Episode #224 - Martin Armstrong and Can Trump Avoid the War That's Coming - Gold Goats 'n Guns Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Hello, one, Welcome to the gold Goats and Guns Podcast
were July thirty first, twenty twenty five. My name is
Tom Lawonga. We have a lot to talk about this
episode two twenty four, and I have a very great
pleasure of having back on the show Martin Armstrong of
Armstrong Economics and Princeton Economics. He's I had the great
pleasure of meeting Martin recently up in Calgary in person.

(00:42):
We have a lovely time up there, so Martin, it's
good to see you, and we haven't talked since Calgary.
How are you.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
Oh, I'm not too bad. Just watching the world go crazy,
you know exactly.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
I said, as we said before we started, I said
to you before we started talking, this before we hit record,
I said, you know, when we was sleeping about three
or four hours a night right now, I was sleeping
like a baby for a while, And now in the
last week or so, it's like not really. So I
know you've been you know. I know you put out
a note about a week and a half ago, about
two weeks ago, which is part of the reason why

(01:15):
you're here today. Because your your staff reached out to
me to have you on the show, and I said,
of course, but I also know that you've been out
and about talking about what you've been hearing behind the scenes,
the scuttle butt about what NATO's planning and all of that,
And I want to make sure that we set that
as the groundwork before we get into what we think
are the nitty gritty of what this is all happening.

(01:38):
But what's the what's the big you know, the inciting
incident that's over the horizon effectively or just over the horizon.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
So I think that it's it's becoming more and more
obvious that Ukraine is is going to lose. And I
mean got Zelenski before, you know, sending down syndrome kids
to the front line. Now he's out there asking seniors

(02:09):
to sign up and women. He you know, he's running
out of people. And so this presents a real problem
to Europe in the sense that the propaganda they've been
putting out is that if Ukraine falls, Putin's coming for
the rest of Europe. So what do they do. I've

(02:35):
heard for at least two to three months that NATO
was contemplating sending in two h and fifty thousand troops
under the humanitarian idea Okay, they did that Bosnia back
in ninety five, then you know Kosovo in ninety nine.

(03:00):
I mean they weren't NATO people either, you know, but
they use that, Oh, we're we're killing all these people
for humanitarian reasons. And that is the excuse that I
think they're planning to use to justify sending in troops

(03:22):
to Ukraine, largely because what do they do. I mean,
they can't allow it the fall. All their narratives, everything
is you know, NATO is telling everybody increase your defense
spending by five percent, all this stuff. What do you
do with Ukraine falls? And you know you can send

(03:46):
them all the weapons you want, Okay, it still takes
a figure to push, you know, to pull the trigger
on a gun. You know, if you don't have the
people to shoot the guns, what's you know you're losing?
I'm sorry. So, I mean I finally put it out
mainly when I don't want to mention which one, but

(04:07):
an NGO actually sent out a letter confirming what I've
been hearing for some time. Uh. And I know somebody
that got one of the letters and he said, hey,
now they're saying what you've been saying for last two
or three months off camera. So I said, okay, fine,
I'll put that out because it's really a quagmire here.

(04:31):
I mean, how do you how does Europe deal with
Ukraine falls? You know, it's a real mess. So you know,
sending in two it and fifty thousand troops and using
you know, Bosnia or Kosovo is the you know, precedent

(04:54):
to do this seems to be what they have in
their mind. I am concerned that that may have a
major factor in why it appears Trump did a one
to eighty and so in Scotland all of a sudden,

(05:16):
you know, uh, Europe, you know that bends the knee
on the on the on the whole trade deals. And
I think this is all kind of connected and Trump
basically reversing his positions. And you know, I did a

(05:37):
piece on sanctions the other day, okay, and I just
listed all the sanctions that they've they've done to countries,
all right, I mean Cuba sixty you know, in nineteen
sixty it's still there. Okay, you're talking about sixty years

(05:58):
later and they still haven't but they didn't sind them.
You know, I ran what this comes down to. It's
it's the neo come playbook. It makes them feel maybe old,
warm and fuzzy inside. Oh, we're hurting them. And they're designed.

(06:20):
They believe that if you do this, then they'll be
regime change or something people rise up overthrow the whichever leader,
if it's the iotole Putin or you know, Castro or whatever.
But it's always the same exact playbook. It doesn't really change.

(06:41):
You know, it has worked.

Speaker 1 (06:44):
No, Yeah, tenctions do not work, generally speaking, unless the goal.
And this is one of the things I've been thinking
about over the last few years is I've watched this
and I agree with you about the fact that sanctions
don't ever create the thing that they say they want
them to create. Right, We're going to use this the
weekend the regime change, and they you know, Biden with it.

(07:05):
We're going to turn the ruble into rubble and all
of this stuff with all the shotgun all stuff that
they did right after they in March or twenty twenty two,
right after Russia moved into Ukraine. There's another angle on that,
which is that their their playbook is that the goal
is actually to keep the conflict frozen so that they
can spin it up in the future if they're whenever

(07:26):
they're losing, it's like sanctions, another round of sanctions, Like
we can always keep this conflict frozen in perpetuity. It's
kind of an open wound right North Korea. South Korea
is still an open wound. Iran Israel and is more
settled than it's been for a variety of reasons that
we've talked about in other places, mostly because everybody shot,

(07:47):
their wives, got to punch in their mouth and now
they all have to read trench at least for now.
But putting sanctions on Iran didn't end the conflict. They
made sure that the conflict couldn't be ended, okay, And
the same thing with Cuba in a certain way that
can't be ended. And it's actually the Cuban sanctions at
this point are more reflection of Florida politics than they
are anything else, the Cuban vote in Florida. But sad,

(08:10):
that's a sad that's a sad reality of the situation
between Florida and Cuba. So that may be what's actually
happening here that if you I'm just thinking it through,
maybe this is what we're looking at, which is that
NATO wants to move t tow hundred and fifty thousand
troops in the Ukraine to stabilize the situation, because, as
you rightly pointed out, they are the Ukrainians are in

(08:32):
you know, bad shape across the entire line of contact,
and Putin could at any moment put large amounts of
troops on the border, pushed to the to the deeper
river and take the territory that he wants to take.
But he doesn't want to do that because he knows
that the response for made NATO would be over the top.
So maybe the real the goal here is, just as

(08:53):
I was thinking about this, as you were talking, that
we need to freeze this conflict before Ukraine falls. We
put NATO troops in that stops Putin from moving any farther.
We sanctioned the heck out of Russia and and and
preclude the possibility of any kind of US Russian approachment
in the future by leaving all of these sanctions in place.

(09:17):
That may be the best that we hope for here.
And I know you have a different view on that,
but I'm just throwing it out for you to consider
and to throw into the hopper, And that may be
what we're looking at here so they can keep that
kazis Belli so that they can then do all of
the the internal spending that they want to do internally
within the EU too, you know, start the process of

(09:38):
fiscal integration, political integration, roll everything up into into Brussels
and and the UH and the ECB, which is clearly
also on their on their agenda, right.

Speaker 2 (09:49):
Uh. The only reason I maybe slightly disagree with that
is that if if the sanctions were simply targeted against Russia.
Now we have Trump coming out with twenty five percent
against India and saying that we're going to attack anybody

(10:11):
that deals with Russia this way. So that's what makes
me think this is a still of the neo com
playbook that they think if they can cut off all
the revenue that Russia gets from anybody in India, whatever,

(10:31):
then they will fall. You know, I just disagree with it.

Speaker 1 (10:36):
I mean, I agree completely. I also think that the
concept of putting those secondary sanctions on are unimforceable. The
Chinese have made it clear that they wouldn't, you know,
I mean, they're they're completely uninforceable. What are they going
to do? What are we going to do? Resort to
piracy on the high season, stop Russian tankers from from
going from Cosmo and on the Kamptact and Peninsula down

(10:57):
to China and back again. Are we going to Are
we actually going to get to that point? Because that's
what's happening right the Russian You know.

Speaker 2 (11:06):
You know, the whole thing started with Blincoln back in
twenty fourteen. Obama went to Swift and wanted to have
Russia removed, yes, and they refused, So they replaced the
head of Swift in twenty nineteen. And this guy does
whatever he's sold, and it was Blincoln. I just say,

(11:33):
I mean, you know, I know a bunch of these people.
I've been to dinner with neo cons. They just don't
think clearly, in my opinion, they just think with a
very myopic view. They don't understand anything beyond their own
personal goals. So he had Blincoln removed Russia from Swift. Yes,

(12:00):
So then that was a red flag to everybody else.
And then he actually had the audacity to go to
China and say, if you help, Russia will do the
same to you. Well, that creates bricks. Andy looks at it. Okay, Yeah,

(12:20):
we're not going to agree to that kind of stuff either.
You're not going to dictate to the world. And that's
what these new cons think that they can do. And
you know, I am concerned that Lindsey Graham was suddenly
endorsed by Trump. Why. I mean, it was Lindsey Graham

(12:42):
and John McCain. I mean, I've got the videos. They
were the ones there to start this war. You know,
I have one video I put on our site with
him with Zilinsky saying, this is the best money we
ever spent to kill Russians right now? Hell right. I mean,
if you said that about blacks or Muslims, I mean,

(13:05):
it's hate crime. It's okay if you say it against Russia.
So I guess, I mean so, I just.

Speaker 1 (13:15):
It was a that was a very low point in
Lindsay Graham's life. I mean I listened to that and
I went as an American, I'm ashamed the fact that
this man actually has, you know, power and the ability
to do anything. But unfortunately he's still a you know,
this is the Lindsay Graham angle here is a very
difficult one to unpack, right, because this he has to

(13:37):
have certain I hesitate to use the word leverage over Trump, right,
but he has something and Uh, this is one of
those moments where you know, Okay, this is one of
those things where it does It's a piece of data
that doesn't make any sense other than Lindsay gave Trump

(13:59):
what he wanted in other areas, and so Lindsay demanded
this in another area. And I also know.

Speaker 2 (14:11):
I had contact with with Rubio all right then when
he was picked for Secretary of the State, I mean,
I know he's a new Kon if you look before
he wanted to go after Russia and blah blah, blah blah.
And I spoke to someone in DC and I said,

(14:33):
what a healthy pick Rubio if he's against newo Kons.
And what I was told was that was a peace
offering to the neocons. So you know there is a
thread there somewhere, not exactly entirely sure where it all goes.

(15:02):
I just know their playbook and how this functions and
when they went. When he says he's going after countries
who buy from Russia, now you're really crossing a major
red line, and that to me is much more dangerous

(15:28):
because once you do, I mean, as I published about
all the sanctions, they're still there on Cuba is nineteen
sixty they never have lifted them. Okay, just go down
the lines Korea, all this stuff. Once they impose this,

(15:50):
you don't get rid of them. So if you're going
to do this to India, quite frankly, if I was
in I go, okay, find a two hundred and fifty
billion of US treasuries I have for sale. Yes, I
would be dumping the shit out of him, pushing US

(16:11):
interest straights up. I mean, I don't know. I mean
I grew up playing chess.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
Right, No, I agree with you. If it's the same
thing that the that the Russians did in preparation they
understood the war. When the Russians dumped all their treasury bonds,
Remember in like twenty twenty one, that should have been
everybody's tell that we were not avoiding war in Ukraine.
I missed. I mean I saw it. I said, this
is the right thing for them to do. But I'm like,

(16:41):
there's still a way for them for us to avoid
this war. And I was wrong. Right, Russian moves across
the border on February twenty second, in a you know,
in a chok and aw move that they'll let everybody
know that this is we're going first, and you know
they knew that.

Speaker 2 (16:59):
Zelensky even did an interview with the Washington Post and
they said, you had information that Russia was going to
go in? Why didn't you warn your people? And his
response to the Washington Post was if I told them,
I would have lost seven billion dollars in capital flows.

(17:21):
Basically the day before, you had Camilla at the Munich
peace conference and look, she's just a complete idiot anyhow,
and she just reads whatever's on the Q cards like
by Biden, which is why they wanted her. And she said, oh,
Ukraine should join NATO, knowing that is the major issue

(17:44):
weapons too, what I mean, you know they knew he
was on the border. How does Ukraine attack military bases
in Russia? All this without us and tell and spies
that ways, they can't, okay, s even that's come out

(18:06):
that there was an operation in Frankfort that was giving
them all the targeting information. So this is basically the neocons,
as you know. I mean, I mean even Bill Crystal,
whose father started the neocon movement, even spoke in one

(18:27):
of our conferences. I mean, I used to argue with
him back in the nineties, even wrote the book which
you can buy on Amazon justifying going to Iraq. Yep,
all right, just for you know, as you know, I
used to be part of the vetting process. They would
send me out to meet with these people who went

(18:48):
to run for president, and it was really I got
back and they said, what do you think do you
think he's smart enough to handle it? Blah blah blah whatever.
Explain how we're all interconnected and it's not just one
country or this. What happens, you know, in one place
causes ripple effects elsewhere. Like we were all bankrupt in

(19:10):
eighteen ninety six, and if it wasn't for World War
one and two, the money wouldn't have come here in
the US, wouldn't have been the financial capital. So and
that was not a domestic political thing that we did
to create that. It happened externally.

Speaker 1 (19:26):
Right.

Speaker 2 (19:26):
So then I was asked, they want me to go
meet with Bush Junior, and they said, oh, but this
one's different. I said, what do you mean it's different?
And they said, oh, you know, he's really stupid. Up
to that point in time, all these people I had
to meet governor of Oklahoma, you know, Ross Poll, all

(19:50):
this stuff that they would send me out to it
was all are they intelligent enough? And can they comprehend
how the world works? And then to be told that
he was just stupid. They picked the cabinet for Bush, right,

(20:11):
all right, they picked Cheney, they put it, you know,
they picked Bill Crystal, all of them, all right. I
was asked to be chief Economic Advisor. I said, no, thanks,
I said, I own my own company. Most people don't
realize why all these heads of golden sacks go to
the government, Because if you take the job, you must

(20:33):
sell your stock. That's a conflict of interest, right cause
you must do so for the government. It's tax free,
nice little loophole, all right, all these guys heads of
golden sacks, and they immediately go to government. Oh my care,
yeah right, you care? All right? You sold for tax

(20:55):
free and then you suddenly get a headache, you know.
So I argued with Crystal back then, right, And that's
when I heard is if we removed Saddam assad out
of Syria and Kaddafi will bring peace to the Middle East.

(21:17):
I said, have you ever been there? It's tribal week
through the damn borders. When we carved up the Ottoman Empire.
They don't see themselves as Iraqi, Syrian whatever. They see
themselves as Sunni she I curd. You know, the dictators
kept everybody from killing each other once you remove Saddam.

(21:38):
I mean, you can even look on YouTube. We got
Tony Blair's apology. We didn't We thought we were saving
the people. We didn't realize that we were subjecting to
more sectarian violence. This is the problem with these people.
They just set out the goal and that's what I
mean that they're very myopic. But we have to take

(22:00):
sit down out what comes after. We'll worry about that.

Speaker 1 (22:05):
Later, you know. You know, now I I agreed completely,
and just to remind everybody, like I've been saying, you know,
you trace Urban Crystal and his son Bill, who is
one of the most odious people on the planet, and
you realize that they're all just downstream of Trotsky like

(22:27):
they are. They're they're literally the inheritors of Trotsky and
they do not care what party they need to take
over in order, no matter where they are, It doesn't
matter if they're in Germany or in France, or in
the UK or the United States. This is a this
is a mindset and trotsky Ies are notorious for the

(22:49):
concept of permanent revolution, and they believe in revolution. The
revolution is a violent, disgusting mechanism by which to to
affect social change. And and this is inherently the problem.
They're always looking for revolution because they actually want the chaos,
because they're really just colonialists at heart. Like this is

(23:11):
where this is where I will always push back on
the idea that they don't have a long term plan.
They have a long term plan which is to steal
everything from everybody else and to install their whatever they
think is their utopia, and they don't care a whole
bunch of people die. The more people die in the
place that they want to take over, the easier it
is for them to take over after all the violence
is over. Like that's the way they think, and they

(23:33):
don't like it's very obvious to me that to these
people that you know, what's a million dead Ukrainians and
Russians fighting over swampland and you know in in the
dundas a good start, that's the way. That's who they are.
And we have to realize that.

Speaker 2 (23:52):
I think they got their backs up when khrush Chef
said we will bury you, and that's when it all started. Well,
we're going to spread democracy to the world, and so
that is their pathetic, you know, claim for their colonialistic

(24:12):
you know, but we don't even live in a democracy anyhow,
right now.

Speaker 1 (24:17):
They've done everything imaginable to keep us from actually being democratic.
And the European Union is anti democratic.

Speaker 2 (24:23):
Oh yeah, I mean you had Kyles, you know, lecturing
China and democracy. You've never you know, the head of
the None of nobody in the EU stands for election,
you know, and and you know, use Wikipedia. Look at Ursula,
She's never been elected to anything. She's a bureaucrat all right,

(24:45):
That's it. So, uh, they use that as the excuse
to justify all this this nonsense. I mean, I mean,
Ursula had Dancy called put dictator, He's at least been elected.

(25:05):
You have never stood for an election.

Speaker 1 (25:08):
And then and and the people that and the people
and the people who well, I mean she was elected
by the vote of the European Parliament, which has no
legislative power. Was the remind everybody people understand that I
was saying, actually explained this to my daughter literally last night.
I'm like, you do realize that in the year the
EU Parliament doesn't have any lawmaking ability at all? The

(25:30):
only real power they have is to kick anybody out
who who doesn't go along with the with with the flow,
like if that's the only real power they have is
to invote article for Article seven. Uh, the EU charters say, well,
you're you victor orban are evil for not going along
with our humanitarian ideas. So we're going to either kick

(25:50):
you out or take away your voting rights. That's like
literally the only thing they can do. And then the
and then the blocks within the European Parliament choose the
leader ship of the European Commission and the European Council,
and and then the European Council was made up of
of the heads of state of each of the member nations.
System remind everybody what the structure of the EU is.

(26:10):
But it's designed from the ground up to be anti
democratic And yeah, I mean whatsoever. Yeah, they don't want
anybody at all.

Speaker 2 (26:22):
M hm. They know what's right, and their idea of
democracy is that we're too stupid to know what's best.
So that's pretty much it. But so I just I
just thought, go, oh, writing this idea of democracy, but

(26:45):
communism failed.

Speaker 1 (26:47):
They did the change, but they're still communists. Like like
the European Union is literally made up of their just us.
It's I call it the EUSSR for a reason. And
you know, it's actually a better version of the uss
R because they've got better technology now to do this,
all the surveillance and the money.

Speaker 2 (27:07):
Free speech, all the rest of the stuff. I mean,
it's it's just it is getting crazy. But I mean,
there is no what I mean by being myopic. They
have that idea of controlling the entire world, yes, but

(27:28):
they take down Iraq even if even if they were correct.
When Kaylos just recently had the meeting with China, h
telling them that you know, they wanted she wanted them
to uh back off of Russia, tells them not to,

(27:53):
you know, to end the war, blah blah blah. And
basically it ended up from somebody was there that I knew,
and they said he got really angry at her. Uh
he never got so angry, they said, they never saw
him so angry because basically he said, you know, you

(28:19):
take down Russia, we're next. He knows that, you know,
and like she doesn't have any answer for that, because
it's true. Look, that was the coup against Gorbachev in

(28:40):
the book. I wrote the plot to sees Russia. I
got a hold of all the declassified documents from the
Clinton administration, and what it was was that we invited
Russia to join NATO. I've got the documents and all
this stuff, all right. And so the hardliner staged the

(29:04):
coup against Gorbatrov when he was there in Primea, you know,
on vacation, because they were concerned that he would agree
to join NATO. And to them, that was waving the
right flag that Russia lost. That's when Yeltson stands on
the tank, don't shoot in the coup fails, et cetera.

(29:26):
All right, and too for the complicated issues, how the
Epstein thing is tied into this. Epstein hooked up with

(29:51):
Giselle Maxwell in ninety one at the time of this coup. Okay,
Max Well, I know for a fact, was basically saying
that in order if they wanted to be recognized as

(30:15):
the new leadership of Russia, to release all the Jews
to go to Israel. Correct, that was what he was negotiating.
The coup fails. Supposedly the same thing happened afterwards. But

(30:36):
this is the club that they tried to get me
to join He lost two hundred million pounds that he
was trading with from the employee pension front. Because they
always get into these things, these you know, they think
they're going to make a guaranteed trade. I wanted it

(30:56):
back then, as I did in ninety eight. Said look,
my computer says, I'm sorry, it's not going to work.
And he lost two hundred million pounds. But because it
was the pension fund money, he was under subpoena. Okay,

(31:18):
he was about to testify when he falls off his yacht.

Speaker 1 (31:23):
Oh, Robert Maxwell, yeah, yes.

Speaker 2 (31:26):
Now, Bill Browner was the right hand man with Maxwell. Yes, okay.
He then goes and joined Saffra evanfra of Republic Bank.

Speaker 1 (31:43):
All right.

Speaker 2 (31:45):
Epstein even goes to Maxwell's funeral. That's all documented, all
right now. I know that it was rumored, but pretty
good sources say that Maxwell was working for the Masada, right,
all right, and Epstein was in there. You know. All

(32:11):
this nonsense about pedophiles and whatever, that's the smoke screen.
People think, oh, they won't release these documents because they're pedophile.
First of all, a real pedophile, I think would be
a six or eight year old kid, not a seventeen
year old girl that you and I couldn't possibly tell

(32:31):
if she's seventeen or twenty, you know.

Speaker 1 (32:34):
Yes, what was that like?

Speaker 2 (32:37):
And but more interesting is that US has the highest
legal age of eighteen. Britain is sixteen. Yep So Epstein's island,
if you move it fifty miles to the west, you're
in British Virgin Islands. Legal age is sixteen. Right, so

(33:01):
the Prince you could have had sex with a seventeen
year old in London, not an issue? All right? So
this is all a blackmail scam, scams and they can't
they don't want to release because I don't think even
Trump understood what the hell they stepped into. Right, These

(33:23):
guys that are on there are probably really victims, yes,
and blackmailed. But the question is, okay, what did you
do for Epstein? Right? Yeah, this wasn't party time, you know,
this was you know, and it was Epstein having you know,

(33:44):
sex for young girls. All right, fine, if that's your thing, Uh,
you do that maybe with some friends from the pub, right,
not heads of state?

Speaker 1 (33:55):
What this is? I know you're I'm glad you brought
all this up because this is something that dextter why
And I have been, have have talked about in terms
of what we think was going on with Epstein the
entire time, and the age of consent thing is a
very important thing. You get a set, you get a guy.
So there's two things I want to I want to
bring up about this and to try and clarify why

(34:16):
Epstein is so important. So the first thing is that
in many states in the United States, you can be
tried by the if you have sex below the age
of consent in there your home jurisdiction in the United States,
regardless of where you did it, where you did it, Thailand,
the British Virgin Islands or whatever, you can still be
prosecuted for, you know, for having sex with a minor.

(34:39):
Like so you're you're and if you don't know that
and you're some you know, schmuck from you know, from
North Carolina doing you know who you know who's in
you know, some congressman from North Carolina got sent over
there as a Now this is the interesting phrase what
Dexter calls the pro quote quid, which is that they

(35:00):
got them to do X Y and Z introduced this
writer into a bill or donate five billion million dollars
of the Clinton Global Initiative or something like that. And
then the payoff for them is, hey, Bill, you get
to go bank seventeen year olds in the British Virgin Islands, right,
And that's your and that's your that's that's part of

(35:21):
your payout. You get not only did you you know,
put did you get glass Tegel repealed, We'll put five
million dollars or ten million dollars in the Clinton Global
Initiative and you get the bank seventeen year olds. Oh
but by the way, in Arkansas, the age of consent
is eighteen. You are, now, you know, a pederast. And
this is the problem and now and now everybody is stuck.

(35:43):
And I think that that's, you know, part of the problem.
This is exactly what you're talking about. How many of
these guys were either set up or you know, or
walked into this never thinking that they would never that
any of this would ever come out, because well, hey,
the network is in place to protect everybody. And but

(36:03):
now that they have them, at that point, they own them.
And the real Epstein's real value is that he was
basically laundering money for everybody. And that was his real
value of having set up all the accounts and the
and the money laundering scheme, and that was his real value.
And that's the real scandal to and to build up

(36:25):
this whole NGO network and dark money network to do
the things that we're all that we're all now complaining
about that we're watching the architecture defend itself against today,
and that built the world that we're we all hate,
and that's and that's where we and that's and that's
the real scandal of that. Epstein And yeah, and the

(36:46):
sex part of it is the what Burling Game, my
friend I Burling Game would call the cover for status. Right,
you you have that as the means by which to
burn Epstein and use him as the thing that focus
everybody on and to ignore all the real, the real
perfety that went on behind the scenes.

Speaker 2 (37:07):
Well, I can tell you that I was told a
long time ago that from members of Congress that Jay
agar Hoover had a file on everybody, right, And he
would walk in and say, gee, look at we found
If we found it, your opponent could find it. We'll

(37:28):
make sure this doesn't see the light of day. Oh okay, fine,
thank you, And then he owns them. This is what
I was told, you know, from somebody was on Capitol
Hill for twenty some years and Mike I was warned

(37:50):
personally back in the nineties, be careful. They would use
women to try to get into you. Right, So I
was told not by that, by other people, this is
the way Wall Street works. I said, okay, fine, thank you.
So any girl would come up like that, I go,
I'd hold up the silver Cross and yeah, what do

(38:12):
you want? You know, But it's I was actually coming
back from London one time. My assistant went to the bathroom.
I'm standing at the curb waiting for the limo to
pick us up there at JFK to take us back,
and there's a tall, good looking black girl next to me.

(38:35):
It's the Lettle Hills short black leather skirt, which I
assumed was the typical, you know, uniform for hookers in
New York City, right, you know, I thought, she's you know,
they're looking for guys coming in off the London flight
to hey, you need some you know, relaxed time or whatever.

(38:55):
And so I'm just being polayed. You know, Oh you
travel to London at yeah, I go back and forth
a lot, you know, that's it, you know, And I'm
waiting for the women. When it's just to come out.
The car comes, We get in and she says to me, boy,
I can't leave you alone for five minutes. You're talking
to a supermodel, I said, we're talking about I thought
that was a hooker. It was Naomi Campbell. I find

(39:18):
out Naomi Campbell supposedly worked for was dealing with Epstein. Look,
you just don't know where all this stuff goes. He
just you know, But anybody that thinks that Epstein was
just into young women, come on. You know, maybe you
do that with some friends from the public, all right,

(39:40):
but you don't do that with heads of state, et cetera.
And I think one of the girls that Epstein had
had said that, you know, he had commented that Clinton
owed him a favor, so never said what was for,
but I think that was in one of her testimonies.

(40:03):
But that's what I mean that that you don't know
what this stuff is really about. But it's got nothing
to do with just pedophiles, come on and young girls.
This goes a lot deeper. And the reason I bring
up Maxwell is he was deeply involved in Maxwell's finances.

Speaker 1 (40:25):
Yeah, I stains, yes, all.

Speaker 2 (40:27):
Right, So and I know that. You know, Maxwell was
part of working with Massad, so I suspect, I mean,
who is is Epstein doing this for? That's the real question, right,

(40:47):
was it ci Ha, was it Masad or whatever? And
I think that's part of the reason why they don't
want to bring any of this stuff out, because Trump
stepped into a real pile of shit and it's like,
uh m interesting. I mean, the deep state is much
deeper than people suspect. Yeah, yes, and it's it's hard

(41:11):
to you know, look, I wished them all the luck,
but there was just I just know Washington. It's just
you're not going to get the deep state is Washington.
It's the whole name city, you know, it's uh. I

(41:32):
mean back in the eighties when I was asked they're
forming G five and I warned them, I said, you
can't you manipulate the dollar down forty percent. You're going
to cause a crash in two years, which turned out
to be the eighty seven crash. So then I wrote
a letter to Reagan. I was told, oh, you went
out of committee. You'll never be called again. I said,
I don't get a shit all right. When the eighty

(41:55):
seven crash happened because I did that then they had
to call in. It's just, you know, I just know
the way this works. I was told to be a
good boy. You can make five million a year because
they need fake, you know, economic studies for every bill
that passes, you know, but they tell you what it's

(42:18):
supposed to say. And here we need to study on
this that Obama's healthcare is going to save a trillion dollars. Okay, fine,
over what oh the next hundred years.

Speaker 1 (42:28):
That's okay, okay, yeah, exactly right. So okay, so it
is I understand that completely. And and and yes I
do wish them moolock and I think that we have
better people at the top of the at the top
of the architecture that we've had in the past. And
I think they understand that. This is the interesting thing

(42:49):
about Telsea Abbertt is DNI, is that she's actually using
that office. This is one of the things that I
think that Sundance over at the Conservativesoryhouse does very very well.
I will always I always give some Dance problems when
he's talking about the intelligence the intelligence community, because I
think that's where his expertise is. And one of the
things that that Gabbett is beginning to do, and this

(43:11):
ties into everything we're talking about, is that she's using
the DNI as a means by which to fortify the
president as opposed to bind him down and not give
him the information that he needs. And and there's a
lot of good data that says that's exactly what she's doing,
not the least of which is that she's beginning to
fire all the people in the very important second and

(43:35):
third layers of the bureaucracy that have been the gatekeepers
and the information stylo wars between one one group and another,
between the money people and the and the policy people
and all that stuff. Read a couple of really good
articles about that in the in the recent days of
who she's fired and why it's important. And it's the
slow but sure process of getting rid of those people

(43:59):
to allow the people within these organizations because none of
these organizations are monolists. There are plenty of good people
doing work at the CIA or the DD or whatever.
They're just so far down the stack and they can't rise.
I've talked to Larry Johnson about this directly, and he's like, yeah,
this is the way it works. The good people aren't
able to get the information up the chain because the

(44:20):
chain has been corrupted, not just from you know, the
public figures, the DNI, the CIA director or whatever, but
there's also the section chiefs and then their assistance, and
there's two and this is all three or four layers deep.
And so you have to go and get rid of
those people and just fire them and or give them
enough rope that you have the you know you have

(44:42):
the cause to fire them. So you ask for X,
Y and z. They don't give it to you. They
slow walk it. They think you're going to extend to pretend,
blah blah blah blah. And you're like, you know what, no, sorry,
I asked for this thirty days ago. You think you
give it to me? You now are gone. And by
the way, when you're fired, you no longer have immunity.
The government doesn't have to like you're a private citizen.
Now now we can go after you for all the

(45:03):
things that we know you did. That's a very slow process.
And as my friend Alexander mccurris reminds us all the time,
that political time is runs a lot faster than legal time,
but legal time is much slower and much more deliberate,
and it takes a long time for you know, cases

(45:23):
to be built and for investigations to happen and all
of that stuff. But unfortunately, we're in a political pressure cooker,
and our opponents and this is where we get into
people like Prouder and you know, and the heads of
state and everybody else, and and these these these governments,
they will use the media and the political time in

(45:45):
order to force to force people attempting to reform it
into unwinnable situations. And that's kind of what's happened with Epstein.
That's the way I read it.

Speaker 2 (45:57):
So you know, that is what happened between me and Buffett.
You know, when I had I just put on our
private blog, I said, look, they're back. They're going to
manipulate Silver, take it up and then crash it in

(46:20):
ninety eight, right all right, And they made the mistake.
Look I knew what was happening. They even walked their
their broker on the floor, walked across the ring, showed
all Buffets orders to my guy and said join us.

(46:41):
They were always trying to get me to join them,
and I did never really trust them, but so I
put out that info to my clients, be careful. This
is just another manipulation they're going to do from September
to January. And so they got pissed. They got their

(47:03):
shill in the Wall Street Journal and he calls me, oh,
you say Silver's being manipulated. Blah blah blah. I think
it's you, blah blah. And he even said to me,
he says, okay, fine, if it's being manipulated, give me
a name. I said, fine, I'll give you the name.
Let me see you actually publish it. I said, Warren Buffett.

(47:26):
And he said to me, oh, that's absurd. Warren Buffett
doesn't trade commodities. I said, well, I said that is.
You know what you don't know. Their problem was once
he put in the Wall Street Journal, Armstrong says Silver's

(47:48):
being manipulated. We questioned him, blah blah blah. All right,
because it appeared there to see IFTC now must call
me because maybe some Congressman's going to see that and say, hey,
are you investigating this? So they call me. They can

(48:08):
see everybody's positions say no, I wasn't the one, and
I didn't give a name or anything. I just said, look,
it's taking place in London. It's out of the side of
your jurisdiction and there's nothing you can do about it.
And when you say that to a bureaucrat, that pisces
them off. Really well, we can pick up the phone

(48:31):
and you know, and call back. I said, look, I
guess that's what you're going to have to do, and
I slammed down the phone. A few hours later, I
get calls from London silver brokers Marty, we've all been
called into the bank in New York in the morning, said,
oh shit, I guess they made the call. Then Buffett
comes out that night, all right, it's me. I bought

(48:53):
a billion dollars with a silver but I didn't intend.
It's not a manipulation. It's a long term investment, which
he then so that three months later. But you know,
that's that's exactly what you're saying. All right. Once they
put it in the New Wall Street Journal, that compelled

(49:14):
them to call me. Right, If that never took place,
nobody would have ever known. I would have said, buck,
silver's going up to seven bucks. They're gonna crash it.
Be careful. That's it. And the story, you know, it
would never have been this big thing. But they tried
their best. They thought they could break me or something.

(49:35):
I said, I'm institutional, I'm not retail. I don't care
what the hell you bring. You know. It was just,
you know, interesting from that perspective. But you take Congress,
how the deep state works there. I could run for Congress.

(50:01):
I'll say whatever you want to hear. I'll save the whales.
I won't make it rain on Sundays, you know whatever.
I get there and they go glad you're here, very nice.
And the first day they have this meeting and have
all the newbies come in. This is the way it works, okay,

(50:22):
and they tell you what the vote and whatever issues
you ran on. Very nice. Forget the whales. Not interested?
All right? Yeah, if you look, the vote are down party.

Speaker 1 (50:37):
Line, of course.

Speaker 2 (50:39):
Okay, you're instructed to do it now if you don't
want to do that, you really think you have this
power because you've been elected. Good luck. You cannot make
they use the rules to screw you. You can't make
emotion on the floor. All motions must come through committee. Now.

(51:00):
If you're not a good boy, you don't get on
the committee. Right. You know it's so rigged that they
finally I was told they finally changed the rules because
when Bonner was there as the head of the Republicans,
and there were I think eighty some Tea Party people

(51:24):
that were elected, and they refused to follow him. So
the question was Kenny really, you know, delivered the Republican
vote and all that shit he blocked and he began retaliating. Uh.
And I knew some of the some of the people,

(51:47):
if they supported the Tea Party group, they were removed
from any financial committee. And so you either did what
he said or else. And I spoke to somebody in Congress,

(52:07):
and after you know, he's been out whatever, they changed
the rules so he could nobody could ever do that again.
All right, but it was it was getting to the
point of the Speaker of the House being a dictator.
You do as I say. You can't make emotion. All

(52:29):
emotions come from committee. You don't do what I say.
You're not getting on a committee, you know. I mean
it's you want to worry about finance, We're going to
put you on the dog catchers committee. You know. It's
I've dealt with Washington for a long time. I mean

(52:49):
it they passed the law you can't buy a politician
dinner to wipe out commission, you know, corruption and all
this nonsense. I was invited to an IMF. There they
running the entire National Gallery in Washington. Everybody's there, all right,

(53:11):
there's lobster tails, lave me on, you name it, it's there,
all right. We had to stand as long as you stand,
it's an ordures that's okay. If we sit down, it's
ill legal because it's dinner, right. I mean, can you imagine.

(53:31):
I was with Paul Volger at the time. He's almost
like seven feet rob battle on seven feet. I'm always
like looking up at him. I'm holding his plate so
he could cut his steak, and then he holds mine.
I mean, I said, this is absolutely nothing right now.
But it's all dog and pony show. You know. I

(53:56):
had to work. They want me to work late back then,
revising the social security system and all that shit. And
I think it probably cost the government at least to
fifty grand to figure out because we're going to be
working late, we're going to have dinner, and they had

(54:16):
to figure out what could we do because I'm not
a congressman, all right, so I can't buy it. So
the Ethics Committee finally I don't know how many times
back and forth how to rule with this. I had
to order pizza from one place. They ordered pizza from
somebody someplace else, and I wasn't allowed to share. And

(54:41):
I'm like, as if they're going to do something because
I gave him a piece of pizza, Right, I mean,
I mean it just gets to be completely bizarre.

Speaker 1 (54:52):
Yeah, yeah, And it's uh and and this is what
we're this is what you're you're trying to unwind and
out of this scenario, right, and now we're trying to
like take that as our framework and then apply it
to how policy gets made at the big level. Right,

(55:13):
And it's and you and then you ask yourself. And
with that perspective, it makes perfect sense that cynicism is
the right. This is your default position, which is that
nothing will ever change, right, Okay, So let's let's all that.
All that stuff is great and it's fantastic, and I'm

(55:33):
really glad you, like you know, through some of those
those examples out there for this. So let's let's move
back to the big issues of the day on this,
because I think it's it's imperative to try and figure
out how Trump is going to get through that in

(55:53):
order to be able to achieve anything that he actually
wants to achieve. And then when you actually look at
what's being done at the speed that has been done,
it's almost everything you just said, it's almost unthinkable that
anything has gotten done at all at this point. And
so then what kind of leverage and arm twisting was
he able to do to get these people who clearly

(56:16):
and I'm talking mostly about the Republicans at this point,
to actually fall in line with his agenda which they're
all against. And that's blatantly obvious that he doesn't have
a whole lot of friends up there. What he has
are people that he can arm twist to do what
he wants and to get bills passed. Like if you

(56:38):
look at the Budget Reconciliation Bill, and you look at
the stable coin bills, and you look at all the
things that he's put in place at this point, those
are massive fundamental changes as to the way we're going
to fund the government and we're going to go forward.
And it says to me that there's still value in

(57:00):
some amount of this leverage and who actually controls the leverage.
And this is I think where Epstein we can actually
circle back to Epstein, like, who's actually in control of
what information we have about Epstein at this point in
order to get anything done, Because you know, I'll give
you an example of what I think is a perfect
example of this. You got Thomas Massey the day of
the day of the House Final House Built to resolve

(57:24):
the budget Reconciliation bill, and he's out there going, I've
got ten people that on my side that will vote
against this, and we're going to scuttle this and we're
gonna and this is all wrong, and blah blah blah blah.
And then two hours later or three hours later, the
vote comes in two sixteen to two fourteen in favor,
meaning Massy didn't actually have anybody on his side. He
was bloviating, and he was he was grandstanding, as Trump

(57:47):
has accused him of multiple times. That tells me something.
It tells me that Trump has leverage on the people
that will tell one person one thing. And but we're
going to get this done. And I have to say
it's it's one of those moments. It's one of those
moments that is uh is kind of indicative of the

(58:11):
fact that Washington is beginning to change at a certain level.
But it's a very very difficult process and deep process
to change. So you can't expect miracles here on any
on any front. We have to expect, you know, incremental wins.

Speaker 2 (58:28):
Well. Also, being a monetary historian with the staple coin thing,
when I saw that oh ship, they know wars coming,
why because you had China's been dumping dead by crazy

(58:57):
and uh now even the UK thing owns holds more
US debt than China. And here's the problem, the new
cons and threatening everybody at the same time, they ended

(59:18):
up creating bricks. And this is what I mean by
their very myopic all Right, they're only looking at their
their geopolitical power. Right, all right, China owned ten percent
of the national debt. Now you're threatening them. I'm sorry,

(59:39):
if I'm China, I'm selling why because you're threatening war
with me over Taiwan? Why would I own any US
debt because you will never pay it?

Speaker 1 (59:50):
Right, I've questioned for you before we beforeward you use
the phrase ten percent of our debt? Is that both
public and private? Because China's official central bank holdings are
about seven hundred fifty billion dollars, So you're saying that
was total private private and public. I just want to
make sure that we're clear on it.

Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
Yea. Even in Japan, the private holdings are for they
use the US that mainly as a hedge against their
own government. Sure, so there's private that they're holding. But
here's the issue. In eighteen sixty three to fund the

(01:00:32):
Civil war, what he did was what Lincoln did. They
created a bank Act. They allowed the banks to issue
their own currency, and you can buy them, you know

(01:00:52):
national you know, there's collector's items today, but they were
backed by you debt. Yes, so if they bought all
the West debt, they could issue currency against it. So
therefore the bank wasn't really taking money per se out

(01:01:12):
of the system. It was still being liquid, all right.
The staple coins is exactly what they did to fund
the Civil war. You issue a staple coin and against
some collateral, right, all right, government debt. So they're basically
telling the banks, you buy the government debt because they

(01:01:35):
can't sell the China now or other countries. All right.
So when a country defaults, the default comes when you
can't sell the new debt to pay off the old, right,
that's the problem.

Speaker 1 (01:01:51):
That's where the European Union is, right.

Speaker 2 (01:01:54):
So you can't come out these new coons threatening everybody
with war and then oh, gee, would you like to
buy some of my bonds so I can buy some
missiles to shoot your ass?

Speaker 1 (01:02:06):
Right, not gonna happen, I.

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
Mean, that's what I mean. They don't think things through. Sure,
they're only looking at their particular objective. We must defeat Russia. Okay,
but you now are using deficits spending to fund your wars, right.

(01:02:28):
I mean, if you look at the bulk of the
US national debt, probably more, well more than fifty percent
is all accumulated debt from wars. We're still paying interest
from World War One, you know, I mean, come on, so, uh,
the staple coins is exactly the same way they funded

(01:02:51):
the Civil War right now.

Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
I am going to push back on that a little bit,
and those are there's two reasons for this. The first
one is that then we did not have a central
bank issuing the currency. H So the green back was
used to fund the Civil war in order to as
you rightly point out, And the structure is exactly the
same now, which is to say that the banks will

(01:03:16):
be able to issue their own stable coins. But I
see that as an end run around the Federal Reserve
being the primary issuer of of of debt, of of
of currency, as opposed to the Treasury being the the
the final arbiter of how the debt is uh is

(01:03:37):
issued and and and circulates. I what I see forming
and and it's a little bit more. I think it's
I think the history of Lesson is very important here,
but I think that the situation is slightly different. It's
pretty clear that Trump wants to to change the way
we do business, and he wants to go back to
a obviously a terrorf regime where the where we let's

(01:04:00):
trade through terror, of through the cara of imposition, and
create an effect a domestic version of the dollar versus
an offshore version of the dollar, which are going to
trade at two different prices. And the way you do
that is you get the Treasury to fund the banking system,
or to allow the banking system to be able to
go to the Treasury directly for collateral in order to

(01:04:23):
get in order to re empower the banks, and so
they're not necessarily beholden to the Federal Reserve, and the
Federal Reserve exists mostly I think, honestly, Martin, I think
they want to go for the long term plan. I
think this is why he's going to get a major pushback,
is he actually wants to go back to a pre
nineteen thirty five FED, the original This is I'm taking.
I'm ripping off of ideas that you've put into the

(01:04:43):
zeitgeist that I've listened to you talk about for years
and years. They're going back ten, ten, twelve years. You've
talked about how there's nothing wrong with the FED and
its original conception. This is kind of this is a
very This is a conversation that I haven't had a
had a chance to have with you, but I've talked,
but I've talked about in other venues. So I like
to spend some time on this, which is that the

(01:05:06):
original conception of the FED, as you've pointed out multiple times,
and this is when I was a hardcore Austria and
going no no central bank. I was a classic no
way kind of guy. And I've come around my thinking
on this and I want to thank you for injecting
these idea ideas and in my head, which is that
the original conception of the FED was to have regional
banks with regional interest rates and only backs up the

(01:05:28):
commercial paper market, right, and not the US treasury market,
which is but the now the FED has been given
this a huge mandate to give us a single monolithic
interest rate, the FED Funds rate, and they also have
to backs up the US treasury market, which they did,
of course in order to be able to fund World

(01:05:49):
War two, sell bonds, and sell the fund of World
War two. So that's the Banking Act of nineteen thirty five,
if my history on this is correct, and you can
correct me if I'm wrong. So in order to get
rid of the current version of the FED that we have,
we have to start building an infrastructure that in a
banking system, locally, domestically that would allow for that to happen,

(01:06:12):
so that we can take that those responsibilities away from
the FED. And I think that that's what Besen is
talking about, Ascente is talking about. But at the same time,
the FED still exists now that it has SOFUR to
effectively obviate the FED funds rate. I remember talking to
Daniel de Martino Booth when I had her on the
podcast back in twenty two or February twenty twenty two,

(01:06:32):
and I was I was asking her about the switch
from SOFUR to from liboar to SOFA. And I was
very early on in my arguments about what I thought
was going on here, and I'll finish this point in
a second and I'll move on. Which is that? And
I asked her, I said, well, wouldn't sofur create a

(01:06:53):
real market for money that we would obviate the need
that the FED funds rate in the end, because you know,
all the banks can just trade SOFA, which is a
market driven rate, and set in the money markets, in
the repo markets, and you know, Florida can have one
interest rate, in California can have another because the banks
locally can you know, just trade you know, dollars based
on the local demand for dollars. But if you don't

(01:07:15):
have the banks don't have the ability to issue effectively
dollars locally to express that supply and demand, they won't
be able to do that. And she what she said was, oh, yeah,
that was that's absolutely what would be on the table,
but they'll never give that power up. That was twenty
twenty two and that was the exact that's like the
exact quote that she that she said to me, I'm like, okay,

(01:07:35):
then I'm on the right path to thinking that this
is how we would reform the FED, because the FED
is at this point, you know, it's an institution that
has well beyond its own purpose. Because what's happening in
the rails that are being built and the infrastructure is
being built in the crypto space with stable coins and settlement,

(01:08:00):
we don't need the Federal Reserve to manage that part
of the market anymore, or in the future we will
not need it because that market should outcompete the current
FED system, which makes sense to me. This is why
Trump and Best and are effectively going after Powell as
a means by which to popularize the idea that FED

(01:08:21):
needs to be reformed, not necessarily that they're angry with
Powell for holding interest rates to four and a half percent,
but just using him as a kind of scapegouds. This
has been my argument for a couple of weeks now,
and I haven't an a chance to talk to you
about it, So like I'm putting that out there for
you to comment on and tell me if I'm crazy
or or you know, whatever I'm this is. I think

(01:08:41):
this is an important topic because this is what this was,
This is what this all reads to me.

Speaker 2 (01:08:47):
Well, the the other aspect here is that the SET
came out and said there will be no central bank
to digital currents. See and Trump echoed the same thing.
Why because under our constitution it FED would need a

(01:09:13):
search warrant to look at your bank account. Right, A
bank does not. They're already rules and plays that they
are supposed to report any suspicious activity. Okay, So this
is the same model what they did with COVID. The

(01:09:33):
First Amendment says the government shall not. It doesn't say YouTube,
you know, Facebook, et cetera. So they just pick up
the phone. Hey, we don't like what this guy says,
kick him off, and they do, all right. I was
warned by a former executive VP of one of the

(01:09:58):
major news papers in New York, and he told me
that's how the government works with them. They call you
and say we have a favor, kill this story, spend
it this way or do that. If you do not,
they oh, did you pay your taxes? You know, they

(01:10:18):
come after you personally, not the newspaper. That's how they
control the press. Okay, So the FED cannot do a
central bank digital currency legally, all right. So uh in

(01:10:39):
that sense, they're uh, you know, issuing staple coins is constitutional, uh,
because the FED cannot all right, So when they issued
the staple coins, then they buy the debt which to

(01:10:59):
try with then find So it is back to that
eighteen sixty three scenario. You're side stepping the central bank
on the interest rates side against Pale. I do think
there's a problem in the sense that Bessard, you know,

(01:11:21):
was the right hand man of sorrows in England for
the whole break of the pound and all that shit. Uh.
And Trump has always been a borrower and not a lender. Agree,
So from his perspective, he wants rates at one percent
if he can't get it right. And so I'm not

(01:11:46):
so sure that they are fully aware of what happens
if you do that to the FED. Okay, because the
FED roll beside all this stuff that you know, people
perceive the FED basically the individual banks must have reserves

(01:12:12):
and they post that at the FED. Right, So the
FED is the other role of it is to regulate
the banking system, Okay. So that's separate from the interest
rates stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:12:29):
Right. So I well, that's one of the things that
Beston has said that he wants to take away take
back from the FED. It's just that they shouldn't be
involved as heavily involved in bank regulation. I mean, he
said that like right after he was confirmed, and I
have to I have to wonder. It's interesting because you know,
again when I watched Powell when he was at the

(01:12:49):
ECB at the beginning of the month July first, he
was at the ECB in a round table. I don't
know if you saw it or not. I watched. It's
an hour roundtable with Reguard Andrew Bailey from the Bank
of England, Await from Japan, and the South Korean head
of the South Korean Central Bank, and he was asked
about two things at the end of the The thing

(01:13:10):
that that stuck out to me the first fifty minutes
of it was kind of boorl or plate, you know,
the guard trying to schmooze Powell into, you know, saying
bad things about Trump, and it didn't really He was
asked about two things at the end of that thing,
and it really struck me because you know, if this
whole thing between Powell and Trump is real, then Powell

(01:13:31):
would have thrown Trump under the bus. When he was
asked about the revision of the supplemental leverage ratio to
which Powell responded, am I four the thing that we
at the f OMC just voted in favor of. Yes,
I kind of add like, you know, that's one. And
then two they were asked about stable coins, and the

(01:13:52):
three answers that were given from the BOE, the ECB,
and the and the Federal Reserve were very interesting because
Andrew Bailey, of course as the Bank of England guy,
said look, I don't even know if these things are
money or what. Did they even pass the test of money?
Laguard said, I believe that money is a public good,
and my jar role at THEDCB is so regulated as

(01:14:13):
a public good completely and I will do everything I
can to enforce that, which makes perfect sense. She wants
to go to with digital euro and Powell was like,
oh no, we're working with the Trump administration on all
of this. And this is a change from Powell because
he used to say he was against stable coins. He
was like, I'm okay with bitcoin. This is a commodity.
I don't care about bitcoin. But he used to be

(01:14:35):
very against table coins, and certainly when they were being
proliferated in the market and we had all the real
shit coins like FTX, and Tera Luna and all these
other ones that weren't backed by anything. They were all
backing by each other's magic beings. They weren't backed by anything.
There wasn't a real collateral. Now all of a sudden,
he's like, hey, we tried to work with the Biden
administration to build real good crypto regulation for industry and

(01:14:57):
banks to be able to work with these things, and
we got rebuffed, and now we're working with the Trump
administration on this. That was his answer, And that was
a that was a c change that I note from Powell,
And uh, that's where the thing ended. And I'm like, oh, yeah,
Powell's on board with whatever it is that they're trying
to do. So I think Powell wants I think Powell

(01:15:18):
wants the Federalserve reformed as well. I think the I
think Powell looks at the two percent inflation mandate, which
he was never in favor of when he was a
junior member of the fo MC, going back to the
Bernanki days, and and he's never and I think he
uses the whole dual mandate, which you know of stable
prices in full employment. He uses that as a cudgel

(01:15:39):
in order to prosecute monetary policy the way he wants to,
which is, look, we've got to get rid of all this.
We've got a massive balance sheet that we shouldn't have,
and we've got we've done all these terrible things que
zero bound interest rates, none of which he's ever agreed with.
So it almost seems to me like, you know, Powell's
just being, you know, is getting to be the scapegoat

(01:16:00):
for reform of the FED. That needs to happen and
everybody knows it. But you've got to do so in
such a way that you don't spook capital markets because
he gets to be kind of, you know, the calm cop,
while Trump gets to be you know, chaos cop. Right.
I mean this is my this is my read on situation.
I don't know what you think about that.

Speaker 2 (01:16:22):
Well, no, I mean, li fuck, I think it merely
confirmed what I said that the staple coins is the
eighteen sixty three to fund the debt all over again.

Speaker 1 (01:16:38):
Right, and who's going to be the holder of that
debt as opposed? And I think the goal is to
get Americans to hold the debt against as opposed to
foreigners to hold the debt. But at the same time,
you know, what's interesting is like I keep looking at
the TICK report every month, and weren't nine trillion dollars

(01:17:00):
held by central banks. It keeps going up every month. Now,
most of that buying has been out of Europe, by
the way, over the last four years, over the part
the the the arc of Powell's tight interest rate policy
and his you know QT and high interest rates, they've
been buying. I think they've been using it for yield
curve control, which I've said many times, in order to

(01:17:22):
try and keep their rates down in Europe. But at
some point that trade has to reverse itself. Now, at
this point in time, it's Europe that actually owns almost
four trillion dollars worth of our debt central European central banks,
including the Bank of England and all of its subsidiaries.
It's about four trillion dollars. And it's far more than

(01:17:42):
you know, than officially than even China, because then you've
got to think about all the European corporates that own
in the private holdings of American debt as well. So
I mean, this is a very this is a conundrum
at this point. So I know what you want might want.

Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
To well, uh, it's a basket case.

Speaker 1 (01:18:02):
Really, Uh, I agree.

Speaker 2 (01:18:04):
The problem is that they you know, with all the
COVID nonsense lockdowns, then they had the climate change, then
they put the sanctions on Russia. Uh. And the German
economy is shrinking. Yeah, it's it's it's shrunk at least

(01:18:25):
by three if not more. So I'll talk about the
number of available jobs for declining. Then you let in
all these migrants, you know, and all I see is conflicts,
people upset, et cetera. And they shut down so many
of flights and stuff. I had a meeting in Berlin

(01:18:48):
and I had a uh. After that, I had to
run to a meeting in Rome. There was no direct flights.
I see what. I had to hire a private jet
to get to the next meeting. I've never had to
do that from Berlin to Rome, two capitals.

Speaker 1 (01:19:09):
I was gonna say, that would be like going from
Miami to Atlanta and there would be no direct flights.

Speaker 2 (01:19:14):
Yeah, I mean, it's like, what's going the hell's going
on here?

Speaker 1 (01:19:18):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:19:18):
But you know, they they shut down airlines, O Cauzette's, uh,
pollutes and all this other kind of stuff. So it's
just nuts, completely nuts. And you know, I talked to,
you know, with staff in Germany that they said even

(01:19:41):
a friend who was sixty years old was told the
report for duty. I mean they are all gearing up
for war. I had a client who attended the v
Enna Peace conference when he he said, this is no

(01:20:02):
longer about peace. Everybody's now, how do we implement drafts, prepare?
This is Europe has no choice at this stage. And
three years ago when I would do interviews across Europe
from Netherlands to Palamo, and I would say, look, the

(01:20:23):
computer says that you will break up. Really now when
I do them, they go when we've had enough. So
I get the difference just in three years and everywhere
you talk it's always the same thing. And the problem

(01:20:46):
with Brussels what they've done. Once you get create any
kind of a centralized government, they get addicted to power.
So like as you said, we went to mind, let's
get rid of Hungary or you know, block their vote
this because it has to be my way. You know,

(01:21:09):
this was like Camilla dooring the election. Somebody was in
one of her rallies and said about you know, abortioning
in God, and she's you're at the wrong rally. You
know this is the attitude I get in. It's my way.
Screw you, your religion, your god, whatever, I don't care.
It's gonna be what I do. Uh. This is what

(01:21:31):
Stalin did. And you know Lenin, if you really look objectively,
what Lenin did, Yes, communism, but he argued that each
republic should elect the United States in the sense that
they retained their own sovereignty. And it was Stalin. Uh.

(01:21:51):
Lenin even wrote a letter he said, do not let
him succeed me. And Russians that I knew, you know,
they believe is Stalin poison. But he sees power and
then he centralized it. And this is NATO. When you know,

(01:22:13):
whenever you create an agency, Department of Education, USA, whatever,
they will fight tooth and nail to the end to
keep going. It doesn't matter what they're doing. It's all
about their salaries and their pensions. Yes, all right, So
NATO is just a retirement home for old neo cons

(01:22:35):
that's it, right, And they only have I saw the
internal memos, Okay, they were shown today and they were
upset the money was going to climate change and not
to them, and they said, how do we remain relevant?
The only way they remain relevant is constantly saying Putin

(01:22:58):
wants to invade your Yep, it's the same scenario as
if it was Khrushchef.

Speaker 1 (01:23:04):
Yes, now that was no.

Speaker 2 (01:23:08):
When Khrushchev said we will bury you. It had nothing
to do with UH conquest or things of that nature.
It was a philosophical communism is better than evil capitalism,
That's right, basically what it was. So they're applying that

(01:23:30):
same nonsense to Putin. M not communists, all right, they
don't want to conquer capitalism. What you know, what do
they get out of you were? Nothing? It has no
They got to buy the energy from Russia. They have
no real goal reserves. You walk in and all you're

(01:23:52):
going to get is civil unrest and the French you're
going to say, you're going to pay your pensions. Now
that's it.

Speaker 1 (01:23:58):
No, this is I agree with you. The idea that
the Russians want to move, you know, west of the
Deneper River is insane. As you pointed out, and I
pointed out you know over the years, which is that
the Russian, the ethnic Russians live east of the deeper
and you know, relatively speaking, ethnic Ukrainians live west of it,

(01:24:20):
and they don't want to be covered by Russians. They
hate Russians, and that's fine. And the Poles hate Russians,
and the and the Latvians hate Russians, and with good
and fine if they have good reasons for it, it's fine.
I don't see the Russians wanting to to to conquer
people that hate them like. That's not they don't have
the resources that they don't have the they don't have
the manpower, they have the resources down on any of

(01:24:42):
that stuff. So that's not what this is about. And
Russians and for years, like look at Russia's military, you know, architecture,
it's all very defensive. It's defensive within about six hundred
miles of Moscow and that would put you up towards
about the Deneper River and anything beyond that is irrelevant
the question. So, as always, Russia Ukraine is one of

(01:25:04):
those forever wars. They just want the conflict to be there,
to be able to pr to raise capital to do
the things that they want and to get the people
to buy into the thing that they're trying to accomplish.
It's the same thing I argue about Israel. Iran, I
I said, coming into the conflict. They said, Look, Israel,

(01:25:27):
Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon is the forever war.
It's the thing that everybody goes, oh my god, we
have to stop this. And and and it's the same
thing with Russia's going to invade Poland no they're not.
The Poles aren't would fight tooth and claw to keep
the Russians out, and the Russians don't have any desire

(01:25:49):
to be, you know, governing Poles, and so it it's
it's fascile on the face of it. And so then
the question is what are they actually willing to accomplish?
What are they actually trying to accomplish here with all
of this war talk and all this quote unquote war prep,
is it you know, as much about knowing full well

(01:26:13):
that the United States is going to pull out of
NATO eventually, because Trump has probably made it abundantly clear
to them. It's like, look, I don't want to be
a I don't want to beg your your sugar daddy
anymore Like if you didn't get the memo when he
you know, forced Iars of Bonderland into submission the other day,
I think that was pretty clear, Like I'm not your
sugar daddy anymore, you're paying me fifteen percent for access

(01:26:35):
to our markets. Period. It's over done. The Marshall Plan
is dead. Your whole your retirement communities for old European
communists and colonialists is over. We're not paying for it anymore. Now.
The question is how we get out of that with
a minimum of violence. That's the that's I think what

(01:26:57):
I You know, I keep trying to like trying to
figure out a path through that as best as possible.
I for the lack of a better term, I think
Trump is trying to do that as well. The problem
is nobody trusts each other.

Speaker 2 (01:27:10):
And I won't say who, but I spoke to somebody
close to Trump, uh, and I thought they would think
I was a conspiracy theorist or whatever. I said, Look,
my opinion is we got to get the hell out
of NATO. They're going to create a false flag to

(01:27:32):
invoke Article five and try and drag his hit.

Speaker 1 (01:27:35):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (01:27:36):
The response was, we know you're right, that's correct. M
I was like, wow, okay, you actually agree with me.

Speaker 1 (01:27:46):
Yeah, and that's that's a sea change.

Speaker 2 (01:27:50):
Yes, So I I know the person that I spoke to,
you know, it was close to Trump. Enough, Okay, So
it's you know, I was surprised at that response, and

(01:28:13):
it's just you even had Jamie Diamond at Davos saying
Trump was right, should have got the hell out of NATO.
I mean, NATO has long you know, it has a
shelf life and it's expired. You throw throw the milk out,

(01:28:33):
basically agreed, and its only purpose is to create war.
That's it. It has no it's not interested in peace.

Speaker 1 (01:28:46):
No. I I have gotten to the point Martin where
I watched where it's very clear that the old world
that we've lived in since World War to the end
of World War two is rapidly coming to an conclusion.
And the people who have been and who arrogated power
to themselves and lived high on that system, be it
the euro dollar financial base for financial system or you know, NATO,

(01:29:10):
all the aspects of this, the old intelligence you know,
black market, you know, selling drugs and trafficking children, that
system itself is rapidly coming to a conclusion because Americans
no longer want to pay for it. And the political
pressure from the ground up here in the United States
is that we don't want to We're not we're not
interested in this anymore. And that means that all of

(01:29:32):
that infrastructure are what I would like to call rapidly
depreciating assets. And if you look at you know, war
INK or NATO INK or whatever you want to call it,
they're looking at this going well, I've got all these
assets on the balance sheet and these are depreciating. What
do I do with them? Well, I can well that
one I can spin off into a different organization, and

(01:29:53):
that one has to be liquidated, and that one's gotten
no more maximal value than has right now than to
drop it into and use it in a way to
advance whatever cause we can to survive. And that's that's
been my kind of my operative framework for a while.
And the more I apply that, it seems to be

(01:30:16):
predictive and what's going to happen next? And I think
NATO is one of those rapidly depreciating assets. So you
use it or lose it, and you use it for
your maximum advantage if you're Europe at this point, to
get as much out of the US as possible before
we finally say they.

Speaker 2 (01:30:31):
Are directing everybody, including even Canada, increase your defense spending
the five percent. Yes, you don't even have economic growth
at three. Okay, so this is deflationary. You know, our
computer has shown that Europe could easily go into a

(01:30:55):
depression going into twenty twenty eight. It has nothing going
for it, right, nothing? All right, Okay, fine you want
to you're gonna completely shut down. Uh I think it
still gets maybe ten percent of its oil from from Russia. Okay,
So the new CON's werena shut that down, all right,

(01:31:16):
that's what I mean. They're myopic. They only look at
that we have to hurt Russia. Okay, you're now going
to completely cut off your increase their their energy costs.
This is the same stagflation that we went through in
the seventies when open yep, everybody's got to get adjusted

(01:31:38):
to much more expensive you know, big cars, how to
get small. I had to go buy a four Pinto
just to make it to work because you were gas
you know, your gasoline was rationed and it was only
odd or even that was it. You know, I couldn't
even get to work and back, you know, for two days.

(01:32:02):
So I mean that's what Europe is going through. And
so our computer definitely shows they are more at risk
of a depression. Yes, the recessionary side that US can
have the downside to Trump policies here by putting in

(01:32:29):
high towers on these other countries, et cetera. It's not
the inflationary side. It's that you're reducing the velocity of money,
the ability for them to buy. Yeah, okay, so if
their economies are going into a downward spiral and you

(01:32:54):
just struck this great no tariff thing with Europe, what
was it going to do if they're not buying.

Speaker 1 (01:33:03):
Well in the short term. What it amounts to is
this going to what we've seen, which is the rollover
of the euro. Right that the euro at this point,
so in the negotiation portion of this, of this trade balance,
trade balancing scenario that Trump is now enforced or is
now put on them, he double whammied them. He weakened

(01:33:26):
the dollar and then put protection and then put tariffs on.
So now you've got a stronger euro than now it's
a classic. Now you've got strong europlus tariffs. Now German
exports are thirty percent more expensive than they were before.
So now the euro has to weaken and the dollar
has to rise, which is what we're starting to see
right what, but that also is then going to put

(01:33:48):
significant pressure upward pressure on European bond yields and force
the guard out of her yield curve control strategy, or
she has to default on the debt and change the currency,
which is what she's planning on doing see action reaction.
But that's what they're going to have to do if
they want to, and that's why they want to spend
all and that's why they're going to spend all this

(01:34:09):
money and depth is to spend. But they have to
they have to jettison the current debtload. Now the interesting
part about this, and this is why I've been I
watched the German US spread all the time, because you know,
one safe haven asset for the world, the safe haven
asset for Europe. I watch that spread carefully to see
how it's getting managed. And it's starting to roll over

(01:34:29):
at the same time as the euro is rolling over.
So now we're what now we're looking at, you know,
the market beginning to really finally price in to to
some extent a kind of bond vigilanti situation on the
ECB and they're and they're in the Bundesbank. So now
when I look at that, and then someone pointed out

(01:34:51):
to me the other day. Have you looked at the
Italian bond. The spread between Italian and German debt is
down to seventy five basis points, down from my three
three hundred basis points a couple of years ago. So
it's almost like the market is choosing Italy to be
the new safe haven asset of Europe. And it also

(01:35:13):
that Italy might be the first, might be the first
country to break from the European Union.

Speaker 2 (01:35:18):
I do a lot of podcasts in Italy that they're
fed up. But it's also because they're questioning whether going
to war with Russia is even right, you know, practical
right right? Uh? Because Maloney is also the only one
that ever came to the United States when Trump was

(01:35:42):
inaugurated MM European leader, it came ye. I mean it's
all it's you know, it's clearly I think it's do
or die for Europe. Uh. They're pushing with the c
B d CS mainly because that's capital controls for them.

(01:36:04):
They're scared to death of money fleeing. You just had
Spain put it in. You can't take more than three
thousand out of your account government permission, you know. Just
look at the charts from World War One, they shut
down all the stock markets, so you couldn't sell anything, right,
this seems to be coming. I've worned you know, our

(01:36:27):
institutional clients over there. That's why they started moving gold
to New York and Singapore, et cetera. Because when that
first bullet is shot, you're not getting anything out. I'm
just warning you. This is what they've done every time.
So it's most of the Europeans, I know. This is

(01:36:49):
why bitcoin's doing. Okay, they use it for money laundering.

Speaker 1 (01:36:54):
Of course.

Speaker 2 (01:36:55):
Of course they can buy bitcoin there, sell it in
the United States and they got the money out. I
didn't go through a bank wire or something like that.
Canadians are using it for that reason. Yeah, I mean it's.

Speaker 1 (01:37:08):
I've called bitcoin the wealth or something. I've called bitcoin
the bearer bond of the twenty first century.

Speaker 2 (01:37:15):
Yeah, that's basically it's it's it's that a store of wealth.
And you got these crypto people, all these stable coins
that proves it's all. No, it doesn't. You don't even
know what that was.

Speaker 1 (01:37:29):
We are a long way. We're a long way from
bitcoin becoming that. I caught bitcoiners a little. I like bitcoin.
You and I are on different side. On different sides
on this, and that's fine. But I but I caughtion
bitcoiners all the time, and I tell them, like, you
have never watched bitcoin operate in a world where the
central banks are trying to defend themselves and where the

(01:37:49):
governments are actually trying to defend their currencies. Previously, Bitcoin
was birth during the years of QE and zero bound
interest rates, when everybody was trying to destroy trying to
destroy their currencies for whatever reason, to create a great
reset of the monetary system. And and big coin's you know,
perform that initial role very admirably. I mean very very admirably.

(01:38:11):
Whether or not it's you know, going to be able
to perform the next role. You need to watch that carefully.
You don't. You can't just say, oh, it's going to
win because math like that's nice. Sperg boy, it doesn't
work that way. Like you can sport out about the
math all you want. It doesn't work that way. Living
for it.

Speaker 2 (01:38:29):
When there's a hurricane and the power grid goes down,
a credit card.

Speaker 1 (01:38:33):
Right, that's that's when that's when you hope you have
some junk silver and some can sardines and you know,
toilet paper.

Speaker 2 (01:38:40):
You want gas, fine, you know, okay, right, you know
that's about it. If you don't have cash and getting
you know, right, no way, nothing.

Speaker 1 (01:38:52):
It is I and I ca I cautioned everybody, and
I think, well, you know, and this is another thing
I think we need to discuss, because well we're laying
out here. I think you and I agree, is that
the Europeans are the most vulnerable to a sovereign deck
crisis because of all the things we just talked about,
which is part of the reason why. Of course, they
either need to go to war or at least have
a kazas, a permanent Kazas ballet that will allow them

(01:39:13):
to inflate and change the currency out either one one
way or the other. Right, So now the big question is, uh,
in that environment, you know what does you know? Where
do I'm sorry, I actually had a had I had
the question, and then it just I lost it. It

(01:39:37):
happens like the brain just moves in the wrong direction.
But we can see that we think there's a sovereign
deck crisis coming in Europe, and we know that it's
going to be a capital flight in what form is
that going to take? And you know what do you oh,
it's about inflation. The question I now have is if
we have the kind of sovereign deck crisis that we're

(01:39:58):
talking about in and then potentially spreading to emergent markets
and whatnot, are we looking at the deflationary scenario or
the inflationary scenario. There are two sides of the same coin, right.
The question then is are you looking at a ninety
percent haircut in the stock market or are you looking

(01:40:20):
at you know what kind of global stagflation while we
print money effectively to keep asset prices relatively stable and
then hope to you know, grow through it in the
you know. And this is where I think. This is
why I think Europe is fighting Donald Trump and why

(01:40:41):
they want to provoke a war between the United States
and Russia and or China is because they can see
that if Russia, China in the United States carve the
world up, there's no seat for them at the table.
And then they can agree to effectively, you know, carve
the world up into spheres of influence and effectively stabilize

(01:41:02):
asset prices and try and grow through it over the
course of the next you know, five, ten, fifteen years.
That is the scenario I think is the most likely
one barring you know, global war.

Speaker 2 (01:41:17):
What I've actually heard from inside sources from France, they
call Macron the petite Napoleon. He really seems to think.
Maybe it's out of desperation, but they keep telling themselves

(01:41:37):
that Russia's weak, Russia is going to collapse, all this
other stuff, and they really think that they can conquer
Russia and take the seventy five trillion in natural resources.
Europe will then rise again like the Roman Empire and
rule the world. I think it's delusional, but uh, this

(01:42:04):
why Macron was saying sending troops to Ukraine, you know,
and when you know Trump was was not going to
back your peace, offering nuclear weapons to Germany and saying
their nukes will provide the umbrella. We don't need the
United States to protect Europe from Russia. I mean, this

(01:42:29):
is all delusional, but this is actually but he's thinking,
all right and saying, maybe they're all just both you know,
sniffing a cocaine on the train together or something. I
don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:42:43):
No, I agree with you. I think they are delusional,
but I also think they're desperate.

Speaker 2 (01:42:48):
Yes, desperate. Look when they formed the euro you know,
they came to me and I sat down and said,
this is how we created currency. And it was Hermit
Hole who intervened because he said he would allow the
German people to vote, because he said before he died

(01:43:12):
that he would have lost seven to three. So his
demand was to take Germany into the Europe all right,
but there couldn't be any debt consolidation because he knew
the Germans were would be upset. If they were, you know,
they would view it as bailing out debt from Greece
or something like that. Right, And so I told him,

(01:43:36):
I said, this is not going to survive. I said,
you know, the United States, fine, we have a you know,
a single currency, but fifty states they all pay different
rates according to the credit rating. I said, that's what
New York's going to come because they were selling in it. Oh,
we'll all pay the same interest rate. Blah blah blah.

(01:43:57):
All this was all lot, all right. And I was
told flat out right, they said, we just have to
get the Euro in. We'll worry about the debt later.
So it's not that they view what I warned them
was wrong. I said, this is not going to survive.
They knew it, all right, so, and you saw it

(01:44:21):
when Greece got in trouble in twenty ten.

Speaker 1 (01:44:24):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:44:25):
You know, the traders immediately say, oh, we made a
lot of money. Who's next? All right, this is the
problem for the Euro. You get one country that is
in trouble, all right, and it cracks. It becomes the

(01:44:46):
contagion for all of them.

Speaker 1 (01:44:47):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:44:48):
And as you're saying, just been looking at the spreads
of the bones to other countries. You know, Germany used
to be the bulwark of of the EU. Now they're
going to deficit spending to build for war. All the sanctions,

(01:45:09):
the climate change and the COVID shrunk your economy and
of the EU.

Speaker 1 (01:45:16):
So it's right and and and moreover, I think that
statement to you about we're got at the euro in
and we're worry about the debt later was because they
believed they had political and financial control over the United
States that would allow them that they would never have

(01:45:39):
to worry about the United States turning against them on
this that they were. They had, They had control of
the FED, they had control of our Congress, probably as
a downstream effect of Epstein and all these other operations
that they were running, and they used that and then
and that, and that was what they were thinking. It

(01:46:00):
just makes perfect sense to me. And then and that's
why they helped install Obama and then keep him and
keep him in office, and then even get rid of
Trump during COVID and after COVID, get rid of Trump,
put Biden in and try and keep this going. And
then Trump comes back and it's like, look, we're done.
Like and the same argument that they made of a
bitcoin saying, look, bitcoin rose because the central banks weren't

(01:46:21):
defending their currencies. The Euro established itself because the United
States was literally trying to trash the dollar, both from
a monetary perspective and a fiscal perspective. Now the United
States has turned the corner and said, we're cleaning up
the fiscal side of the equation. We're going to clean
up the swamp in Washington, We're going to deregulate, we're
gonna stop doing all this tax normalization through the OECD

(01:46:44):
and WTO rules and you know, the Paris Climate Accord
and all this crap. Lee's Elding comes out the other
day and trashes the whole assessment that greenhouse gases are
are are material thread or whatever the hell is that
thing destroys like half of the regulations in the city.
They want to get rid of half of the city,

(01:47:05):
the regulations of the CPRE Martin. I was sort of
thinking about doze in at the point in Ai to
literally cut the CPR in half. The quota frauer regulations
depends itself. There's no way, there's no way European, there's
no way the europe and the European no.

Speaker 2 (01:47:21):
Look, I can tell you back in eighty five in
the Plaza Acord, and that's been called into all that stuff.
That's when the idea was floated to create the euro
right because the dollar went up so high, pounced all
the one O, three and and uh in eighty five,

(01:47:45):
and so the whole idea was that if Europe band together,
then that would be an alternative to the dollar per
se And because this result, that's why I wrote the
letter to Reagan and everything back then. Because their view,

(01:48:08):
Americans always want lower dour so they can sell more
widgets overseas. And so that's what the Plosa Cord sever
and lower the dollar by forty percent. The eighty seven
crash came after the Louver Accord, and they met again

(01:48:30):
in Paris, and they said, okay, fine, that's it. The
dollar went down enough because everybody was screaming when the
dower continue to go lower. The crash came because everybody said,
oh shit, the central banks can't control it, right, And

(01:48:50):
then the rumors were that the dollar would fall another
forty so the Japanese start dumping everything. You know. That's
the eighty seven fracts. And you can look at the
eighty seven Brady report. I got called into that. I
at least got them. It was Jack Schweger, who was

(01:49:11):
at Pain at the time, I think, and I didn't
want to get involved after my experience in eighty five.
And they were blaming computer trading. And Jack told me
this morning, if you don't do this, they're going to
come take our computers. I said, all right, so I agreed.

(01:49:37):
I at least got them. My biggest accomplishment. If you
read the end of the report, they said they didn't
blame anybody in the financial industry, wasn't fixed, you know,
finger fingers or insider trading, all that bullshit at the end,
and said we think foreign exchange had something to do

(01:49:58):
with it. All right, They didn't play de five. I mean,
I you know. That was my biggest accomplishment to get
them not to do anything to everybody because we had
nothing to do with it. Right.

Speaker 1 (01:50:17):
Oh, but that's that, that's the that is. That's an
amazing statement. Oh, foreign exchange has something to do with it.
That's like say, it's like saying the universe had something
to do with it. Like it's you know, it's a
nonsensical statement.

Speaker 2 (01:50:32):
Ninety seven. I wrote to to rub it because he
was starting the same ship. Low, we're downware for trade,
all the rest of the stuff. I wrote to him.
I said, look, all right, I was the one called
in for the eighty seven crash. What you're doing here,
You're going to cause a crash. I get a response back, Oh, well,

(01:50:53):
we're not really trying to do that would have a
few weeks later. That's the nineteen ninety seven Asian currency.
Christ I get frustrated from the standpoint that I get
called into these things and it's always the same stupid mistake.
And what I my conclusion is that an individual can

(01:51:19):
learn from his personal mistakes in life, so we don't
do it again. Yes, right, but government is not because
they keep changing administrations and I've never seen a single
investigation to date where they and somebody comes up with

(01:51:41):
some solution. I've never heard the question has anybody tried
this before? Did it work? Never? Never, they go, oh,
that's a good idea. So I wonder I understand Trump
with the tariff stuff, was saying, well, the country used

(01:52:01):
to be funded by towrists. That's true in the nineteenth century,
but it's also before socialism, social security and all this
other kind of shit. So the government was very small, right,
not gigantic.

Speaker 1 (01:52:17):
Right. Oh, he's got a big task ahead of him.
He's got a shrink.

Speaker 2 (01:52:22):
The paris are not going to fund the government. This
is all before income tax, all right. We did come
into nineteen thirteen, all right, so it's uh. And then
we have this stable coins thing. But my question, I
would like to find out who proposed this. Did they

(01:52:44):
also look at history and say, oh, that's how they
did it, so let's use staple coins or is this Oh,
this is a good idea. And they came up with
it all by themselves again, you know what I mean?

Speaker 1 (01:52:54):
No, I see that, and I hope that they understand
that it is greenbacks, and I hope they understand that.
And uh, and I will I don't know. I mean,
what I see from this whole you know, what I
see from this whole thing is that where this is dollar,

(01:53:16):
there the potential. It is interesting. We're gonna end on
this because I'm getting when I get done with this
one in a couple of minutes, in a couple of hours,
I'm gonna sit down chat with katelin Long, who's prominent
bitcoiner and and and uh and and and thinker on
this in the space about you know, the the the
proliferation of the dollar into non traditional markets because of

(01:53:38):
what stable coins can and cannot do. So that's going
to be the next part of this story. So the
other day I had so like I have a whole
series of people that I curiated this particular month for
the podcast on purpose because I wanted to like, I'm
gonna tell this part of the story. Then we're gonna
tell this part of the story, and then we're gonna
tell that part of the story, and then we're gonna
see where we wind up. And so I had been

(01:53:58):
to Launching on the other day and we chatted about
the potential for what these stable coins can do if
you want today because I want to talk about the
geopolitics and how that and the history on all of this.
And I'm really happy that you brought up the green
back scenario. It's a very it's good analysis. As a
matter of fact. Interestingly enough, in that conversation I had
with Extra White last night, we were talking about these

(01:54:19):
very things. He said, green back. Greenbacks are coming back, baby.
That's literally what he said to me. And I'm like,
you know, eat the green back. It's he was. We
were we were kind of gloating a little bit, but
you know, fair enough. So this is I think where
we where we go next. And this is all I
want to point out is that this is an inflection point.
I don't know how it's going to turn out, right,

(01:54:41):
it could turn out badly as always right, or it
could be the beginning of a turn into a different environment. Well,
you know, we'll see. I personally, I just want to
see the era of central bank dominating currencies. I want
to see them. I want to see that end. And
you know, this goes back the things that Jim Rickers
used to talk about ten fifteen years ago that when this,

(01:55:04):
when the next crash comes, it'll be the central banks
that go broke first. We had the commercial banks go
broke in two thousand and eight and the central banks
bailed out the world, then the next one would be
the central banks go broke, and then who's going to
bail out the central banks?

Speaker 2 (01:55:19):
Well, the problem is that the structure of the SAID
is substantially different than ECB.

Speaker 1 (01:55:28):
Exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:55:29):
Yes, the ECB has the potential.

Speaker 1 (01:55:31):
To go bust, absolutely it does.

Speaker 2 (01:55:34):
The FED does not. Yes, so it's a little bit different.
Even if FED there was a big coup that they
staged against the government in nineteen fifty one when they
were told to do QB to fund the Korean War
and they said no, we've had enough, and they refused

(01:55:56):
to follow the White House that even made the front
pages of So they are independent in that sense. Trump
wants power to the lower rates. Screw you, now, I'm not
doing right.

Speaker 1 (01:56:10):
But but but again, as I pointed out Powell, not
lowering rates is actually helping to give Trump the leverage negotiation,
leverage in the straight deals because it's forced that it's
forced repatriot it's forced this repatriation trade in this uncertainty, right,
and it's dried up, you know, flows in the euro
dollar markets, and we're watching that's what drove the euro

(01:56:32):
to a dollar eighteen. So it gave from the Artines because.

Speaker 2 (01:56:37):
He knows war is coming, right, I'm pretty sure they
read all our stuff, all right. But and if war
is coming in Europe, I think this is in part
where he's kept rates. Our computer says you're not going
to see a change your rates till September. But because

(01:57:03):
the capital flows have been coming here as the euro
is going down. If you're talking about capital controls coming
in Europe, you very get your money to hell out.
So that flow was coming to the US. And I
mean I still get two three calls a week you
want to sell your house. I don't think that's happening

(01:57:26):
in Chicago. Yeah, So it's it's I think the capital
that's coming. And I talked to realders here and they
say houses one to five million area. If it were
just paying cash, they're not even borrowing, they're not even
doing mortgages. So it's people parking money. And it's substantially

(01:57:54):
different if a foreigner comes in versus you and I.
If you in a house, I buy it for a million. Okay,
the million went from my pocket to your pocket. Domestic
money supply didn't change exactly. But if I'm from London
and I buy that and here's a million, I'm now

(01:58:16):
bringing cash into the country. Now, the money supply just
increased and the Fed's got nothing to do with it,
That's right. So there's so many more complicated aspects to
this whole money supply, the velocity of money, where's it
coming from. All of this is very very complicated and critical.

(01:58:42):
And you know, I knew Milton Friedman. We had interesting
conversations about this because he was like, the FED didn't monetize.
I said, yes, I said, but the FED was concerned
that with all of Europe defaulting that the dour if
he monetized, that the dour would crash and the dollar

(01:59:07):
was going up instead because of that, all the money
was coming here, right exactly. So it was real conundrum man,
And we're in that same situation right now.

Speaker 1 (01:59:20):
Mm. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:59:22):
So the crazier it gets in Asia, Middle East, Europe,
the capital will seek a safe haven here. Yes, that
puts the bid to the door. You're seeing the ur
go down. That undermines Trump's idea of lower dollar to
sell more widgets. You're not going to be able to

(01:59:43):
sell widgets if the rest of the world is going
down to begin with.

Speaker 1 (01:59:47):
Mm hmm, well, I think I think what Trump realizes
is not that he wants to turn the US in
the short term into a major exporter. I think it's
more trying to get the money to come back in
and put Americans to work rebuilding in the country, and
get the and get the internal and then after that,
get the internal float as you just pointed out, get

(02:00:10):
that moving properly in order to stabilize the situation while
there's in the interim. And then and then tariffs can
you know, tariffs can go away if they need to
at that point, or they can stay relatively low or whatever,
or they can be renegotiated. And that's I think the
I think that's more the plan than anything else. That's

(02:00:31):
the way he's been selling it. And I think I
don't think he's I don't think he's delusional about that.
I really don't.

Speaker 2 (02:00:38):
The other aspect is that people don't understand is that
there's regulation as well. Yes, exact towers, so they put
in quality control. Oh, if you fed your your your
cow is something that we don't approve, you can't import
that milk.

Speaker 1 (02:00:57):
The soft towerfs were especially in the Your and Union
weren't sane and oh.

Speaker 2 (02:01:02):
Yeah, they do that all the time. It can't be
called champagn unless it comes from from France.

Speaker 1 (02:01:09):
Right, can't be called Bourbon if it doesn't come from Kentucky.

Speaker 2 (02:01:14):
All this stuff, it's uh so there are a lot
of trade restrictions that aren't in the tariff pot. Yeah,
so Trump's got to deal with all of that, and
so it's more than just riffs. But well, no, we
will see. It's gonna be interesting.

Speaker 1 (02:01:32):
Times, right, I No, I agree, I think, and I
think I think that the best way to look at
this is that we are at an inflection point and
none of us really have a crystal ball. Well maybe
you do, but you know, but me.

Speaker 2 (02:01:45):
It's the computer. I would I've tried to defeat my
own computer and I lose every time. And the computer
just basically says, look, we're going to war. It's got
a panic cycle in war for next year and a
yearly level. Holy ship. I mean it just and knowing

(02:02:06):
the economics of Europe, I don't think they have a
prayer in hell of doing this without war.

Speaker 1 (02:02:14):
And I think, and what I would say is if
they even if they do what they think they need
to do. It's actually going to accelerate the process of
them being finally liquidated. That's what I you know, it's
going to cut.

Speaker 2 (02:02:31):
I think, you know, that's the whole issue, because they're
trying to dictate to everybody else and people just don't
want it. Agree, Well, is actually there at the second
attempt for the Romanian elections, McCrone flew in to make
sure they won. Uh you know it's it's NATO building

(02:02:54):
the biggest air base in Europe in Romania so they
can attack Prussia. The people don't want it, but we
will see. Just getting to be a real.

Speaker 1 (02:03:05):
Mess, it really is. And and thank you for helping
me work through some of the the issues of the day.
And and I I'm going to continue to hold out
hope that we can you know, quote unquote beat the
computer because you know I need to and that's fine,
and you know, and and if I can't, well you know,

(02:03:25):
there's a reason why I'm you know, building a house
in Tennessee. Like you know, So it is what it is.

Speaker 2 (02:03:34):
So human nature is human nature. And I don't think
that they're going to change. And if they're in trouble,
they're they're going to choose war over reform.

Speaker 1 (02:03:44):
The the the The only hope that I really do
have is that these people are so odious and so
disgusting that their native populations won't fight for them.

Speaker 2 (02:03:53):
Well, I think that's it, that Europe breaks up, et cetera.
But I think that first boat's gotta be shot, yes, before.

Speaker 1 (02:04:03):
Before it hits, Before it hits. It's like, you know, violent,
you know, violence in your head is different than violence
that hits you in the face. You know, I spent
a lot I spent a lot of years inside of
martial arts, so Joe, and it's a huge difference. It's
a huge difference thinking about can you throw a punch
and you know, you know, doing forms and hitting boards
and then sparring and getting hit in the head and

(02:04:25):
you're going, whoa, that's fundamentally different. And as Mike, as
Mike Tyson, we said, you know, everyone's got a plan
until you get punched in the mouth. So we think
people need to get punched in the mouth in order
to finally, you know, wake up. So Martin, thank you
so much for your time and your expertise and all
of it. I do appreciate it and really do. Really

(02:04:46):
glad that we finally were able to you know, uh,
you know, beaten and so take care. You take care man.
We'll talk. We'll talk soon.

Speaker 2 (02:04:57):
Bye bye the Boy Dog

All Episodes

Episode #224 - Martin Armstrong and Can Trump Avoid the War That's Coming

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode #224 - Martin Armstrong and Can Trump Avoid the War That's Coming