: They lose.
[SPEAKER_00]: So it absolutely does pit.
[SPEAKER_00]: one interest against another, it favors the debtor relative to the saver, especially wealthy leverage debtors who have borrowed to accumulate assets.
[SPEAKER_00]: They really win because it makes it cheaper for them to borrow, and then inflation wipes out
[SPEAKER_00]: The value of what they owe, so they're winners.
[SPEAKER_00]: The losers are the savers, which tend to be more of the middle class.
[SPEAKER_00]: And even if middle class don't have a lot of savings anymore because taxes and inflation have pretty much wiped it out.
[SPEAKER_00]: They still have pensions, annuities, cash value and insurance policy.
[SPEAKER_00]: They have a lot of saving vehicles that get harmed by inflation.
[SPEAKER_00]: but also who benefits from artificially low interest rates, the government, the federal government, the government is the biggest debtor of the mall, so the government wins, but the savers, the people who bought government bonds, the people who loan money to the government, they're losing, right, they're getting a lower return and who owns a lot of those government bonds insurance companies, own those government bonds.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that means they have to charge higher premiums to Americans who are buying fire insurance, life insurance, car insurance, because they're not getting as high yield on their bonds, they have to charge higher premiums to their customers.
[SPEAKER_00]: So that's another way that the middle class
[SPEAKER_00]: suffers from artificially low interest rates and the government benefits and other debtors from the ability to borrow.
[SPEAKER_00]: So I don't know if, if worse actually believes this, this is a very simple point.
[SPEAKER_00]: Does he not understand that there are two parties to alone?
[SPEAKER_00]: There's the lender and there's the borrower.
[SPEAKER_00]: and that if you advantage one, you disadvantage the other does he not get the distinction there?
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't know, but that's what he said and I was actually surprised that he made a comment that was that incompetent.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now another point that I wish he would have made more clear,
[SPEAKER_00]: how to do with black workers.
[SPEAKER_00]: And you know, whenever there's one of these hearings, inevitably you get an African American representative, typically, asking the Fed Chairman, what are you gonna do specifically to help African Americans?
[SPEAKER_00]: And in this case, it was African-American workers who this representative claimed were disproportionately impacted by rising unemployment or inflation, whatever it was.
[SPEAKER_00]: But she kept saying, what are you going to do specifically to help African-Americans?
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, wars just ignored her question.
[SPEAKER_00]: which probably upset her, which is why she asked it a couple times.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I wish he would have just had the courage to be more candid and actually reply and say, you know something Congresswoman, there's nothing we could do.
[SPEAKER_00]: I understand you're concerned about the plight of black workers, but the Fed can't do anything about it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like we can change interest rates,
[SPEAKER_00]: a black worker versus a white worker or a Hispanic worker.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, they're all the same.
[SPEAKER_00]: We have a couple of levers, print money, don't print money, cut rates, raise rates.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's no lever that we can pull for African Americans.
[SPEAKER_00]: There is no specific policy
[SPEAKER_00]: that can be targeted.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why not just tell her that?
[SPEAKER_00]: Why not just level with her and say, look, you know, this is not the place where he's afraid.
[SPEAKER_00]: He's afraid to speak up.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, nobody wants to criticize anybody for asking these ridiculous questions.
[SPEAKER_00]: But even better what I would love to see Kevin Wars do is say, you know what Congresswoman, I appreciate that you're concerned about black workers and, you know, the problems that they're facing.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why don't you do something about it legislatively?
[SPEAKER_00]: Why don't you start repealing a lot of the laws that Congress has passed over the decades that are disadvantaged in African-American workers.
[SPEAKER_00]: They are being disproportionately impacted by all the war on poverty, great society, welfare programs starting from the 1960s.
[SPEAKER_00]: and all of the laws, the anti-discrimination laws that have been passed have backfired.
[SPEAKER_00]: Everything that government has done to help African-Americans has backfired and harmed them.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's got nothing to do with the Fed.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I mean, the Fed harms everybody, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: They're an equal opportunity to harm them.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're bad monetary policy and they're inflation sure.
[SPEAKER_00]: And you can say, well, if blacks are disproportionately poor in middle class, then maybe they disproportionately suffer relative, relative from inflation, which may be true.
[SPEAKER_00]: But there's no way that the Fed can target that relief to the African-Americans, it could just paint
[SPEAKER_00]: But if Congress actually repealed a lot of these laws, that maybe they were well-intentioned, I'll give them that they had well-intensions.
[SPEAKER_00]: But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
[SPEAKER_00]: And in this case, it's the African Americans who are in hell as a result of
[SPEAKER_00]: that well-intentioned legislation, in many cases, it wasn't well-intentioned.
[SPEAKER_00]: The actual purpose of the legislation was to trap African-Americans in poverty to secure their votes so that they can hold out an escape from poverty, you know, as bribes.
[SPEAKER_00]: or to get African-Americans to depend on government handouts so that they'll keep voting for the people who are writing the checks that they're cashing, the government breaking your leg so that you'll rely on them for a crotch.
[SPEAKER_00]: So in many cases, again, it isn't good intentions.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's evil intentions.
[SPEAKER_00]: But in some cases, yeah, I'm sure there are members of Congress who are foolish enough to actually think that these programs are going to help.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, they don't help, they hurt.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's why conservatives and libertarians are opposed to them.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, they could also be opposed for constitutional and moral reasons, but they're also opposed to them because they know they don't work.
[SPEAKER_00]: They understand the unintended consequences that the left completely ignored.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, wars would have had an opportunity to shove that in or face, but, you know, he doesn't want to do that.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, I'm going to talk more about the congressional testimony on my second podcast later this week because then we're going to have the Senate version and we'll have the full market reaction to what's been said.
[SPEAKER_00]: a couple more points I wanted to make though in this podcast one I want to talk about this AI bubble and I've been talking about the AI bubble for a while and I happen to watch a George Gammon video that kind of made this point and so I wanted to credit George because I did watch it and you know if you see this video on YouTube you could check it out because it has some really good graphs that really show this and I'm not you know putting up any graphs in my podcast
[SPEAKER_00]: But a lot of people say, oh, there's no AI bubble.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's nothing like the dot com bubble.
[SPEAKER_00]: And they look at companies like Nvidia.
[SPEAKER_00]: And they say, look, their PE's aren't that bad.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're making a lot of money unlike the dot com companies that weren't making any money.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that may be true that Nvidia is making money.
[SPEAKER_00]: But you have to look at the source of those profits, where are they coming from?
[SPEAKER_00]: The customers who are spending all this money are basically losing a fortune.
[SPEAKER_00]: So Nvidia's gains simply come at the expense of the hyperscaler's losses.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now up until now, they're not really reporting losses.
[SPEAKER_00]: They still have income because the expenditures are capex.
[SPEAKER_00]: And because their cap asks, they don't reduce even though the main earnings numbers, earnings before interest, dividends, depreciation, all that stuff.
[SPEAKER_00]: What Wall Street focuses on, they don't look at depreciation.
[SPEAKER_00]: They just look at the cash numbers.
[SPEAKER_00]: and CapEx is excluded.
[SPEAKER_00]: But these big companies, meta, and Amazon, and Google, and now SpaceX, a lot of these companies, initially, maybe not SpaceX, but had a lot of cash, because Google and Amazon, they had a lot of cash on their balances, and well, they use that cash.
[SPEAKER_00]: to build out the data centers and to buy all these GPUs and other, you know, semiconductors, whatever they needed.
[SPEAKER_00]: But once they burned through the cash, then they had to use their earnings.
[SPEAKER_00]: But now they're resorting to debt.
[SPEAKER_00]: They have borrowed tens of billions, hundreds of billions, maybe over a hundred billion already, has been borrowed in the bond market.
[SPEAKER_00]: So these big cash cows,
[SPEAKER_00]: have turned into, you know, cash vacuums.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're now sucking up cash by going to the credit markets and borrowing tremendous amounts of money, which is not only going to drive up the interest cost of what they have to borrow, but it's going to drive up the interest cost of what everybody has to pay because there's only so much savings to go around.
[SPEAKER_00]: And if now you have these
[SPEAKER_00]: cash, you know cows, now sucking up cash.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now you have companies that weren't borrowing any money that were lending money, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Meta was lending money, Google said they were buying treasuries, they were lenders.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now they're massive borrowers because they're borrowing a fortune to pay for all this capex.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is also what's pushing up interest rates, crowding out the market.
[SPEAKER_00]: You got the government borrowing more, you got these companies borrow more.
[SPEAKER_00]: But the other problem is, now these companies are losing money if you actually count what they're spending.
[SPEAKER_00]: And especially if you consider the depreciation.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now, I know that they're probably depreciating the GPUs and stuff over five or six years.
[SPEAKER_00]: that those losses are not really being recognized by the market because they're looking beyond that.
[SPEAKER_00]: But in reality, the life cycle of this equipment is more like two to three years.
[SPEAKER_00]: It becomes obsolete very quickly.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so the money that's being spent is not really like capital investment where you spend the money and now you've got something for 20 or 30 years that you can use.
[SPEAKER_00]: You're spending money and you're going to have to spend it all over again in two or three years.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's really not like capital investment.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's more like the cost of doing business.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's like an operating expense.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's really what all this is.
[SPEAKER_00]: These big hyperscalers are spending a fortune and losing money.
[SPEAKER_00]: They are not making money on their AI products.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, there's a lot of demand for these products because they don't cause very much.
[SPEAKER_00]: Even the premium services where they may be a hundred or two hundred dollars a month, they're still pricing that out of the loss.
[SPEAKER_00]: But you know, you've got a lot of people that are using you know, for whatever, 10, 20 dollars a month, they're losing a ton of money on on that.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then there are other people that use AI for free, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: When you go to Google,
[SPEAKER_00]: right and you use their AI, you search AI and ask, you don't have to pay anything.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's all free, but it's not free to Google.
[SPEAKER_00]: Google is spending a lot of money on the compute that makes its AI work, but it's not charging anybody anything.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, and they look at the demand.
[SPEAKER_00]: Oh, we've got all this demand for AI.
[SPEAKER_00]: Sure, because you're giving it away.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, you get plenty of demand for stuff.
[SPEAKER_00]: What is that in cost, any money?
[SPEAKER_00]: The problem is, are these hyperscalers ever going to make any money on what they're spending?
[SPEAKER_00]: Sure, there's going to be demand for AI, but is it worth the money that's going in to all this computer equipment?
[SPEAKER_00]: And they're just going to have to keep on replacing it because it becomes obsolete and it's an arms race.
[SPEAKER_00]: And if you don't get the latest and best, well then you fall behind.
[SPEAKER_00]: So yeah, even though you spent all this money in the past, but that doesn't do it, you gotta keep spending it all over again.
[SPEAKER_00]: So this is, I think, the disaster in the making, you know, nobody really is thinking about the end game.
[SPEAKER_00]: Everybody is just trying to get in on the action.
[SPEAKER_00]: Nobody, everybody wants to outspend everybody else, keep up with the Joneses.
[SPEAKER_00]: And as long as the stock prices are going up, you know, the companies are getting rewarded, not based on how much they earn, but based on how much they spend.
[SPEAKER_00]: because everybody thinks the biggest spender is the biggest winner.
[SPEAKER_00]: But they're not right now.
[SPEAKER_00]: The companies that win are the companies that are selling the crap that they're buying.
[SPEAKER_00]: But even those companies are going to have a lot of trouble when their customers can't buy anymore, because they're broke and they can't borrow anymore.
[SPEAKER_00]: And at some point, the bond market is going to break.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's a limit to how much money people want to lend.
[SPEAKER_00]: to Meta and Google and SpaceX.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, SpaceX just the other day, it was up today, but it went below 137.
[SPEAKER_00]: So it was $2 above the IPO price, down 40% from its post-IPO high.
[SPEAKER_00]: So people are starting to get worried about Facebook stock.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why the, I mean, about a SpaceX stock?
[SPEAKER_00]: Why the hell would you want to buy their bonds?
[SPEAKER_00]: Because you don't even get much upside.
[SPEAKER_00]: one two percent above treasuries what the hell I mean why take all that risk just buy treasuries in fact if you really want to own money or buy SpaceX bonds or buy you know meta or you know Amazon bonds wait till the market breaks this is a point that George Gavin made and I agreed
[SPEAKER_00]: Just like what happened with stretch, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: If you really wanted to buy stretch, you didn't buy them at par, you waited for the market to sell off.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then you bought them at 75 cents on the dollar.
[SPEAKER_00]: You got a deal.
[SPEAKER_00]: So if you want to lend money to these hyperscalers, don't lend it at par, wait for the market to break, because there's going to be a scare.
[SPEAKER_00]: And of course, all of our GDP right now is a function of this AI arm's race.
[SPEAKER_00]: All these huge companies spending a fortune without any regard to whether or not they're ever going to make money on these investments.
[SPEAKER_00]: Again, I believe in AI.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think AI could be a game changer.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think it could be one of the biggest factors of increased productivity.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, bigger than the internet, you know, can be like, you know, like the wheel.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, it's a big invention that can really improve mankind.
[SPEAKER_00]: But that does mean these companies that are currently spending a fortune buying this equipment are actually going to get a positive return on their investment.
[SPEAKER_00]: The real winners from AI may be companies that nobody's even thinking about.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, I think the biggest winners are going to be the companies that incorporate the AI
[SPEAKER_00]: to make more profits because buying the AI could end up being commoditized.
[SPEAKER_00]: There may not be a lot of profits.
[SPEAKER_00]: At the end of the day, it could be a low margin business supplying AI.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I know it takes a lot of energy to power it now, but maybe it won't take as much in the future when people come up with a better way to do it.
[SPEAKER_00]: So all of this spending could be a complete waste.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I think we're headed for a big drop in the market.
[SPEAKER_00]: Sailor, again, for the third week at a row, didn't buy any Bitcoin, but he didn't sell any.
[SPEAKER_00]: Instead, he sold $467 million worth of strategy common stock to lift their cash reserves to $3 billion.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why did he sell stock, the stock is trading at nearly a 40% discount to Bitcoin.
[SPEAKER_00]: He destroyed shareholder value with a huge negative Bitcoin yield on this transaction.
[SPEAKER_00]: Strategy shareholders would have been much better off.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, stretch shareholders would have been better off.
[SPEAKER_00]: Had strategy sold Bitcoin.
[SPEAKER_00]: Instead, sailor decided not to sell Bitcoin and to sell common stock.
[SPEAKER_00]: which was a massive dilution for no reason.
[SPEAKER_00]: But there is a reason.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the reason is he doesn't want to sell Bitcoin because he doesn't want to push the price down, which shows you all the talk about these Bitcoin reserves and how they got 30 years worth of reserves is all BS.
[SPEAKER_00]: He is afraid to use the reserves.
[SPEAKER_00]: Sailor knows if he starts really selling Bitcoin, the price is going to crash.
[SPEAKER_00]: Now the problem is it's going to crash anyway because the market realizes the buying that he's in and even if he doesn't sell, the market is going to crash out from under him.
[SPEAKER_00]: But he is so nervous about selling Bitcoin that he's willing to sell his own stock at a massive discount in fact, part of their new plan.
[SPEAKER_00]: For, you know, their cash reserve plan was authorizing the sale of a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin to buy back strategy shares, which they should be doing right now because of the massive discount will give a net their authorized to buy back stock.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why is he selling even more?
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, exacerbating the very discount that the buyback was authorized to try to reduce.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's all because he recognizes the problem that the market is still glossing over.
[SPEAKER_00]: Believe me, you know, if Bitcoin is understood,
[SPEAKER_00]: the severity, Bitcoin would be much lower right now.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, it's amazing to me that Bitcoin is still above 60,000.
[SPEAKER_00]: I know a lot of people regret that they didn't buy Bitcoin when they first heard about it, like me, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: I wish I'd have bought it when I first heard about it.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't regret not buying it three, four, five years ago.
[SPEAKER_00]: But yeah, 15 years ago, sure, I should have bought it.
[SPEAKER_00]: But
[SPEAKER_00]: what's going to happen next?
[SPEAKER_00]: It's not going to be about the people who regret not buying it.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's going to be all the people who regret not selling it.
[SPEAKER_00]: People who don't sell Bitcoin at $60,000.
[SPEAKER_00]: In fact, now it's more like $64,000.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think the real resistance is about $65,000.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's kind of was the support and now it's kind of resistance.
[SPEAKER_00]: The next level of support, you know, just a little bit below
[SPEAKER_00]: 60 that 58,000 about there is like kind of support 65 resistance.
[SPEAKER_00]: But I think once it cracks 58, it's got a crack 50 and then it could go right to 30 or 20, but the people who don't so sell it now, they're going to be the ones that are going to have a lot of regrets.
[SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, thanks for listening everybody.
[SPEAKER_00]: Remember if you like this podcast give me the thumbs up Leave me a comment and make sure and subscribe to my YouTube channel and if you're not Listening to the podcast on YouTube if you're listening on shift radio that's great But you can still go to YouTube and subscribe trying to get that subscriber count my new goal is 700,000
[SPEAKER_00]: It's a slow-moving process on YouTube.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I'm about almost 630,000 But I want to get more subscribers.
[SPEAKER_00]: It again.
[SPEAKER_00]: Subscribe to everywhere.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, I'm on TikTok.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm on Instagram.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm on Facebook But my number one platform For engagement right now other than YouTube But where I'm constantly bringing stuff up is on X.
[SPEAKER_00]: So again, if you're not following me there
[SPEAKER_00]: I'll make sure and do so, and bye for now, and I'll be back again, probably on Friday to wrap up the week and discuss day two of the Kevin Wars show, bye for now.