← Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
Inside America's Debt Crisis: How Politicians Are Sacrificing Your Future Peter Schiff Pt. 2 -
01:10:12
Loading summary
Transcript94 lines
- [00:00]
Commercial Announcer 1
With Vrbill's last minute deals, you can save over $50 on your spring getaway. So whether it's a mountain escape city break or a week at the beach, there's still time to get great discounts. Book your next day now. Average savings $72. Select homes only.
- [00:15]
Commercial Announcer 2
If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting, and all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-granger. Visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [00:46]
Tom Bilyeu
I'm Tom Bilyeu and this is Impact Theory. Let's jump right back in to part two of my conversation with Peter Schiff. Yeah, the exact thing that I've been trying to get people to hear is that every country, with the exception of Japan, that has crossed 130% debt to GDP tears itself apart from the inside. You end up with civil war or revolution. People always think that I'm being hyperbolic or I'm just being paranoid. But the reality is when you start describing the mechanisms that would have to be in place for these kind of drawdowns to happen is, I mean, you're, you're not able to fund a bunch of programs, so you literally have to go into the government and say, well, these things just aren't going to get paid. Checks start bouncing. You just run into the realities of what happens when you can't do funny money, essentially. Yeah, and, and that, yeah, that, that is going to get bad. And then you're going to take the populism that we have now and you're going to exacerbate it a thousand fold. And that's when suddenly the left and the right go from hating each other to actually killing each other.
- [01:48]
Peter Schiff
Yeah. And, you know, this responsible thing is for the government to admit that it's broke and that it can't afford the promises that it's made and to cut government spending, including entitlements, to be honest with the voters and say, you know, we can't pay you the Social Security benefits that we promised. And so we're not going to, we're going to either. Maybe we're going to make the retirement age 85 instead of 65. Right. You got to keep working. Unfortunately, you know, we told you you could retire at 65, but we don't have the money. You know, there's a lot of things that America should do, but we're not going to do that. So instead we're gonna create massive inflation so that the Social Security payments are worthless. So you know, I mean, my solution is means testing it so that at least the poorest people who really need Social Security could get something. And wealthy people like, look, I don't need any Social Security. You could simply say, peter, you get nothing. I mean, I don't need the money, right? And so the more people who you tell you get nothing, then the people that really need it will get something. But the way they're gonna do it, they're just gonna wipe out benefits so that my loss is the same as everybody else's loss. Cuz it's all gonna be inflation. And this is the worst way to deal with it. But politically that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna, we're gonna destroy the value of Social Security by destroying the value of the money. And so yes, you're gonna get your Social Security check, but good luck buying something with it. You know, what good is a Social Security check that doesn't buy anything, Right? So, but the politicians are never going to act responsibly. But also, you know, I got to throw this out there because I know a lot of people are watching and they're listening to this, they say, yeah, that's why I own bitcoin. I'm ready for this because I got my money in bitcoin. I got news for the bitcoiners. The bitcoin crisis may hit before the dollar crisis. We could see a complete implosion in bitcoin even before the dollar. And I think bitcoin right now being
- [03:47]
Tom Bilyeu
it as a tech stock, well, it's
- [03:49]
Peter Schiff
not even a tech stock because at least the tech stock is a business that has the potential to generate income. Bitcoin is nothing. It generates nothing. It has the potential to generate nothing. It's just a digital string of numbers, right? But bitcoin is right now in a big bear market and nobody knows it's down more than 25% priced in gold since August. And in fact bitcoin was down again today, even as gold hits new highs and silver hits new highs. So I think the narrative that bitcoin is digital gold is being disproved right now. And I think a lot of people who bought bitcoin in the last couple of years through exchange traded funds are going to be getting out. And I think what happened on Friday in the crypto market. And in bitcoin, that flash crash is a warning about of what's about to happen. And what's going to happen next is going to be much worse. And it's not going to be triggered by a social media post. And there's not, it's not, there's not going to be a bounce back. I think you're going to see mass liquidation as people try to get out of the casino, but there's no exit. There's not enough liquidity.
- [04:58]
Tom Bilyeu
You've planted your flag, I'll plant mine. We'll see who ends up being right. Yeah, I'll explain it now. I spent a lot of time listening to you, so I'm certainly aware of the way that you perceive this. I think the thing that people who think that bitcoin doesn't have any value don't understand how many subcultures exist in America. And so I very much fall into the subculture of people who I have. I look at bitcoin as digital gold. I'm far more trusting of things that are in the digital realm than I am of something that's going to be stored in a warehouse somewhere that just feels very sort of Luddite. Now I have a meaningful amount of my portfolio in gold, but nowhere near compared to bitcoin. So gold is my hedge against bitcoin, if you will, that if I end up being wrong and the world doesn't go for it, or doesn't continue to go for it, I should say, then cool, I've got gold. But I think that there is a cadre of people, largely young people, who have grown up so digitally native that they don't make the distinction that you make, like when I hear you tout. But gold is a real thing. It has real value. That literally means nothing to me. It does not hit me. I think of gold as being totally worthless other than what somebody else will pay. So for me, it's the exact same thing with bitcoin. Bitcoin is only worth what somebody else will pay. But I don't care about. It's when people tout like it's used in manufacturing. Get the fuck out of here. That is not what the price is driven by. The price is driven by based off of what people will pay for it because they're using it as a store of wealth. That's what drives the price of gold.
- [06:41]
Peter Schiff
I get what you're saying about the subculture of true believers, hardcore bitcoin people. I mean, I know a lot of these people. I mean I'm in this world. A lot of my friends are hardcore diehard bitcoin guys. So that's why my immediate forecast is not that bitcoin goes to zero. No, I mean, there are people that are going to hold it no matter what. And there are people that will even buy more on the way down. But my point is that over the last several years, the main driver of the appreciation has not been the hardcore bitcoiners. It's. It's been mainstream investors who bought Bitcoin ETFs in their Schwab account or their Fidelity account.
- [07:25]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah, because number go up and they
- [07:28]
Peter Schiff
just bought it, you know, because they thought it would go up and they believed all this stuff. You know, they're not counting their bitcoin, they're counting their dollars. They're looking on their statements. And a lot of the money that went into Bitcoin ETFs came out of gold ETFs came out of gold stock ETFs. I saw it happening, you know, in real time. And so this is the money that I think is going to come out of the market. I think it's the speculator who's not married to the bitcoin philosophy, not the young kid who's 20 years old and owns it, but the retiree who bought a bitcoin ETF in his IRA or whatever. Right. But more mature people who just jumped on a bandwagon thought it was going to be easy money. People were going on television. Million dollar Bitcoin, $5 million Bitcoin. You're an idiot if you don't own bitcoin. You got to get in on bit. All the fomo. A lot of people got in. I just think that a lot of those people are going to try to get out at the same time. And there's no liquidity in the bitcoin market to absorb it. You saw what happened on Friday with some selling. What can happen, the bottom drops out. But if we get real selling, real outflows out of these Bitcoin ETFs and then also out of these bitcoin treasury companies that are going to be dumping. I mean, you have so much speculative money that is in bitcoin. But then also I think a lot of the, you know, diehards have leveraged their bitcoin. I think a lot of people have, you know, six, seven figure bitcoin wallets who have borrowed money against it.
- [09:01]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah, that's.
- [09:02]
Peter Schiff
And, you know, and those loans are going to get called and this is just going to Be an implosion. So bitcoin doesn't have to go from 110,000 to zero. What if it goes from 110,000 to 10,000? I mean, yeah, I mean, you know, that is a huge loss. That. That is a massive amount of people's wealth just wiped out of existence that they thought they had. This is what I think is common in bitcoin. Now, you could argue long, long term, maybe it'll survive. Maybe it'll have another lease on life. People, maybe. But there is a massive crash. And I wouldn't even consider buying Bitcoin until after MicroStrategy is bankrupt and all their bitcoin is sold. Right. Because that is going to happen. That is. That's inevitable.
- [09:48]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah. Look, I have a lot of admiration for the size of Michael Saylor's testicles. They are clearly gigantic. I would not be able to sleep doing that. But, you know, we'll see. But on that one. So I'll give you one quick story and then there's some other questions I have for you. But there was a Japanese comic book company called Shonen Jump that made a decision back in the 90s where the US comic book company, comic book industry decided they were going to start aging up their readers. And Shonen Jump, as a Japanese company, said, are we going to age up with our readers? Are we going to keep making stuff for kids of a specific age? And they decided to keep making things for kids of a specific age. Now that decision, because they're constantly bringing new people into their universe. That one decision has made it such that a single title of Japanese manga now outsell, outsells the entire Western comic book market. And so I see a parallel between gold, which clearly speaks to people that grew up where gold was the thing where you stored your value in times of uncertainty. That's now being replaced with young people that just grow up where bitcoin is just a normal thing. Like, there's not a debate for them. They just grew up. It is a thing. It's very valuable.
- [11:04]
Peter Schiff
And.
- [11:04]
Tom Bilyeu
And so the frame of reference that they have is that bitcoin is a valuable thing. And so I think you're just more and more people and it'll never be a hundred percent, but more and more people are going to go into crypto, into bitcoin specifically. Now, I have the same beef that you have with speculators and gamblers, which I think crypto has a bizarre way of attracting. But anyway, I think there's just going to be a constant influx of new
- [11:30]
Peter Schiff
blood Part of it, though, Tom, is their frame of reference. Their view of bitcoin has been framed in this huge bull market where bitcoin has gone from nothing to 126,000.
- [11:41]
Tom Bilyeu
And if it craters, then I will be meaning if it really goes to nothing.
- [11:46]
Peter Schiff
No, I didn't say nothing. But let's say bitcoin goes from where it is now 110,000 down to 10,000, which 10,000. Bitcoin was a pretty high price a few years ago, right? And let's say it goes down to 10,000. That's going to skew how a lot of young people look at it because now all of a sudden, wait a minute, it's gone down 90%. A lot of young people who bought in at 50, 60, 70,000 and have lost 80% of their money are no longer going to be so enamored by it. And a lot of other young people.
- [12:18]
Tom Bilyeu
The truth of bitcoin is it must become a commodity. If bitcoin doesn't get commodified and it's always this highly volatile asset, then it's always going to be at risk.
- [12:29]
Peter Schiff
But how is it going to be a commodity? What do you use it for? What, what, what, what? I mean, I, I, I know what I do with oil.
- [12:35]
Tom Bilyeu
I'm never going to be able to convince you because you, you know these, you know these answers. It is taking a short break, but there's more impact theory after. Stay tuned.
- [12:47]
Commercial Announcer 2
If you work in university maintenance, Grainer considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner offering the products you need all in one place, from H vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [13:18]
Tom Bilyeu
Thanks for staying tuned. Now let's get back to it. For someone like me, it is where would I rather have my store of value in bitcoin, which I feel like I control, or in gold, which is going to sit in somebody else's vault? Because I'm sure as hell not burying it in my backyard. I'm not putting it in a safe in my house that I do not want to be a target. So there's no universe in which I'm going to custody my own gold. So at some point I am trusting somebody else to hold it. So what I rather.
- [13:45]
Peter Schiff
Well, you can hold it yourself. I mean, we ship gold and silver out to people all the time from shift gold. But where you choose me, I don't
- [13:51]
Tom Bilyeu
want to do that.
- [13:52]
Peter Schiff
Right, well, okay, but you say, where do you want to store your value? The problem is there's no value in Bitcoin to store. When I'm storing gold, I'm storing gold for a jeweler who might need it. I'm storing it for, you know, a company that makes computer chips that might
- [14:09]
Tom Bilyeu
need yourself to believe that it is,
- [14:11]
Peter Schiff
but that's what gold is used for. Or I'm storing it for a central banker who may need it to back their currency. Right, yes, that's another.
- [14:19]
Tom Bilyeu
It stores value. And all I'm saying is Bitcoin stores value.
- [14:23]
Peter Schiff
Now it's. IT stores. You can't store what you don't have. Bitcoin has a price, but it doesn't have any underlying value.
- [14:33]
Tom Bilyeu
So I don't know if this is going to be fruitful. So I'll take three minutes back and forth between you and I and we'll see if we get anywhere. The storage of value is merely a psychological construct. This is why we have used shells and glass beads and all kinds of shit, because we. What people realize is as a human, I have to exist during that time. I can. I can try to find a way to capture my wealth. I can go hunt something, I can build a better trap. I can give somebody a back rub on the promise that they're going to go fucking get me some food, whatever. But I'm going to use my time to make sure that I survive a winter, that I survive the night, all of that. So I'm exchanging time for proof of work, which we call money. And the people that get really good at doing something super valuable with their time to get that proof of work in the form of value, they store it as a thing. That thing can be a bro. Thank you so much for the wildebeest. I'm going to feed you next time.
- [15:23]
Peter Schiff
That can be.
- [15:24]
Tom Bilyeu
They write that on a piece of paper. It can be a shell or a glass bead. But I now have this thing that we all agree if you give me that thing, I'm going to exchange you something else for it.
- [15:33]
Peter Schiff
Yeah, but the reason.
- [15:34]
Tom Bilyeu
Hold on. It can be a piece of paper that we call a dollar. It can be some gold, which is amazing because it doesn't rot, or it can be a Bitcoin, which is the digital version of the same fucking thing. But if you can't understand that the vast. And I know you do understand It.
- [15:48]
Peter Schiff
No, I.
- [15:49]
Tom Bilyeu
The vast, vast, vast majority of the value of gold is that we all agree.
- [15:54]
Peter Schiff
Oh, gold.
- [15:55]
Tom Bilyeu
Is that thing.
- [15:56]
Peter Schiff
Cool.
- [15:56]
Tom Bilyeu
I'm going to do gold. But isn't because it turns into fucking watches.
- [16:00]
Peter Schiff
The reason. Look, the reason that seashells had value is because you could wear them. It was like jewelry. They were beautiful. People liked them. But let me give you an example that is easy to understand. Cigarettes have been money. You know, the GIs used them as money after World War II. They're used today as money in prison now. Why cigarettes? Because people smoke cigarettes. They enjoy smoking cigarettes. Now, I may not be a smoker. I may be in prison and I don't smoke, but I still want cigarettes because there's somebody in that prison who smokes. And as long as there are smokers, cigarettes have value. If nobody wants to smoke, then they don't make good money. But you need smokers to give cigarettes value now.
- [16:44]
Tom Bilyeu
Okay, so one last thing.
- [16:45]
Peter Schiff
Bitcoin. Smoke bitcoin, you can't. You have to be smoking something to buy it, but you can't smoke it. But the thing is, there are so many. There's tens of thousands of cryptos that you can own. Why bitcoin? There's so many others that are out there. It's not like, oh, I have to buy bitcoin. There's all these coins.
- [17:04]
Tom Bilyeu
It's the one with momentum, so.
- [17:06]
Peter Schiff
Well, then what if it doesn't have. Will it still have a moment? Hold on.
- [17:09]
Tom Bilyeu
Because if you still haven't gotten to the point, why it's like cigarettes. So the thing that I don't think you're being honest about or you don't want to face or I don't know what the fuck it is, is that bitcoin is the equivalent of a cigarette that I can transfer magically to any other cell in the prison. And so would I rather have the cigarette that I have to hold in my hand or do I want the one that I can just insta transfer to anybody without having to talk to the guards or anything like that. It just instantly goes to the thing I can instantly. And that doesn't mean anything to you heard, but it means a lot to people like me.
- [17:41]
Peter Schiff
Well, here's what you're missing. I'm a smoker. I'm craving a cigarette. And you send me a digital cigarette that I can't smoke, that ain't going to do it. I need an actual cigarette that I could take a drag. I can suck in all that tobacco and then nicotine, and I can Feel good. I can't do that with your digital cigarette. I need an actual, an actual cigarette.
- [18:02]
Tom Bilyeu
That's great. And that's why bitcoin is never going to soak up everything. If people think gold's going away, they're dumb. But if people think that one day everyone is going to wake up and go, wait, Bitcoin doesn't have any value. I can't smoke it. They're out of their minds. That, that just isn't like. It is so self evident to me that bitcoin does something that right now nothing other than other sort of also ran cryptocurrencies do that. I'm like, there's nothing like this. Even USD. You've got to turn into a stablecoin and then cool. Stablecoins dope. The problem is it's still owned by the government. And I trust the government. Exactly. Fuck all.
- [18:37]
Peter Schiff
I don't. Look, the only stable coin that makes sense to me is one backed by gold and then it's like a real currency. Then it's not stable, it's just back. It's, you know, tokenized gold. That's fine. I mean I will be shocked if
- [18:50]
Tom Bilyeu
that doesn't become a thing.
- [18:51]
Peter Schiff
Well, it already.
- [18:52]
Tom Bilyeu
You're not going to get someone like me because I'm still like, yeah, but the underlying asset is still in someone's warehouse and I don't trust them.
- [18:59]
Peter Schiff
Well, why not? I mean, have you ever heard of Brinks?
- [19:02]
Tom Bilyeu
Yes, of course.
- [19:03]
Peter Schiff
Okay, so Brinks has been in business for 165 years. They're in the business of storing gold for other people and transporting gold for other people. In 165 years, not an ounce of gold has been lost. So not one Brinks customer has ever lost any gold in 165 years. So why wouldn't you trust Brinks? I mean they've earned that over 165 years of building a reputation in a free market. Look, people buy insurance, right? People buy life insurance, auto insurance, fire insurance. It's only as good as the third party, Right? People trust third parties all the time in everything that they do. Right? So you can still trust the third parties to store your gold. What I don't want to do is just trust that people believe that, that, that nothing is something. They may believe that nothing is something for now, right? There's an old saying that you could fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the, some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all the time. And people are going to wake up about Bitcoin and the whole thing is going to implode. But we'll see how committed people are. If we do get a real crash from these levels and bitcoin goes down 80 or 90%, we'll see how popular it still is. We'll see how many people still have confidence in it as a store of value when 80 or 90% of its so called value evaporates.
- [20:29]
Tom Bilyeu
We shall indeed. Peter. Yeah, that was fun. Thank you. Okay, so now I want to get into the Trump of it all. Why does he want to drive interest rates down if sort of artificially low interest rates are a big part of his problem?
- [20:45]
Peter Schiff
Yeah, well, he doesn't understand that that's the problem. You know, he's looking at the President understands, you know, maybe, I mean, but he certainly does a good job of lying about it right now. And so you never know with politicians or central bankers, are they ignorant or are they just lying? I mean, and I don't know. And sometimes it's hard to know what's worse, right, if they're lying or just, you know, ignorant. But Donald Trump looks at a problem that we've got a lot of debt and so we have a lot of debt. We need low interest rates so we don't have to default. He looks at the housing market and sees a situation where houses are so expensive and people can't afford them. And in his mind, well, how do we make these expensive houses affordable? Well, let's make mortgages cheaper so people can go borrow more money at a lower rate to buy these houses. Right, but the free market solution to that problem is lower home prices. Obviously houses are too expensive. Let the price come down, right? Then people can afford them. People won't have to borrow as much money. So the interest rate doesn't have to be that low because your loan balance is a lot lower. So your monthly payments will be lower because the principal is lower. But of course, if we let real estate prices fall, banks could fail, right? People's home equity disappears. And so Trump thinks we just need lower interest rates so we can sustain a bubble in housing. And so the U.S. government, which right now we're spending, you know, a trillion two, a trillion three every year on interest. And by next year we'll be spending 2 trillion a year, which will be, you know, 40% of our tax revenue. And if it keeps going, you know, it'll be more than that. And Trump understands that the economy is going to implode under the weight of all this debt. And we're going to be spending all of our money just on interest, on what we've borrowed and there's nothing left over to do anything else. So Trump says we need lower interest rates so that we can service this debt.
- [22:48]
Tom Bilyeu
But isn't he really, he can even get the interest rates down for like a month and then he can just refinance everything.
- [22:54]
Peter Schiff
No, he can't refinance. That's the problem. Because there has to be a lender willing to lend the money at that low rate. They don't exist.
- [23:03]
Tom Bilyeu
You're saying there's just already no appetite.
- [23:06]
Peter Schiff
Not for people will buy 30 day treasuries, maybe a one year, but they're not going to lend us money at 2% for 30 years or even 10 years. You can't do it. But Trump just wants the Fed to lower rates so that we can borrow more money short term to get the rates down. But that's just going to make the problems, the underlying problems worse because it's artificially low interest rates that are the source of the problem. And so you can't cure the problem by making it bigger. But what we do need, the solution is to let interest rates go up. The way we solve the debt problem is we default. That's how we solve it, right? How does somebody, if you're an individual and you've just borrowed too much money, right, and you can't possibly pay it back, what do you do? You declare bankruptcy, right? And then you reduce your liabilities, you give all of your creditors a haircut, right? Hey, Peter, you. Everybody loaned Peter Schiff a bunch of money. Peter's broke, he can't pay everybody back. Let's just go into bankruptcy. Let's figure out what Peter's got and we'll figure out how much he can afford to pay and then we'll figure out what everybody gets. And, and that is the solution that we need. We need the US Government to basically have a moratorium. Hey, we can't pay, we borrowed too much money. We can't pay the bondholders, we can't pay the Social Security, we can't pay the pensions on government retirees. We're basically going to have to give everybody a haircut. We're going to have to figure out, you know, we have a $38 trillion debt. We can't afford that. Maybe we can afford a 10 trillion. We got it, we got it. We got to have a default. That is the honest way to go about doing it. Now you might say, well, that's terrible, people that Own Treasuries, somebody that has $1 million in treasuries, they're only going to have 400,000. Yes, I get it. They lost $600,000. But the way we're going to do it, they're not going to default. You're going to have your million dollars worth of Treasuries, but it's going to feel like 100,000, because 90% of your purchasing power is going to get wiped out through inflation. So a much better solution to the problem of too much debt is default. Right. A better solution to overpriced homes is. Is to let the prices go down. But when you do, the real, the good solution, the pain is immediate and the outrage is immediate. People are very pissed off that they lost this money. So the government would rather have them lose more money slower than. Than less money right away. And of course, then they can blame somebody else. They can blame, you know, the speculators, or they can blame capitalism. They can blame greedy corporations, which, of course, is what they're going to do. Right. The government never accepts responsibility for the problems it causes. It always blames capitalism for those problems. So it could use that to make itself bigger and to hold itself off as the solution. See, this is why we got to get rid of capitalism. This is why we need more government, because we have to prevent these disasters that capitalism creates.
- [26:19]
Tom Bilyeu
All right, you. It's amazing that you're bringing up capitalism and people losing faith in it. The way that you first got on my radar years and years ago was you went down. You were during Occupy Wall street, and you were like, I'm one of the 1 percenters. Talk to me. So when I see the rise of Mamdani, and on my live show, I end up talking about him a lot. And I'm just like this. People do not understand where these kind of policies come from, nor do they understand where they go. And to me, as alarming as the rise in gold price is, seeing the rise of socialist candidates is at least as alarming, if not more so. Do you think I'm crazy about that? What do you. What do you read in the rise of the dsa? The rise of Mamdani?
- [27:07]
Peter Schiff
Well, it's to be expected. I mean, that is an inherent flaw in democracy as a economic system. And, you know, and the reason that America became so rich is because we weren't a democracy. I mean, we were created as a republic. And the goal of the republic was to keep the forces, the evil forces of democracy in check. And, you know, we did a Very good job of that for, for, for a long time. But the country is far more democratic today than it was, you know, when it was established.
- [27:41]
Tom Bilyeu
Can you be a little painstaking and explain what you mean? We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action. So what's the difference between a Republican, a democracy, and what were the things that we changed that made us go away from Republic and towards democracy?
- [28:05]
Peter Schiff
Yeah, so I mean a very easy and kind of, you know, definition is a democracy is two wolves and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner. You know, a Republic is a well armed chicken who challenges the vote. So the idea behind a republic is that the majority could be just as oppressive as one person. So if you're in the minority and a majority of people decide to oppress you. Right. You don't really care. That's no different than having a monarch oppress you or a dictator. Right. And so you don't want to allow a group of individuals to take away the rights of a smaller group because they outnumber them. So the whole purpose of a republic is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And so how did the founding fathers, how did they do this? Right. Well, from the federal government. And remember, because the U.S. america was initially a collection of 13 independent countries. So all the initial 13 colonies that became states, they all had their own constitutions and their own government, but on a federal level. Right. The way the federal government was organized, it was organized in a way to be very undemocratic. So first of all, the President was not elected by the people. The President was elected by the electoral College. And the electoral college. You know, there were various ways to, you know, get the electors other than just popular votes. But it wasn't the people who were voting for the President, it was the people who were voting for electors who were supposed to convene and make decisions and evaluate the candidates and then vote. They weren't supposed to be a rubber stamp of what you know, of what the people wanted. They were elected to exercise their own judgment. The senators were appointed by the state legislators. They were not elected by anybody. They were appointed by state legislators. Now, those state legislators may have been elected, but the senators were appointed. And they were appointed for six year terms and their terms were staggered. And the reason that they were staggered so that only one third of the Senate would turn over was because they wanted to make sure that if There was a popular movement that at most it could capture a third of the Senate that it couldn't, you know, it couldn't turn the whole Senate over. They wanted, they wanted it to be a slower movement in case, you know, there was some crazy idea that became popular. It couldn't take over the whole Senate. There was one body that was elected by the people and that was the House of Representatives. And they were elected every two years. And they entrusted the House with the ability to raise taxes, not the Senate. They wanted the House to vote for taxes because they were accountable to the people, because every two years they had to go run for reelection. And it would be hard if they had just raised everybody's taxes. But the Constitution also was written in a way to dramatically limit the power of the federal government, because the federal government can only do the specific things that are authorized to it by the Constitution. The states can do whatever they want, so long as it's not denied by the Constitution. But the federal government could only do the few things that the Constitution specifically says they can do. And there's very little that the federal government can actually do. You know, 90 plus percent of what the federal government does today is completely unconstitutional. So, you know, so the Constitution was written to prevent the government from doing all the things that people wanted to do. It wasn't allowed to do it. And then of course, voting was restricted. The states determined who could vote and the states had all kinds of restrictions. You had to be 21 in most states. Right. And 21, you know, back in 1792 was a lot different than 21 today. A 21 year old back then probably had been married for four or five years, had a couple of kids and had been out of school since she was 10. Right. So people that were in the real world, so, you know, you were a lot more mature in life at 21. Most 21 year olds today have never had a job and they still live with their parents. Right. So, you know, it's very different than a 21 year old back then. But of course they had poll taxes. You had to pay a tax to vote or you had to own property to vote. They had literacy tests, women couldn't vote. You know, not that I would necessarily have that restriction today, but the reason women didn't vote is because they didn't really work. They stayed at home, they took care of the kids. So it was assumed that, you know, they weren't as up on the issues and they wouldn't make as an informed vote as the men. But the whole idea was not that everybody votes. The idea was that we had good government. And if you notice, if you read the Constitution, if you read the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, there's nothing about voting being a right. You know, we have a right to speech, to own property. We have a right to freedom of religion. There is no right to vote. There's nothing in the Constitution until we got the amendments that said, you know, the right to vote shall not be denied if you're. You're on account of sex, or if you're not 18. But in the original founding documents of the United States, voting was not a right. Voting was a privilege. You know, and the whole idea was to limit voting because the majority is normally wrong. And about everything, if you just decide stuff based on popular opinion, you're pretty much going to do the wrong thing every time, right? It's rare that the majority is right about anything. And so you don't want to run a country based on the whims of the majority. And, you know, the founding Fathers, you know, called it mobocracy. That's how they define democracy. They didn't like it. You know, they had studied the democracies going back to ancient Greece where the concept originated, and they were all failures because the people vote themselves broke. And, you know, we're repeating that now. And that's what's going on in New York. You know, the promise of socialism is very seductive, right? Even though it's failed everywhere it's been tried, that doesn't prevent people from thinking that this time it's different, that we have. We have better people, we have more caring people. Yes. It didn't work in Cuba. It didn't work in Venezuela. It didn't work in the Soviet Union. But it's going to work in New York. We're going to do it, right? But. And it's very easy to be a demagogue and to say you're poor because this person is exploiting you, right? This rich person is the reason you're poor. And let's just take money away from him, right? If we just take money from this rich person, you can have free health care, you can have free transportation, you can have cheaper food, you can have cheaper rent. And I'm like, okay, yeah, you know, but they don't understand that none of this stuff is gonna work, that all this stuff is gonna backfire, Right? That everything the socialist promises, the opposite is what's gonna get delivered. It's an empty promise. But, you know, it sounds good, you know, but it's not an accident or that. It's that people like it. And the worse you can make the economic conditions, the more susceptible they are to believe this kind of stuff. And look at what happens. You know, look at the rise. And not that I'm, you know, you know, when you bring up the Nazis, but, you know, it's when you look at how did Adolf Hitler rise to power as on the top of the National Socialist Workers Party, which is what the Nazi Party was. It was a Socialist party. It was a Workers Socialist Party. It was because Germany was a mess economically. They just had hyperinflation from the Weimar Republic. Right. They had lost the First World War. They were trapped under the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles. So there were a lot of problems. And that was a fertile environment for a guy like Adolf Hitler to come into power. I mean, if everything was great in Germany, he never could have risen to power. But he was voted into power, democratically elected. That's. He didn't take over by a violent revolution. You know, he was voted in. The Nazi Party was voted into power. Right? So that's what can happen, right, when people are voting, and especially when they're voting, when times are tough, you know, and times are going to get very tough. I mean, they're tough now, they're going to be a lot tougher soon.
- [36:57]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah, that's a thing that really worries me is because people do not understand the cause and effect of economies. They get in a position where times really are tough, things really are as hard as they think they are, and then they vote for the exact economic style that will exacerbate the problem a thousandfold. And by freezing rents, you end up getting the Bronx basically in the 70s and 80s, where many landlords realized, oh, it's much more cost efficient to burn the building down and collect the insurance than it is to try to upkeep the building. Given that they're making it impossible for me to collect enough rent that I can upkeep it, they're looking at the landlords like they're slumlords. And it's like, well, if you've got an asset that makes less money than it costs to upkeep, now you're literally asking for charity. So there's no way they're going to do it. They're going to find a way out of that. And given that, not only have we tried it, we've tried it in New York recently. Like, I was alive when that was happening. And so that one, to me is just as somebody who I really feel like young people have been done super dirty by the accumulation of debt, by deficit spending, by printing money, just eating them alive with inflation. To your point, the government does not want people to know what inflation is and they keep voting for things that make it worse. It is just, and I don't know what words to yell into the void to get people to understand that, okay, listen, this is going to be hard. Nobody's going to have a good time, but at least it doesn't get catastrophic if we. I lean more on the Ray Dalio beautiful deleveraging side where it's not just pure default, but it's partial default, it's partial additional tax on the wealthy especially. It's partial redistribution. It's a little bit of money printing, but all sort of in.
- [38:46]
Peter Schiff
Yeah. The problem though with taxing the wealthy is it doesn't diminish what they spend, it diminishes what they save and invest. So that's the problem because we need investment capital, we need that. And so to the extent that we're taxing the wealthy, it needs to be a consumption based tax. Not a tax on their wealth or their assets, but a tax on when they buy luxury goods. You could tax that. But the other problem with democracy, right, is you have so many voters that have been bought and paid for. You know, once the government can make you dependent on a government check, right? That's why the government loves to cripple you, so they can give you a crutch that you're now dependent on. And now you vote for whoever promises to continue providing the crotch. And if anybody threatens to take it away, you're gonna vote against them. So you have all these people now that get welfare checks, housing vouchers, Social Security checks, snap benefits from the government. And so they're gonna keep voting to keep getting those benefits. And there are all sorts of government subsidies too, where, you know, the people who benefit from government, even if they also suffer, you know, from the same government, but when you get money from the government, you know that you've got it right? So, and, and the people who are benefiting from government subsidies or programs can organize together to keep those programs. But the taxpayers who pay the bills, they're not in an organized group, you know, they don't necessarily know. Or even if it's not a tax, even if it's a law or a regulation that artificially increases prices so that certain people can get a windfall at the expense of others, the average American doesn't even realize that he's getting screwed or why they're getting screwed. But the people who are benefiting know exactly why they're benefiting and they give money to the politicians who continue to perpetuate those benefits. So the people who benefit from government are organized and they vote and they contribute. But everybody who pays the cost, whether it's through taxes or inflation or whatever, they don't know. They're diffused. And so you end up constantly reelecting the politicians that perpetuate the system that is impoverishing the majority of people who don't know it and who aren't organized. You know, that's why, you know, when you think about voting criteria, I would rather live in a country where I can't vote, but I have confidence in those who can, right? So, you know, whereas if everybody can vote, like, you know, I say, hey, let's wait, raise the voting age to 30, right? And there are going to be some young people who are very competent and probably could cast a well informed good vote. And let's say I'm one of them. Let's say I'm, I'm 21 and I'm going to make an intelligent vote. I would still be in favor of raising the voting age to 30 even though it means that I can't vote, because it means that all the other idiots who are my age, they can't vote either. Because what good is it if I go to vote and then 10 other people cancel out my vote with their moronic vote, right? I would rather have responsible people voting so I have good government than a bunch of irresponsible people canceling out my vote, right? And everybody should feel the same way about it. I mean, it's not about voting, right? It's about having good government. And good government is limited government, small government, government that stays out of the way, right? That allows maximum individual freedom. That's what we want from government. The government that governs best governs least. And that was, I think it was maybe Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin, I forget, but it was one of the founding fathers who said that. And it's one of the most appropriate quotes.
- [42:45]
Tom Bilyeu
How do you stop corporate greed though, from taking advantage of people?
- [42:49]
Peter Schiff
I love corporate greed because corporate greed is what makes my life better, right? When corporations are greedy, they want to earn more money. How do they earn more money? Provide me with a product or a service that I want to buy at a price that's lower and equality that's higher than somebody else. So greed, right? When it's channeled into Profit maximization is a good thing, right? Fine. Now if you're talking about, well, what about a corporation that is stealing from me or defrauding me? Okay, well, we have laws against that or give you laws against that. Look, I can't steal your money. I can't go into your house and steal your money, right? And a corporation can't do that either. I can't defraud you, and neither can a corporation. But a corporation, if they just earn your money honestly, right, then that's fine. Yeah.
- [43:43]
Tom Bilyeu
Think of things like Roundup and stuff like that where people know, like, these guys have a sense that this is creating a problem, but they're just like, ah, fuck it, like, it's a cost of doing this.
- [43:53]
Peter Schiff
But look at, look at what, look at what happened to Monsanto, which unfortunately got bought by buyer who had nothing to do with Monsanto or Roundup. They sold the company to Germans and now they've been paying out billions and billions of dollars in claims. So, you know, the market is doing something about that, you know? You know, and yeah, I mean, yes, I think that, you know, like, all these cigarette companies, to the extent that they knew cigarettes were harmful and they didn't tell people that they were harmful, although, I mean, come on, I mean, it's hard to believe that you could suck all that into your lungs and, and not think you're doing some damage, right? I mean, like, I mean, it should have gone, like, obvious that smoking cigarettes is, is, is not a good thing if you're concerned about your health and your longevity. But, but obviously now everybody knows that cigarettes are bad for you. And if you want to smoke them, then that's on you, right? I mean, you know, they got warnings all over the packaging. There's all, you know, I mean, if you smoke cigarettes today, you've made that choice. And that's what freedom is about. It's about the ability to make choices. Some of those choices are gonna be good, some of those choices are gonna be bad. There are some people that think, you know what? I know that I might not live as long smoking cigarettes, but I get so much pleasure from cigarettes. And I'm not a smoker and I've never smoked. But you talk to smokers and how much enjoyment they get, how much they look forward to and like cigarette smoking. I mean, it doesn't even make any sense to me. And I have no interest in trying to pick up the habit just so I can experience it. But for some people, they'd rather live a shorter life and enjoy smoking that's their choice, you know.
- [45:35]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah, no doubt. What's the most controversial belief that you have around this kind of thing? Economics, government, etc.
- [45:41]
Peter Schiff
I mean, a lot of things I believe are controversial. Like one of the things, I've been
- [45:44]
Tom Bilyeu
noticing that for the last 10 minutes. That's what made me ask now.
- [45:47]
Peter Schiff
I mean, it's very it look to say that I'm not in favor of democracy, right? People think, oh, everybody should vote. Why? You know, so we can have lousy presidents, you know, and we can have bad laws. I mean, look at the minimum wage law, right? That's another controversial thing. I mean, it's probably the stupidest law that's ever been invented or put on the books. The minimum wage law makes it illegal for certain people to have a lawful job. And if you don't have a lot of skills and you can't find an employer willing to pay you what the government has claimed is the legal minimum, then you can't get a job. Even if you can find all sorts of jobs where the pay is lower than the, than the minimum wage, you can't accept those jobs even if those jobs would ultimately improve your life, allow you to acquire skills that you don't now have, so that one day you can earn a lot more than a minimum wage. If at the beginning you can't qualify for the minimum wage, you're legally unemployable. I mean, that's a horrible thing to do to young people to prevent them from getting skills at the same time will allow them to borrow a bunch of money to go to college and study liberal arts and graduate with hundreds of thousands of debts and no marketable skills. Whereas the same person, if we just let them work for low wages instead of pay money to go to college but get money, but maybe not get a lot, but after four years they may have enough marketable skills where they can outearn that college educated guy or gal with no debt.
- [47:27]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah, no, that, that's a good one. I've never quite understood people's take on that, to be sure. I mean, I understand their argument. I just think it's a bit nonsensical when you really get down to how people can get on the ladder. Okay, we got to talk about China.
- [47:40]
Peter Schiff
What?
- [47:40]
Tom Bilyeu
I have a very Thucydides trap view of China. I think that we are on a collision course. I think there's just something about the human mind where you cannot have a rising power going against a declining power and expect them not to end up in a fight. I Know, because I read endlessly about this, that China is well aware of Thucydides trap. I know America is well aware of Thucydides trap. And yet right now, as we record this, you've got Xi and Trump going back and forth with who can hit the other with a restriction or a tariff. And we're headed down, maybe not all the way to kinetic war. Fingers crossed, I hope, but we certainly are. China has said, and I quote, whatever kind of war America wants to have, be it trade or otherwise, we are prepared to fight all the way or to the end. I think they said, where's your head on China?
- [48:32]
Peter Schiff
Yeah, well, look, I think that Trump is overplaying a very weak hand, to use his own analogy. I think China is in a much better position here. You know, China is the creditor nation. China is the producing nation. We're the debtor nation and the consuming nation. We depend on China, not the other way around. There are billions of people around the world that can buy what the Chinese produce and they can pay for it. And by paying for it, I mean they can export goods to China. See, people don't realize, but exports are a means to an ends, right? The reason that you export, if you're a nation, you export to afford to pay for your imports. The whole idea behind trade is comparative advantage. So one nation that has a comparative advantage, meaning that they can produce something that more cost effectively than maybe another country can produce it. So they produce an excess amount of that and then trade it to acquire the goods that the other country produces that it produces more efficiently than they do. So you concentrate on what you do well, you make extra more than you need, and then you trade that to acquire the goods that other people make that you need, right? And then. And so everybody wins from trade, right? Everybody gets to consume more because everybody produces more because they produce what they can produce efficiently, and then they trade. And. But America, you know, we import or over a trillion dollars a year more than we export. So we're, you know, the world is not getting stuff from us, they're getting paper. But I think what China is going to be doing more is exporting products to countries that produce the stuff that they need, right? So they're not just going to buy Treasuries, they're going to get stuff. And if you look at what's happened, trade with China year over year is up dramatically. Their global trade is going way up, even though their trade with America is going way down, because they're trading more with other regions of the World. They're trading more with South America. They're trading a lot more with Africa. They're trading more within Southeast Asia, trading more with Europe. Right, because China makes stuff that everybody wants. They make great stuff. Why do you think we buy so much Chinese stuff? It's not because it's crap. It's because it's good. We need it, we want it. And there are people all around the world that, that want that stuff. And so China will just sell it to other people, or even better, they'll consume it themselves. What's preventing the Chinese from consuming more? Right now? It's the exchange rate. So if the dollar tanks and the Chinese RMB goes up, let's say you double the value of the rmb, right, relative to the dollar. Now all the goods that China produces for the Chinese, the price is cut in half. Well, gee, a lot of Chinese will now buy stuff. Oh, it's. I can afford it now. You know, the Chinese factories, they don't have to sell the goods to Americans because, well, the Americans are broke now because the dollar has been cut in half. They would have to double prices to get the same amount of money. But Americans aren't going to have twice as many dollars. Just because the dollar lost half its value doesn't mean we have twice as many. I mean, that's why with these tariffs, you know, Trump was elected promising that the foreigners were going to eat the tariffs. It was an external tax, right? We're not going to tax Americans, we're going to tax the Chinese, we're going to tax the Mexicans, we're going to tax the Canadians. That's bogus. We pay the tariffs. The tariffs are on American consumers. They're not on foreign producers. And, you know, now, you know, it's such a hassle even, you know, I put this on X the other day, but my wife had bought me a couple of pairs of shorts and I kind of. I liked them. I really liked these shorts. And I said, hey, can you get me a few more in different colors? And she bought them online, but the company is in France. And they said, oh, we're not shipping anymore to America because of the tariffs. And we just don't even. We're not even shipping to America anymore. And so they just said they don't even want to deal with it, even though the Americans would have to pay it. Just the hassle of having the tariffs, you know, on the, you know, being collected and the. They just like, screw it, you know. And, you know, and people were. Somebody said, well, you Know, Well, I'll just buy American shorts. Well, no, because the shorts I wanted are not made in America and I don't need new shorts. I got plenty of pairs of shorts. I just like these particular shorts. And now I can't have them now, of course, if I'm on vacation, if I'm in St. Bart over the winter. Yeah, I can pick up a couple of pairs there. Right. But I can't, I can't order them here because they won't, they won't ship them in. But to the extent that they are sending them, the prices are going up. My, my friend here, you know, was buying these soccer jerseys and he had to buy some more and the price skyrocketed because of the tariffs. So it's not like they're not just saying, oh, Americans are having to pay tariffs, so we're going to reduce our prices. No, they haven't reduced their prices. Americans just have to pay the price plus the tariff.
- [53:46]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah. Now, so economically, get that. I maybe have a slightly more pessimistic. I'm not sure if that's the right word view of where the Chinese economy is. I think they have their own 2008 moment happening right now. But where do you think from a standoff between Taiwan? Like, do you pay much attention to the things that Xi says and where they're trying to take the country in terms of their first regional, but then ultimately global position?
- [54:19]
Peter Schiff
I definitely look at, you know, what's going on in Taiwan. I mean, we own, you know, we own Taiwan Semiconductor. I own that stock. You know, I mean, it's like it's a key business. And I have investments in Hong Kong, and so obviously that's important there. But the way I think this whole thing is going to end up, I think that at the end of this crisis, China is going to emerge on top. I think that China is going to be the dominant economic and probably military power for the majority of the 21st century. I think that, you know, you're going to see a significant decline in the value of the dollar, and that's going to automatically mean that the Chinese economy, their GDP is going to be much higher than the United States. And of course, you know, they have four times our population. Right. You know, there's 300 million or so Americans. There's a 1.2 billion Chinese. And for most of human history, China was the dominant economy in the world. So, I mean, it makes sense that they'll be the dominant economy again. But if you look at what's happening there, the demographics and the industry and the savings, they're in much better shape. They do have problems. I'm not saying that it's perfect. In China, they got a lot of problems. And a lot of the problems are the consequence of the dollar's reserve status and a lot of mal investments that have been made based on perpetuating America and vendor financing the American consumer as their customer. I mean, I think they made a bad bet. They shouldn't have done that. But I think that structurally, fundamentally, the Chinese economy is in better shape than the US Economy overall. Yeah, we have some great companies here. And I'm not saying that there's no positives in America, but taken in totality, we've got some serious, serious problems that I think are even bigger than the problems that they have in China. And I think that's a controversial opinion. A lot of people think that, you know, no, China is a basket case and, you know, and you know, we're number one. But I think this dollar crisis and this sovereign debt crisis that come in is going to expose that fiction. And people are going to see, you know, I think, you know, we're, you know, we're Great Britain in 1900 and China's America. We're the great power that's in decline and they're the rising power that's going to take our place. Now, I mean, that doesn't mean, all right, we don't have to be the dominant economy. Not everybody can live in the dominant economy. People live in Germany and people live in, you know, in the Netherlands or Switzerland or they live in Brazil or they live in Australia and have good lives and they enjoy themselves and they have families. So it's not the end of the world if the Chinese economy is bigger than the US economy or if China is the dominant economy. I mean, it's not like, you know, the world is over, but that's what's going to happen. There's no doubt in my mind whether the US could ever reclaim that. It's hard to say, but it depends on the road that we go down. I mean, if this crisis produces an even bigger US government that is even more socialized, socialistic than the one we got now, if we end up with more government, more regulations, more government spending, more programs, more taxes, then we're never going to catch China. On the other hand, if the result is a complete dismantling of our big government and our welfare state and we completely free up the US economy so that we can recreate the capitalism that we had during the 19th century, if we can create that level of economic freedom and completely minimize the government and actually bring it back within its constitutional limitations and restore the Constitution, then, yeah, I mean, you know, we could easily climb back on top. I don't know how long it'll take, but, you know, it doesn't. You know, the end of the day, what's gonna matter is our individual standard of living and our individual lifestyles not, you know, you know, which country is richer than the other country.
- [58:47]
Tom Bilyeu
What do you think about the moves that we're making now, or I guess I should say Trump specifically is making to get ownership in American companies like Intel? Do you think that's a page out of the Chinese playbook, or are we moving in the right direction to repairing America's financial situation? How do you read that?
- [59:05]
Peter Schiff
Yeah, I mean, if it's a page out of the Chinese playbook, it's the one that we don't want, right? It's the page that we want to let them keep. You know, it's a socialist concept. I mean, the US Government should not be taking stakes in any companies. The US Government is not a hedge fund, you know, or they're not supposed to be picking winners and losers and deciding where to allocate capital. That's not what you want government to do. You want the free market to allocate capital because it does a much better job. It does it much more efficiently. Now, everybody wants to look at, oh, the government's going to invest in a company, okay, where is the money coming from? Because the government doesn't really have any money. It has to redirect money from the private sector. So if the government's going to, you know, subsidize a particular company or a particular industry, it has to suck the capital away from some other industry that otherwise would have gotten that capital in a free market. And so then you have to believe that the judgment of the government is better than the judgment of the free market. Well, where is there a precedent for that? Where have we had a central government authority that's done a good job of allocating resources and capital? There is none. There is no precedent for that. All of the proof shows that it's the capital. It's the free market. Look at East Germany versus West Germany, South Korea versus North Korea, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Taiwan, Communist China, Hong Kong. I mean, anytime you take the same people, right, Everything is exactly the same.
- [60:42]
Commercial Announcer 2
It.
- [60:42]
Peter Schiff
And all you do is you change the economic model from free market to government planning. It's the government planning that is a disaster. And it's the free market that succeeds. So everything that Trump is doing in this respect is a mistake. Right? And it is a bad precedent, because if you approve of Donald Trump deciding where to invest money, well, then you better be prepared for AOC to make her investments if she becomes president. Right. Even if you think Donald Trump is this super genius, which he's not. I mean, he's a good marketer, he's a good promoter. He had a lot of failed businesses as a private entrepreneur. Right? He had a lot of failures. And so, you know, and it's nobody, no government, nobody is smart enough to know where the capital needs to go all the time. That's why you need a free market. But if you happen to think that Donald Trump is so smart that we want him doing this, well, now, you set the president the precedent that whoever is president gets to do this, right? And so do you really want aoc? I mean, what kind of companies is she going to fund? Right? And again, when you fund one company, you deny capital to another company that might otherwise have got it or another industry. I mean, case in point is crypto. The US Government, because of Trump's policies, a lot of money is fueling the crypto industry. That money would have gone someplace else if it wasn't for the favorable policies and the direction that the Trump administration is pushing. Everybody, you know, I mean, one of the reasons is everybody believes, oh, the government is behind this strategic bitcoin reserve. Other things. You know, Trump says, I want to make America the bitcoin capital of the world. Why? I mean, if we're gonna let the free market, if that, if that's what it should happen, let it happen. But the government shouldn't decide, here's the industry that we should lead in. No, the free market decides that. What if he picks the wrong thing? What if I'm right and this whole thing is a big bubble, and Donald Trump decides to funnel all this money into this gigantic bubble, and we end up losing all this capital, right. Blow. Squandering all of our resources, you know, because Donald Trump decided this. And one of the reasons that Donald Trump may be doing this is because now his family is all in on crypto. They've started all these crypto businesses. And so I think what Donald Trump is thinking about is what's good for the Trump family. What's good for my kids. Well, they're in this business, so I'm gonna. I'm gonna steer money into my family business. Right? That's another reason why you don't want Politicians using the political power to advantage their own interests.
- [63:30]
Tom Bilyeu
What do you think politicians should be able to invest in?
- [63:33]
Peter Schiff
Well, I think they should be able to invest in whatever they want. They just can't use government policy to then manipulate markets to favor what they own. See, if the government just follows the Constitution, we don't have to worry about what they invest in because they don't have the power to, to rig the game, to tilt the playing field. It's when you give them the power, now you have to worry about where they put their money. That is the problem. You know, I mean, it's like when you give politicians a bunch of power, you're going to expect people to be bribing them, you know, because they're going to want that power used to their advantage. That's human nature. The way you deal with it is you take the power away from government, you're never going to be able to prevent corruption in government. There's always gonna be corruption in government. So what you have to do is make it so that corruption doesn't pay you, take the power away from government to deliver favors to the people who pay them. Right? And so if, if, if there's nothing that you could do for me, then why am I gonna bribe you? Right? But Trump, Trump has put himself in a power where everybody can bribe him. I mean, look, for example, with the tariffs, Trump puts these big tariffs on and then says, okay, I'll give you exemptions, right? So what are you gonna do for me? And if you do something that I like, the tariff won't apply to you, right? So he's now using tariffs as a weapon, right? And basically to bludgeon individuals or companies, threaten them with this. Unless you do something that I like and that I won't use this weapon on you, right? That's why the government shouldn't have the weapon in the first place. They shouldn't be able to extort companies or individuals into doing things, you know, because they're threatening them with this, with this weapon. When you give money to a politician, I have a business and I give money to a politician, and that politician now goes after my competitor, right? Files a lawsuit against my competitor, does something, right? I'm hiring the government to go beat up my competition, right? That shouldn't be allowed. You can't, you can't let the government have all this power, because the minute they do, you can't blame the individuals for trying to get government power used to their advantage, because if they don't, somebody else will get the power and use it against them. So everybody is vying for the government to be on their side. And the only way to stop that is to take away the ability for the government to take a side. And that's what the Constitution did effectively for a long time. But Donald Trump, like no other president I've seen, is weaponizing the power of government specifically to his own advantage and to the advantage of his friends and family. And I don't like that. You know, I mean, I don't like it at all. Now, Trump's policies, you know, are helping to make me richer than I've ever been, because his policies are driving up the price of gold and silver, and I've got a lot of money in gold and silver, and I got a lot even more money in gold and silver mining stocks. And so, yeah, he's enriching me, but I'd rather him be enriching the country with the correct economic policies that I constantly advocate for. In fact, all of the things that I am advocating would result in me making less money. But I don't invest based on what I'm advocating for. I invest based on what I think is going to happen. And so I'm confident that the government's going to do the wrong thing. I'm confident the Fed is going to do the wrong thing. And that's why I have all these gold stocks.
- [67:11]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah, I hear it, Peter. Every time I get to spend time with you, I am over the moon. I can't thank you enough. Where can people hang out with you virtually and follow what you're doing?
- [67:20]
Peter Schiff
And thanks a lot, Tom, for having me on. Always a pleasure. And I'm happy that you give me the opportunity. First of all, you know, I do my podcasts. I usually do one a week, sometimes two a week, sometimes three. I mean, if I have the time. But I, I have less time these days. But if you go to Shiftradio.com or my YouTube channel, you can get my. My podcast. Apparently, I've really been Shadow banned by YouTube for a long time. So the only people that actually ever Listen to my YouTube videos are the people who are subscribed and go there because YouTube never recommends them to anybody. So you got to know, you got to find them. But, you know, I, I put them up there, subscribe to the channel. I almost have about 600, 000 subscribers. I've been right below 600, 000 for, like, three years. That's apparently the number they won't, they won't let me cross.
- [68:14]
Tom Bilyeu
Interesting.
- [68:15]
Peter Schiff
But I got 1.2 million followers on X. So you can follow me there. I'm constantly putting my thoughts, I do all that myself. I compose all my own posts. So if you read something it's because I wrote it and so follow me there. But I think the most important thing that people can do other than telling their friends to listen to me so we can disseminate this information and get the truth out there. Because when we have this economic crisis, the government's going to blame it on capitalism. And I want as many people to know that the government caused a problem and the only solution is capitalism. Not more government, but less government. But people need to protect themselves. They need to protect themselves from the inflation and what it's going to do to the typical American. So you need to get out of bonds, you need to get into gold, you need to get into silver. You need to own real money as your savings, not fiat and go to, you know, shift gold. And yeah, I mean if you have money in crypto, you know, you can, you can take some of your crypto as you said, and buy some gold or silver as a hedge just in case your crypto collapses too. You might as well have some gold and silver. We make it easy to get out of crypto at shift Gold because we work with BitPay. We're one of the first companies to work with Bitpay where you can check out, you can go online, buy some gold or silver, put in a shopping cart and when it comes to checkout, you can go the pay with Bitcoin and you know, you can use your bitcoin in the same transaction and get, get gold and silver and you know, if you have a larger portfolio where you just don't want to have all your money in physical gold and silver, you want to have stocks, you want to get dividend income. You know, I have mutual funds. I have an asset management company that's really my bread and butter is managing investment portfolios for people. We do that at Euro Pacific Asset Management. So the website is europack.com and I would encourage people to have a consultation with one of my representatives. You can just give us a call toll free number or just sign up to have a consultation. We can talk about how we can help manage your money. You can transfer an account over for us to manage. If you're a do it yourselfer. I've got five mutual funds that you could buy no load at any of the discount brokerage firms. You can get all the information about my mutual funds. You could get a prospectus and all that. See the track records, all that information is on the website@europact.com and in fact, if you don't have a brokerage account, you can actually buy in the mutual funds directly through the europact.com website. And then I also have a newsletter, a free newsletter that comes out several times a week. You can subscribe to that. @shift sovereign.com we're putting out a lot of excellent content that I would encourage people to read. It's free. We do have some premium services that you could check out, but at least start by getting the free letter. And you know, Shift, you just have to enter your email address, some information if sovereign.com and you'll start getting them in your inbox.
- [71:18]
Tom Bilyeu
I love it, Peter. Thank you again, man, for taking the time. I really appreciate it. And everybody at home, if you have not already, be sure to subscribe. And until next time, my friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace.
- [71:28]
Commercial Announcer 1
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery, so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.