Episode #238 -- Vince Lanci and the New Triange Trade in Gold

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Hello, and welcome to the Gold, Ghats and Guns Podcast
for November fifteenth, twenty twenty five. My name is Tonald
lo Ango. We have a lot to talk about. It
is episode two thirty eight, and I have with me
the great pleasure as always, of bringing back my good
friend and compatriot, Vince Launchy. Vince, how are you great?

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Tom, Good to see you again and good to hear
your voice.

Speaker 1 (00:44):
It's it is absolutely great to catch up with you
because the other day I get it. So for those
of you who don't know, Vince and I have the
We text back and forth all the time. And on
a I think it was Tuesday or Wednesday morning of
this week, so earlier in the week, Vince texted me

(01:05):
the little the note about what he's seeing and I'm like, dude,
that has to be a podcast, and I'm not gonna
talk and I want to get this done as quickly
as possible because I don't want to like spill the
beans and then have people think that this is my
idea because it's not. This is all Vince. Wow my
freaking mind at like seven point thirty in the morning
on a Tuesday, and I'm like, I'm not even caffeinated

(01:28):
yet and I'm like, oh, yes, the world has now
fundamentally and finally changed. So what am I fucking talking about?
We're gonna You're about to find out. So this has
to do with all the stuff that Vince and I
have been talking about since the first time I had
him on the podcast, or no, not the first time,
because all the way back to that episode that we
keep referring to, Vince, which is the one where we

(01:50):
outlined the idea that the comex was being depreciated as
a as a currency speculating instrument and you know, returning
to a spot market, well a commodities proper commodities future
market for silver, and that episode of episode one. I

(02:15):
will get the episode number. It's called Vince launchy and
Gold is the New Black. That is the name of
the episode.

Speaker 3 (02:21):
I will get you.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
I will get to the episode number, and I'll have
it in the show notes. So, Vince, tell me where
we are now?

Speaker 3 (02:27):
How?

Speaker 1 (02:28):
Why why are we? Why are we where we are?
And what did you note the other day that blew
both of our minds.

Speaker 2 (02:34):
Right so so so quickly. Whatever Tom and I have ideas,
whether it be an idea that I want to make
sure it isn't crazy or an idea that he wants
to voice or practice, you know, before he airs it publicly.
We'll send him back up. Mostly it's me setting voice
notes saying I think this is that crazy, and then

(02:56):
it'll be Tom and I talking on the phone and
him telling me why I'm not crazy that of course, Uh,
it turns into like twenty minute conversations where we go
back and forth. But the one, the one that, the
one that started this yesterday was innocently enough, China just did.
These are the two factual points that may need connect
dots that I hadn't connected before. Uh. The first one

(03:18):
is China just did a US dollar bond auction and
it went very well.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
Right yep. And and interestingly enough, the whole what I
would like to call zero head set kept saying, oh,
look see it's the end of the dollar. It went
off five or seven basis points over than the the
New Orks Treasury rate, and every and and all of
those guys like missed the freaking boat completely. But you know,
I'm sorry. As as always, the slot never stops because

(03:46):
we are where we are in this and.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
Yeah, and just without without digressing too much, yeah, the
neo Keynesian mindset and which we all are a part of,
or the ethnocentric nationalists might set. Cannot sept that China's
bonds are being viewed in a similar risk to the US,
and so we've got other reasons for oh, well that
didn't matter, or this didn't matter what anyway, it's all bullshit.

(04:10):
We have to accept some reality once in a while.
You have to when you're in a losing trade. You
see the money going down, it's a losing trade, and
you get out. So but people don't do that because
they're they're personality times set. The second data point that
made me actually make the call was was Russia announced them.
It could be bullshit, right, but Russia announced that they're

(04:30):
going to do U want denominated bonds, And I went,
wait a minute, so so, so and so. A million
different things ran through my head, but the two that
I shared with Tom were the following. I went, I
have suspected for a while that the US and China,
and I don't include Russia in the conversation, but I

(04:51):
think Tom will a little bit because they have to
be no deaft to know what's going on that the
US and China are coordinating a global divorce at at best.
At best, it's a prisoner's dilemma where they're still competing
and they're trying not to upset each other's apple carts
too much. At worst, we're enemies that are just trying
to make sure we don't kill the whole world. So
a cold war concept. And some of the evidence that

(05:15):
I have put forth to that effect was I noticed
that when you when you like, for example, when China
is buying its most goal, the US is not buying.
When the US is buying its most goal, China is
not buying. So look, when you're two big players, you
don't want to compete with each other, right, so they
see that, you know, and and and that's not just random.

(05:38):
I see that pattern in other China satellites. Indy, it
doesn't buy gold when China buys get I'm sorry, no,
all I.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
Was gonna say, Vince, is that if you want to
de escalate what has clearly been a a relationship that
has been kind of forced into escalation. Remember, you know,
during the Biden administration, the foreign policy of the Biden
Hunter sorry, I called it the Biden administration, And I
won't do that again. The Biden hunta. The whole point
of this was to accelerate the enity between the United

(06:06):
States and isolated even further against away from Russia and
China both. I mean, we go back to the first
foreign policy meeting held by Anthony Blincoln's State Department. It
was to invite China to Anchorage, Alaska. And then they
just thrust them down and treated them like the help.
And it was a terrible moment. It was maybe a

(06:26):
low point in the US foreign policy given the circumstances.
And so understand who now you have to always ask
the question who benefits from setting in the United States
and China against each other? Who benefits from keeping the
United States and Russia at odds with each other forever
to day? Well, it's whoever doesn't isn't isn't losing at

(06:48):
the table? And I stole you know, you know, when
I sit down to play a six player game of
something something vicious, I don't care if it's you know,
I talk about done all the time, But I could
be playing a game freaking how for christake, which isn't
even that nasty A game you always have to analyze
the game board from the perspective of who's in the lead,

(07:10):
who's in second, and where you are and if you're
and if you're in fourth place. Your goal is to
set first and second place against each other in order
to slow them down so that you can catch up.
This is not up. This is not forty chess, folks.
This is basic, every day what you do to survive
when you're in you know, this is just basic strategic analysis.
And it pisses me off that we live in a

(07:31):
world now where this kind of analysis is immediately turned
to the forty chess because of course the intelligence slop
agencies are now turning forty chess into the new conspiracy theory.
It's the same bullshit, it's the same corruption of language
in order to create this situation. So now I having
hijack Vincus.

Speaker 2 (07:50):
No, no, no, We're gonna go back and forth.

Speaker 1 (07:52):
This is really important because to understand that the United
States and Russia and the and the Chinese have to
build trust with each other. If is going to be
a foundation of trust that they can work on, and
handing the gold market back and forth to each other,
This is my point, handing the gold market back and
forth as they drain London is a measure of in

(08:12):
which they're they're creating trust. You get to buy at
the best price, I get to buy it a good price.
You want to buy at this price. I will set
it up for you to buy at that price, and
back and forth, and who gets fucked the guy who's
been sitting in the middle of the entire time, the.

Speaker 2 (08:26):
Old right, So let me let me let me take
the ball back from you on that sure. So, so
I think I think you know what's unique is that
when you look at the world through different lenses. So uh.
And it's rude to speak this way, but I'm gonna
say as if you weren't here, Tom will look at
things geopolitically, and he can look at and find out

(08:50):
what the UK or the your benefits or who loses.
And he's very simple, qui bono type of stuff. And
and when you do that, you avoid the four D
chess match nations, You avoid the over analyzing, because ultimately
we are all creatures of what's best for us and
so que bona. And if you go from that premise

(09:11):
rather than from going uh, the chart says this, The
data says that you find out that the chart will
and the data will either confirm or contradict your initial thesis,
so inductive versus deductive reasoning and the reason I'm phrasing it, and.

Speaker 1 (09:26):
Then you want and then you wind up with also
compounding variables which then which are then inserted into theegeist
on purpose in order to lead you into the wrong direction,
which is what the intelligence agencies do, and they do
it across every idiom ever.

Speaker 2 (09:41):
But but what what your approach is actually harder I
think to do. And this is not a compliment, because
your approach can lead can if done improperly, we'll call that.
It's like it's like grassroots out. I look at his
grassroots out so great, meaning who benefits? And then you
just go out and you look for information and and
and that's hard for me to do as an approach,

(10:05):
because I will I will latch onto uh alphabet agencies
information and treat it like it's authentic, so I'll get lost.
So what works for me, and coming to similar conclusions
to you, is that I look at markets and market
structure and I go I wouldn't call it top down,
I go markets to intent. So I would say this, this, this,

(10:29):
and this happens, it hurts the US, it helps this
guy well, and I don't see the intent until it's over,
and I say, wait a minute. Either this is all random,
or gold goes down every day at eight am, you
know that's.

Speaker 1 (10:43):
So then I go, I wonder why.

Speaker 2 (10:46):
Either this is random or the UK gets get benefits
from everything that's going on geopolitically in the Middle East.
And that's where Tom says, well, Vince, it's not random.
So and then and then we get into it. But
but I think, I think, you know what, what what
Tom and I say, from different perspectives is this. I
see the UI back to the US and China. I
see the US and China as trying, maybe it's half heartedly,

(11:10):
but recognizing that the economic engine of the world will
no longer sustain the world in its current force, and
that China and the US both have equal stakes in
the world not blowing up. And Russia is not a
small player in this. So when I say China, I
implied the China Russia diad. There China Russia combo. And

(11:34):
and on a bad day, we're arguing in this divorce,
we're arguing over who gets what. And on a good day,
we're just taking turns going in and getting our furniture
out of the house while the other spouse is away,
and and but but the thing is and this is
what this is what? Right, this is what I'm talking

(11:57):
divorce here? Right obviously what's on my mind? Who do
I have to talk to in therapy? So well, that's
what happens when you marry a narcissist. But anyway, okay,
so so in me looking at this relationship, see that
this is where, this is where I come up with
this concept that I have to call Tom when I

(12:18):
go this and this. So you got the So for example,
China buys gold, the US does, and US buys gold,
China does it. China is releasing, ah does a US
dollar bond. It does really well. It's not the cure
for cancer, but it does really well. Russia announces yuan bond,
and I just make the joke to myself, I go,
wait a minute, wait a minute. China is getting liquidity
in dollars from the US, and Russia is getting liquidity

(12:40):
from China in yuan. And I just look at it
as a big circle. And it's all the same bond
market again, one way or another. Everybody's liquidity is tiedy in.
So whether you fucking like it or not, China needs
to use US dollars. They will continue to do that
and use it as a as a staple. And Russia,
which can't use you West dollars, is now using China

(13:02):
as their banker.

Speaker 1 (13:03):
So fourteen actually right right, wait, wait to your point.

Speaker 2 (13:08):
That's what I finished one thing, And and the nexus
is when I say that to Tom in a voice
note and he picks up the phone and he has time,
and he calls me and he goes, he goes, yeah,
and who's the odd man out? I go, You're He goes,
right now, I'm not looking at the negative space. I'm
focusing on the positive space. But Tom is starting at
the intense side. He's like, look at that, look at that.

(13:30):
And so it's so the thing is like, if you
want to look at it from a from a power
sharing it used to be America and Europe versus Russia
and China. So g you know, the West first to East.
But I think and I say I think only because
I thought about it in the context of liveboard A.
Sofaur on the context of the LBMA getting completely depleted

(13:54):
of metal, and on the fact that the stable coins
will further under my euro dollar that the US has
orphaned Europe, like, like the money we're giving the Ukraine
is like a severance pay to Europe. That's why they
have the conscription coming up. That's why they're all increasing
their budgets. That's like when so when Trump said, like, look,
I thought Trump was just being a lunatic when he

(14:14):
said we're out of NATO. No, it's happening. He's just
a messenger that idea has been coming for years because
it's not sustainable. So now I back up, and now
Tom's laying his stuff on me, and his stuff is
basically this, yeah, and and who gets in the way
of all this shit of this prevention. Look what on

(14:36):
a good day that China and China and the US
are fighting a world that's in the throes of deglobalization
and preventing a nation from getting left out, because that's
what starts a war, which, by the way, is what
happened that started World War One. We had a very
globalized economy. Tech was it. You know, you had steamships

(14:57):
flying beef from a fight, shipping be from Argentina to Europe.
That was a big deal. And then the visualization back
then collapsed, the Hungarian Austro Hungarian Empire, empires collapsed, the
successors to the Roman Empire collapsed. Nation states were born.
You had a complex uh, you had a collapse of complexity.

(15:18):
And because they didn't prepare for that properly, you had
one nation that was landlocked that got screwed, and that
was Serbia, and that was a hotbed forum for anarchism,
nationalist anarchism, and boom you had World War one star
and I think we're trying to avoid on some level
of World War three because it's bad for business. And
then and then and now now I'm gonna hand this

(15:41):
all back to Tom after I say this, And then
you have to look at it as those those four powers,
or in this case it's the US, you're Russia and China,
or let's say the chief seven versus one. Well, Europe
is the odd man out that their currency isn't tied
fiscally to their bond market. They're still not united, they
still don't have their ship together. And the epicenter of

(16:03):
Europe is the financialization. Now that Germany's UH economy has
gone to ship from letting all the industry export, so
the financialization that hub is in the UK, and when
you take that away, Europe is really really behind the curve.
And so I say, well, Europe is Europe is slowly

(16:24):
but surely realizing that they are existentially threatened, and so
they'll do I say Europe, so it means Europe in
the UK. Tom's going to focus on on the Ucunda.
I say Europe and UK, and they're they're fighting for
their survival, and they're scared to death of stable coins,
They're scared to death of l B m AB like there.

Speaker 1 (16:45):
They're scared to death of all these things. But thence
you're leaving out the most important part of the conversation
that we have with of course, I have, which goes
all the way back to the day that he and
I met on Tom Bogravic's Hellisa's Gold Radio space. Oh yeah,
I mentioned to him. And then you know, so Vince
came on and I'm like and I'm and I'm like
having a little bit of imposter syndrome at this point,

(17:05):
like because Vince comes down like a house on fire.
I'll be honest with you. When I listened to you
talk the first time, I was really intimidated I'm like,
oh my god, how am I gonna how do I?
How do I? How do I follow this act? Because
Vince is good, right, And I'm like, I don't know
this guy from Matt. I don't know what his I
don't know what his his his his perspective on the
world is or anything else. I have no idea if
he's gonna fight me, fight me bro, or if he's

(17:26):
gonna be like, oh my god, that's cool. And then
I come up and I say, look, at the end
of the day, in order for us to get through
any of this, and we have to we're gonna have
to throw We're gonna have to, you know, embrace Judy
Shelton's idea of a gold back charger rebond and and
Vince being Vince. And I found out immediately that Vince
was awesome because he didn't turn he didn't turn around

(17:48):
to try and shut me down as being the challenger.
He said, holy Christ, that's a great idea, and hey,
throw it down on the old curve. And then we
had a great conversation and the races and a friendship
was born. But what's important to understand is that this
is the end of the triangle trade. This is what
texted me or you know, sent to me the other
day and he said, I'm my crazy, I'm like, no,
it's the perfect triangle trade because a gold back treasury

(18:11):
bond is what collateralizes the entire system, right right, Okay,
Because what you were, what you said to me was
that look. And now we're watching them really start talking
up this idea of potentially putting their gold out on
the yield curve in some way, matter, shape or form,
and this whole schmoozing of Judy Shelton that she's not

(18:33):
out there doing a book tour anymore. What she's doing
is laying the groundwork and the foundation for a fundamental
change and the way the US treasury market is going
to trade. It's not going to go back to being
collateralized by hard assets. Stable coins are part of that
because bitcoin is also a hard asset, and there's going
to be no leverage if you read the Clarity Act

(18:53):
very carefully, there's no leverage in the stable coin market.
The stable coins that are issued themselves by local banks
could be levered up on a fractional reserve basis if
they want to, but they but they still have to
hold collateral against their stable coin reserves at a minimum
on collateralized.

Speaker 2 (19:13):
You know, it's the death of financialization. It's the death
of financial leverage because you have to actually have what
you say you have. You can't have a promise of
what you have down the road.

Speaker 1 (19:25):
Which is and Who's and and who is the epicenter
of financialization and infinitely hyppoflication of assets. I wonder do
I need to like spell it out? And you know,
you know, it's words that starts with L and n's
and n and it doesn't you know, and most of
them actually aren't.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
Juice Lebanon isn't in the UK, right.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
It's the Bank of Lebanon, whether it's whether it's fourteen
dollars worth of US Treasury reserves.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
Okay, yeah, yeah, you know, you know, if we can
get into it today, we will. But the Judy Shelton
bond thing, I just want to say very quickly, I
went from because I did a mini podcast for my
guys today from the feedback I got from you, and
we may not get into it because we have to

(20:12):
go through the whole other stuff, but understand that I'm
a very I'm very pro the Judy Shelton idea, and
I was, and I'm wholeheartedly I'm still wholeheartedly into it,
but there was a time period there where I backed
off because I had a conversation with someone who has
a unique perspective and he's and know, he's very similar

(20:33):
to me in mindset, but he always takes the opposite
when I argue. When I have a conversation with him,
and he' said, Vince that idea will never flew. And
I'm like, why, because it's a great idea. He goes,
He goes, no, dude, they all take our bonds, they
all take our bonds without gold. We're not going to
give them our fucking gold.

Speaker 1 (20:52):
You know.

Speaker 2 (20:53):
We may promise to give it to him fifty years
from now, but we're not going to give it to them.
It went under mineartry, and so I went back and
I thought, Michael, yeah, you're right. We're just too in
love with theat to actually admit that goal is important.
So Judy's idea won't happen, all right. So then a
couple months later I go back and I go, ah,
but what if there's a threat of someone else doing
it first? He goes, that were fucked because we're too

(21:16):
slow to react, and so that's what China is doing now.
So Judy's idea is out there. Book aside, right, idea aside.
I almost feel almost I feel that people like Judy Shelton,
and I say this respectfully, like Judy Shelton, and people
who have influence and who have good ideas are mandated

(21:37):
by the government to spread those ideas. Not directly mandated,
but mandated by the government to spread those ideas to
make the public more aware of them. Because eventually, eventually
the US will do what it needs to do to
keep its place in the world. But in order to

(21:58):
do that, it must do that domestically first, because if
the people don't understand it and don't accept it, we
can't facilitate it overseas. So, for example, stable coins are
the cure for I mean, let's pretend that stable coins
are perfect for this example of the Judy Shelton bond thing.
Stable coins are the cure for our problems, let's say.

(22:21):
And one of the byprodis of that is foreign currencies
will be destroyed. And that's what I wrote about this morning, Right,
foreign currencies will be destroyed. But why are we lobbying
for it so hard domestically because the American people have
to want it, because the American people do make the
laws in that sense, and once we want it, American
look at the rest of the world, specifically Europe, specifically

(22:43):
London and say, sorry, that's what the people want. Go
fund yourself. We're doing it, you know, So it gives
us cover. Now. The reason I say is because I'm
back to the concept of although I don't think we
want remember these are neo Kinsian Americans. I don't think
we want to have a gold bye. We have to
have it as a plan b It has to be there,

(23:03):
whether it's a gold bond for the rest of the
world to to compete with, which may or may not work,
or whether it's something for our people to have. First.
We have to have this out there, and the US
will do everything we can to preserve its global reserve
status by hook or by crook, And it actually starts
with things that help us internationally that the American public

(23:25):
will accept there and go.

Speaker 1 (23:27):
There's two things that came up while you were talking
that I was thinking that that that immediately popped into
my head that you and I haven't talked. There's one
we talk about tether tether now has heather Now holds
more gold on its BALANCEY than this Bitcoin or rush
treasure is one or the other, and the second one
is the following, which is that your note about competition

(23:50):
is interesting, not because you're right because China is going
to do it. What if it's not China, What is
the one player at the table who has access to
nearly twenty thousand tons of gold?

Speaker 2 (24:05):
Right? You mean it?

Speaker 1 (24:06):
You mean the Bank of England, I mean the ECB.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
Oh, fuck them, I mean I'm sorry this No. No.

Speaker 1 (24:12):
What I'm getting at, and what I'm getting at is
you're being reasonable.

Speaker 2 (24:15):
I'm being you here, and I'm saying, fuck them. They
don't have the technology to do it, they don't have
the brains to do it. They've let their vaults be empty.
The lbm A needs to crash and burn tomorrow, and
and they don't have the unity to do it. They
can't even fucking speak the same language over there.

Speaker 1 (24:30):
All right, So I know I'm not arguing you, but
if you want to, if you want an argue, if
you want a counter arguments of this as to why
the they're they're clearly pushing for political and fiscal control
through the European Commission, through the ECB and the b
IS and the and the IMF. That's their goal, right,

(24:54):
if we threaten a gold back bond with a triangle
trade between the Rush and why the Russians part of this?
With one of the questions that we have not answered.
You know all of this, but it should be obvious
to everybody. The United States and China are the two
industrial centers of po polls of industrial power in the world.
They have to drain London of the pricing leverage of

(25:15):
all of these strategic commodities that run their industrial economies.
And who's the guy getting fucked on price for all
the commodities that they're that that they're bringing into the
bringing into the world the Russians. If the Russians want
to be as a nuclear power and as a military
power and as the gateway and as the effectively as

(25:37):
the defender against Europe, the European cancer spreading again, right,
the Russians have to be dealt into the table, dealt
in here. And they're also the major commodity producer. And
when you reorient the globe away from the Eurocentric focus
of the globe and to either tilted towards the North Pole,
or tilted or or shifted to the Pacific Ocean. You

(26:00):
realize that Russia, United States, and China are the three
superpowers that need to coordinate, and Russia, being the massive
commodity producer, needs to have someone who is not their
mortal enemy help them get full pricing for their commodities.
They're still going to be effectively han honest by the

(26:22):
United States and Russia right in the United States in China,
but on much better terms. I want you to think
through now, we've had a big deal this week. This
is another thing just literally popped into my head. The
Russians kind of deal with Niger with in this year
over the future supply of what a thousand tons of
yellow cake or one hundred thousands of yellow care or

(26:43):
million tons of yeow cake, whatever the hell is, and
they paid nearly market price for them, as opposed to
the way the French have been strip mining that country
for years and getting and taking. Not only did they
give them a shit price like five cents on the
freakin dollar, they also took fifty percent of the take
on top of the five cents on the dollar, Like

(27:04):
it was a terrible terrible deal. The Russians just came
in and offered them like, you know, eighty percent of
the market price, and that's like a massive increase. And
of course the French are screaming that this is a
security issue and bah like okay, perfect example of what
I'm talking about here. The United States, China, access acxis

(27:25):
on this of this new global pricing for commodities is
to protect Russia's ability to generate wealth properly. And yes,
are they going to get are they going to get
the best terms? No, they're going to get much much
much better terms than they've been getting. Then they got
from Europe where putin sold gas and oil at a
fucking loss in order to keep them from in order

(27:48):
to placate them, to keep them from attacking them, and
then they just used that they just use that cheap
energy to then build up a fucking army in the
United States and Ukraine and the United States in order
to go fuck them anyway. Like this is the story
of the you know, in broad strokes of the last
thirty years since the end of and you know, I
don't I don't get I don't care ifter someone that

(28:08):
disagrees with me or not. That's my version of this
version of the history when you look at it from
the Russians perspective, and everything they say no correlates to that.
So understand that everything you've laid out here, it makes
sense that the United States has to be the one
that offers the gold and has to beat the ECB

(28:30):
to the punch, because clearly what they want is in
Europe is the start World War three collapse. All the
national governments give the ec give the European Commission taxes,
spend authority, create the digital Euro by twenty twenty nine,
and they're gonna and all they have to do is
they can back it with the eighteen and nineteen thousand
Hold on, hold on Holdly.

Speaker 2 (28:48):
You go, your holder, you go too fast? Hold on
hold hold, I need to go. I need to go
back a little bit because because I'm not sure if
I'm pushing back, no I disagree with if I disagree
with you, or if I disagree with your with your
toe meaning when you said the US in conjunction, like
access is the word you use the US, you made

(29:10):
it sound like the US is pro Russia getting the
best price. I don't see that, Like.

Speaker 1 (29:17):
You know what I mean like, as of right now,
as of right now told Ukraine Russia is settled and
the war is settled. Oh no, I absolutely see that
because what they're they're Russia is never going to get
a better They're not gonna get a better price in Europe,
right right, Okay, So whenever price they're going to get
is going to be better.

Speaker 2 (29:35):
So trilateral trade between Europe, I'm not Europe between the US, Russia,
and China will would normalize when this is over and
Europe is the odd man out. So I just want
to make sure you're not professing love for the Russian
U for for like I'm metaphorically speaking like you're saying,
this is what This is my interpretation of what I'm hearing.

(29:58):
China and the US are working together or at least
acknowledging each other's existence while they try and muddle through
this problem. China right now is in love with Russia.
Russia right now does not like the US. The US
seeks to renormalize relationships with Russia, and part of that
would be getting over this war and then these three
powers can have a Jenoa two conference and maybe we

(30:20):
get something normal again.

Speaker 1 (30:22):
And remember also that the Russians don't love the Chinese.
The Russians understand the Russians understand that they are, that
they are a marriage of convenience.

Speaker 2 (30:31):
Yes, oh please, that's a you know, to those not
old enough to know this. The whole reason the Petra
dollar exists and not the Petra help. The whole reason
that we had a deal with Malja Dung in nineteen
seventy six when Nixon visited was because China and Russia
were on the verge of fucking war and we needed

(30:53):
someone to buy our treasuries because we couldn't make shit anymore,
and so we cut a deal with China says, hey,
you hate Russia, we ate Russia. Buyer bonds, will buy
your stuff. And the whole, the whole post nineteen seventy
six to twenty twenty five twenty twenty economy of China
selling US goods and then spending the money on our

(31:14):
treasuries was born out of the Russian Chinese split, the
communist split. So yeah, it's you're right, it's a marriage
of convenience. You know, Russia is you know, depends on
who you look talking to, But Russia could be Asian,
it could be European and so it could be white,
could be yellow, depending on how you look at well.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
I mean again, I think you have to think about
Russia's Russia's geographical proximity tip up well to opening up
the entire So I'll take eleven time zones or something
like that. It's to all to opening up Central Asia
is And this is the thing. Central Asia has been
kept warring amongst itself by the British for three hundred years,

(31:59):
and we have to. And so Russia gets cut into
the seal. They're gonna get a great price for their commodities,
as is Afghanistan, as is everybody else, because the infrastructure
will be will be opened up for all of these countries,
for all the former Soviet stands, for everybody else, from Mongolia,
all of it. There's all this, there's all this wealth
that could be generated in you know, could that could

(32:21):
be you know, dug up and built into something, into
into beautiful things if not for the incessant warring and
the incessant you know, tall poppy. We gotta talk about
the CCP being like you know, everybody in trying to
having a tall poppy syndrome. You stick your head up.
They cut it off. No, no, no, the fucking British perfected
that model. That's their geopolitical model. You know, as we

(32:43):
as well as as we as we fall down, we
have to take everybody down with us until we can
always and always maintain the superior status through financialization. Right
to your point, this is the reversal of the financialization process.
The Russians get to be the get Like at the
end of the day, the Russians really are the hard collateral,

(33:04):
the source of the hard collateral. Yeah, that the United
States is going to collateralize to the gold the gold
back bonds, which is why Russia gets to be dealt
into the delta.

Speaker 2 (33:12):
Right, So it is it is kind of like a
three way prisoner's dilemon in that sense. That to your
to your point that China is a marriage of convenience
with Russia. So China is looking at Russia going, you
know what, we want to be partners with them for
now because they're a nuclear power. We don't have a
fucking nuclear power on our board with a problem. So
let's be partners with them and until we get We
went out of the US, and the US is looking
at China and going, I guess we should work with
China until we can, you know, figure out a way

(33:35):
to substitute for oil and and and really like everybody
is out for themselves, but but everybody is is uh
recognizing the other person's weakness. You know, you said, I
want to I want to talk about for a second.
It's not a digression, but it's related. Uh. You you
know when you when you started you know, not starting,

(33:55):
but you've been doing this for a while. But when
you started, uh when when it started thinking? It actually
started with the sofa liber thing. When you said when
I saw lib Or go to sofa, I said, oh,
you know, big deal, We're fixing the manipulation of Libor.
That's what I said. And I moved on right right,
So and then for as as we got to know

(34:17):
each other a little bit better, and you paid me
some compliments and and and I'm going to say that
same exact things back to you. Your perspective has has
changed mind. And so I'm going to give everyone who's
not familiar with it. Why why I I agree with
Tom on on the UK stuff.

Speaker 3 (34:35):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (34:35):
When Tom was saying to me, uh so for lib
Or so for liber I was like, yeah, no, big deal.
It's just but you know, as Tom went on, I
started to understand what he was saying. And the reason
that I paid attention was not because of his sparkling
wit and conversation, which it could be a reason of itself.
But I had a friend, a British friend, years ago

(34:56):
before I was ready to understand this. This is all
I was. I'm ready to understand it, but he knew
it as a brit and we were talking about the
Iraqi War two. It was like right after Iraqi War two.
And I said, God, you know, I was completely American.
Saddam Hussein YadA, YadA, YadA. We should have got him
the first time. We shouldn't have let him go in

(35:16):
the Kuwait. And I was pretty advanced in my thinking
in the concept that, you know, the Kurds, we backed
the Kurds, and George bush Won fucked them and then
they anyway, So I'm going into all that American geopolitics.
And he looked at me just like laughing, and he said,
he said, Vince, you know whose fault this all is?
This is twenty years ago before I was ready to

(35:37):
hear it. I go, whose fault is it? It's a
British God. He goes, it's the British and I go why.
I go why, I don't know anything about it, right, right,
right right. So he pulls out a map and he goes,
you see that, we're talking about Iraq now a rak Kuwait.
He goes, you see that. I go yeah. He goes, well,
I'm completely ignorant in this field. Now, I'm a math

(36:01):
derivatives focused dat I got right. So he's opening me
up to the British view of geopolitics. This is why
that I love Tom so much. So this guy goes
like this. He goes, see this map here. I go. Yeah.
He goes, you know before World War One, you know
what that was that area and he points to Kuwait.
He goes, that was a rack. I go what do

(36:22):
you mean? He goes, well, you notice how a rack
has no access to the ocean. I go, yeah, well
that's because the fucking British went in and carved out Kuwait.
I mean, I don't have it exactly wright, but this
is his words. He goes, the British would come into
a nation and after they conquered it, they would divide
it along ethnic line so they could keep power and
so kuwait access to the water are rack? Now He's like, oh,

(36:45):
you're like, I'm not a fantas animos saying, but all
he was doing was trying to reunite a rack to
what it used to be. And then he goes, he goes, see,
see Indian Pakistan, we did that. We drew a line
down the middle and said fuck you. And then he
would go into it like this is crazy ship Like
I thought, had to start reading old Rudyard Kipling once
I once I once I learned. He would say to

(37:08):
me Tennessee, yeah, yeah, exactly, tennis Tennessee. Uh but Tennyson
was a patriot. Tipling fucking was you know, uh no,
I'm sorry, George Orwell and rugger kid early George Orwell
about his days in India Burmese days. It's fucking fascinating.

Speaker 1 (37:24):
And then and then he got picked up I six,
and you know, yeah, all right, well, but.

Speaker 2 (37:30):
Let me finish this point, let me take this another
step further, which is why I listened so closely, and
and I don't go he's crazy when he says it.
And so the guy's still talking to me, and I go, well,
how do they do that? How do they win how
do they win, is what I asked. He said, well,
what what the UK would do is it will go
into a country with a large majority of people that

(37:51):
was in control. So it was a populist generally speaking.
You go and you find out who's in power and
generally speaking, with the majority of people. So for example,
let's say it's a Muslim country that's eighty percent Shia
and twenty percent Suoni. Because what they would do is
they would go in, they would arm the twenty percent yep,

(38:13):
and put the twenty percent in power over taking the
eighty percent, and now you have predominantly Shia country run
by Sunnies, back by by by the UK. He goes,
we would give them the guns to fight the majority,
and we would. That was the whole Shia Sudhi split.
They did it in Indian Pakistan and Hindus and they
would just go in, who's the majority, Okay, the majority

(38:35):
is in control, Okay, who's the minority. Here's a gun,
go fucking kill them, and we'll back the whole.

Speaker 1 (38:41):
The whole point is to take a minority and and
and and amplify the grievance. It's grievance politics, right, They
did the same thing to the South here in the
United States, right over the tariffs, over everything else. They
set the situation up for the South to hate the North,
you know, with the and then the North responds with

(39:02):
tariffs because the because the British were under were making
it impossible for the South to sell directly to the North.
They had to sell their their primary the primary goods,
their commodities to British textile mills who could undercut anything
that was happening and you know, and undercut Philadelphia or
New York or whatever. And then so what did the

(39:23):
Northern States have to do though, like, well, we're you know,
we're putting a tariff on you know, these goods. And
then that, of course then starts turning into the states
rights issue, and then they started doing this and then
and then the British, you know, amplified the the abolitionist
movement here in the United States in order to get
the North to hate the South. So you arm both

(39:45):
sides of the conflict. And then, as my friend Alex
Kraner likes to point out, right ants, black ants, put
them in a jar, shake them up and watch him fight,
which is exactly what the Civil War was from different
from different perspectives. And so they're doing the same thing
now in the United States as they're And by the way,
you know, I've always been saying this, you know, this
India not India. When they leave India, they leave Pakistan behind.

(40:05):
When they when they formed CYC, when they left the
Middle East, officially, they they drew up with the French
likes peacock, which no one voted on. But all of
a sudden he rolled the new borders for all these countries,
which spread the herds up in the four different nations
and all the rest of it. By the way, and
I've been saying this now for a while, and they
did the same thing with the United States and Canada.
Canada was set up as an antipode to the United

(40:28):
States after the Revolutionary War. Okay, the loyalists from the northeast,
the British loyalists in the northeast, fucked off and took
over to the Toronto area, which at that point was
nothing but a bunch of fur trappers. And that's where
the that's where this is from what I understand from Canadians.

(40:49):
That's where the term the lawn and the elites come from.
That's who runs the freaking government up there.

Speaker 2 (40:54):
So the loyalists to the crown after the Revolutionary War
migrated a little bit north.

Speaker 1 (40:59):
They marked migrated to Canada. And then they and and
then the British kept backing them and building them up,
and so the same thing and then and then and
then thirty years later we get the War of eighteen
twelve where the you know, the Canadians still you know,
delude themselves into thinking that they're world power because they,
you know, helped the British sack Washington and we could

(41:21):
take them over tomorrow with four tanks and a plane.

Speaker 2 (41:24):
But that's interesting, so so so.

Speaker 1 (41:26):
In some rejects from the special forces because there's no
because you know what we're what we're gonna get the
r c MP have fun. I'm looking at buy them
off with a six pack of moosehead and you know,
but you can let me.

Speaker 2 (41:38):
Just so basically to add to my my my UK friend,
so to codify what he what he taught me is
you're basically saying, uh, find out who the majority is,
find out who the minority is, amplify the grievance of
the minority, armed the minority, and then take control.

Speaker 1 (41:55):
And then start the color revolution process, and then amplify
the grievance of the other God and then then demonized
the then demonized the minority that you've already armed with
some other with some other other.

Speaker 2 (42:08):
Arms, almost like conquer and divide.

Speaker 1 (42:11):
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's the.

Speaker 2 (42:15):
Absolutely and then keep them divided.

Speaker 1 (42:17):
Yes, conquer and that's.

Speaker 2 (42:19):
Interesting, yeah, and so so and it happens. Let me
go back to my I'm sorry.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
No, I'm just gonna say that that's the that's the model.
That's where we are and and it's everywhere. And one
of the things about World War One that has to
be has to be you know, talked about, is that
the goal of World War One was to destroy both
the Russian and the Ottoman Empire.

Speaker 2 (42:40):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (42:41):
And it largely succeeded. And and that happened because the
British had a huge hand in the rise of Woodrow Wilson. No,
Herbert Hoover always get that wrong. Yeah, No, Woodrow Wilson. Yeah,

(43:01):
it's thirty two and twelve. Yeah, it's Wilson and Wilsony
and Wilson.

Speaker 2 (43:05):
What if to spread capitalism?

Speaker 1 (43:07):
Wilson wanted to spread globalism, right, he was a he
was a he was a UK Yeah, through and through.

Speaker 2 (43:16):
Definitely the first Cup.

Speaker 1 (43:18):
Yeah, yeah, if you want to put it in that,
in those terms, and and then that's what you know
and and that and that is what colors all of
this stuff. That's why we got observed, why we got
the seventeenth amendments, why we got the income tax, why
we wound up with at the end of Wilson's our
end of U. Yeah, Woodrow Wilson's term, we wound up

(43:38):
with involved in World War One, with British foreign policy
and a British Central Bank and a British taxing system.

Speaker 2 (43:45):
Right, that's true, that's true. The League of Nations failed,
it had no teeth and uh, you know, I mean
it's another conversation. But the only study I've dought in
Woodrow Wilson is that he was like an evangelical evangelical
who was described as an evangelical spreader of democracy and
that meant war like he But that's why I say

(44:07):
the Neo contact. You know, he ended up being he
ended up being a tool of the UK in that respect.

Speaker 1 (44:15):
I don't think he was. I don't think he was
a tool. I think he was a willing accomplice. I
think he was the first. I think he was the
first truly trader's president. Right now, they go back over it.
That's what I think. So and Teddy Roosevelt was his
willing accomplish.

Speaker 2 (44:30):
So now you're over my head. Now I'm not going
to work.

Speaker 1 (44:32):
Well, how do you get take of the bull moose party?
He wrote, Roosevelt split the Democrats supposed to plit the
Republicans in order to allow Wilson to come to pald.

Speaker 2 (44:40):
I don't know my history there. I'm just going to say, yes,
you're right, I don't know my history there. I don't
know my history there.

Speaker 1 (44:45):
That's fine, you're right. Yeah, I'm throwing it out there.
You can tell me I'm wrong, and that's fine. Everybody
needs to revisit all of these people and their roles
in history from a different perspective, because there again, history
is not written by the winners per se. It's written
by those who have the you know, who have access
to the printing press and who has access to the media.

(45:05):
And British media has dominated, and the British media and
the British the really the European media and its industrial base,
you know, of the nineteenth century and in the early
twentieth century was so powerful that it, you know, clouds

(45:25):
everything and and it's hard for us to think think otherwise.

Speaker 2 (45:30):
So I want to give you a current event about
the British media or the European media. Sure h Earlier
in the year, there seemed to be a complete like
deluge of research from my end and from news that
we could all see coming out of well I'm not

(45:52):
gonna say what's coming out of yet, but it was
basically this the dollar is dead, the dollarization is happening.
They're selling true and this is what was happening. Was
the dollar was down, but treasuries were down and stocks
and it was like we had that problem door near
right right leading into April and and and the narrative
that bloomed around it was legitimate. And a narrative was

(46:14):
if the dollar is down and bonds are down and
stocks are down, and there's a capital flight out of
the US, and that's mathematically true. How big it is,
no one knows. But what I started noticing I had
seen a couple of uh good reports talking about why
it was happening. You know, what was a plumbing report.
I'm like, Hey, that's good, I understand that. And but

(46:35):
and then I saw another one that said why it
should happen, how America sucks, without saying how America sucks.
And then I started reading the headlines, and all the
headlines that were that were a death of the dollar
were Deutsche Bank, uh sock gen the French banks were

(46:56):
really bad. Ye, right, And then it was Reuters, which is.

Speaker 1 (47:02):
Right, and Financial Times, and I would.

Speaker 2 (47:04):
Not have looked at it. I would not have sliced
the world that way. He sliced the apple that way
had we not had our conversations, because I was like, like,
there's a there's an analystan Deutsche Bank. He's he's a
he's a he's he's essentially an FX schooler, and zero
head will write about him when he had he's got
great stuff. And so I'm reading that and I'm going,
wait a minute, that's right, that's right, that's right. I'm like, Okay,

(47:24):
this guy's objected, he's not biased. I'm with him, right,
And then I read something else I go, yeah, but
kind of shittier. And then one day, about a month later,
I started seeing Michael Hartnett, who works for Bank of
America Cio, who's an American who's a patriot. Out of nowhere,
he doesn't right this way, He'll just be like, this
is this, is this is this, And then out of

(47:46):
nowhere he'll say and by the way, I've been looking
and I've seen absolutely no sign of foreigners pulling money
out of US treasuries. And I'm like, why would he
say that? And I realized that's when I went back
to when we talked about it, that the European Union
was unioned against the dollar and they were negotiating with us.

(48:06):
And the reason I bring that up so you can
continue with this, is it's happening. It just started happening again. Yes,
it started happening again. And and it's funny how it
happens at the same time that China does something as well,
so kind.

Speaker 1 (48:19):
Of like it's also really it's also really interesting that
happens in the minute that Trump wins a major battle
against his domestic enemies.

Speaker 2 (48:27):
Oh really, I didn't see that, Jimmy, watch give me
an example.

Speaker 1 (48:30):
I he just he just got He just took care
of the shutdown without giving the Democrats anything. Back in
back in March and April, it was all leading up
to the tariff tantrum. What I noted, and I've been
noticing in the in the t C report as I
as it comes out every month, is that the Bank
of England and the Bank of Canada common denominator Mark Kearney.

Speaker 2 (48:54):
Yeah one shorts in the other covers and they just
keep yeah yeah yeah.

Speaker 1 (48:57):
So one selling and then and handing them money money
over to the Bank of England, and the Bank of
England sends them selves it back to the Bank of
Canada and they do this play and there and they're
playing in the tens, in the thirty space, probably playing
also in the twenties, but the twenties are so liquid
that I you know what I mean, It would be
the perfect place actually for them to bomb markets because
you can play in the twenty space because it's so liquid.

(49:18):
But let's just talk in the ten thirty space because
that's where it matters. So you watch the ten thirty spread,
which is why I break the Holy Yield curve down
one month, two month spread, two month, three months spread.
I break it down by spread all the way out
to the ten thirty spread, and you can see that
they so that you can like watch the bear steep
inner trade happening, or the or the or the bowl
flatten or whatever you want to call it, where it

(49:38):
all starts, right, but it's but now as opposed to
having a Treasury Secretary of Janet Yellen out there selling
twos and ones and twos in order to bias the
ten the long end of the and then allow the
guard to play with the long end of the curve.
Right now, we're just having the Bank of England do
it itself because you know, Besson's not doing that. Best

(50:00):
not gonna be manipulating the inversion of our yield curve
between six months and three years. He's not gonna He's
not going to amplify the he has no reason to
amplify the the yield curve inversion in the belly of
the yield curve, he would be wanting to see that
flat and in order to give cover for his for
his patriot. So now watching the six month one year

(50:24):
inversion dip while the ten thirty spread is blowing out there,
sell the thirties and they're buying ones.

Speaker 2 (50:30):
Right right right.

Speaker 1 (50:32):
It's not that tough, folks, it really isn't. And there's
no capital flight. So they've also heavily concentrated through re
hypothication and leverage into the MAG seven, leaving the S
and P four ninety three behind. So whenever they want
to engineer a panic like they did on Friday, we're
doing this on Saturday morning. All you have to do

(50:52):
is sell some of the mag seven, sell some thirties,
sell a little bitcoin, and then use the proceeds and
that the bomb gold, right, which is exactly what they
fucking did. Or it was actually the Americans selling gold
in order to hand the market off to China next
week at ninety dollars off announced of Chinese and then
turn around and bid it right back up again and

(51:14):
fuck London even harder. It can be either of those
things in cold or it could be a combination of
all of these things.

Speaker 2 (51:19):
Oh, it's a game. It's a game of tennis. You know.
You said a couple of things that I that I
want to if I could, just because I know my
people will be listening to this as well, And I
want to write, I want to, uh paint a little
bit of a picture. You're talking about the yield curve, right,
and and we talk about that a lot, but I
don't use that terminology and I just want to I
think some people might benefit from this. The the there's

(51:40):
two cuts actually talked about the the Bank of canaon
the Bank of England. I'm going to confirm how that happens. Right,
So with with with the floor trader analogy, and and
and then and then uh, and then I want to
for a second just talk about the yield curve. You know. Uh,
the the moreteresting part is the first part.

Speaker 1 (52:01):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (52:02):
When and if I'm not phrasing, if I'm not rephrasing
what you're saying properly, let me know. But it seems
to me that you're saying that the Bank of Canada
and the Bank of England are coordinated in bombing the
market when they want to get something done. And so
ultimately right, Okay, so now let me say, so I

(52:22):
got I read you're right. So now let me explain
what that is to people who don't get that. When
I was on the floor, there was a broker, and
the broker was known to handle Goldman Sachs's business. And
it doesn't have to be Goldman's asking me anyway. He
was known to handle Bank of you know, Astro America's

(52:42):
business and bank of astro America would bid on the
floor in size I'm a buyer of silver a thousand contracts,
and then someone across the ring I would see these
things happen, would come out of the booth and sell
him one thousand, and the market would just drop because

(53:03):
that thousand lot contract on the floor was being viewed
right there as support. And someone takes a thousand lots
out in one trade, that's a sign that there's more
to come. So the bid is getting So think about
this with the bond market. The bid is getting what
that's a signal. So here's the bid, here's the ask,
and we call that crossing the bid. Ask I buy here,

(53:26):
you sell. Their retail buys the ask. Retail hits the bid.
Institutions don't do that. Institutions park their spot right. So
now what we found out later is that on multiple
times Bank of astro America was bidding through a broker
that had assignment said Bank of astro America on it,
and Bank of astro America's other division on the other

(53:48):
side was hitting the bid. What's called a self we
call it self dealing, right, trading with yourself to give
the impression that it's bearish, So a conflict of interest
is what it really is. But there would be a
Chinese wall or an artificial division there that will allow
them to go, Oh, that's the bank, and that's the
bank's customer who clears at the bank, who's invested in

(54:10):
buy the bank. Oh, they're painting the tape lower. And
by the way, it would go lower, so they would
paint the market lower that way. So I give you
an example in real estate. If you want a house's
value to go up, Now, I'll mind you there's a
lot of houses, so you can't do it with just
one house. You what's the price of the house five
hundred thousand? So you buy it a five hundred thousands,

(54:32):
and you sell them back to yourself a five hundred
and twenty. Then you sell back to your seven five
hundred and forty. And the point is you self deal
all the way up or all the way down. For
I know China could be doing that with gold, but
I do believe that when banks want to make the
US look like it's not doing so well. And I'm
saying I know this phenomenon exists, it has existed forever,

(54:52):
and it's called self dealing. And what you're essentially saying
is that England will self deal or deal with some
of they have influenced over back and forth, so that
ultimately the losses are a wash trade. You lost the money,
we made the money. You know, we'll we'll give you
a tax break or something. That's what you're saying, right.

Speaker 1 (55:11):
And yeah, yeah, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. And
then note that while they were like trying to ramp
up into the into the end of October, this idea
that there was gonna be a credit market stress in
the United States, right, and they were they were setting
the table for that, because you can't do this into
a vacuum. You've got to set you got to set
the market on edge. You've got to get the algorithms
to read all these headlines and be primed to sell

(55:33):
and piggyback on the on the sale. So what happened
And then so Andrew Bailey came out and said something,
and then Financial Time said something, and there were a
host spate of things in the in the British slop
fucking shit ship bag Press and the BBC and oh
all all the way down the line. And then the
Fed came out and counter programmed, and the FED came

(55:54):
out with that white paper that said, oh the Caymans
though control four hundred and twenty billion dollars for the treasure,
there's one point four trillion running around and the basis
trade over there. That's the FED going, I see you,
fuck off you take if you try to take out
our markets, we're going to fuck you in the ass,
right right, Okay, that's no different than what they tried

(56:15):
because because this time, because again I go back to
what happened in.

Speaker 2 (56:18):
Well, stop a second. The basis trade is the mechanics
of the self dealing that you're talking about. Yes, okay,
I want everybody hear that.

Speaker 1 (56:26):
Yeah, that's that's important because what they or they use
the basis trade in the yeah, in the financial press
to make everybody feel smart. Because now all of a sudden,
we stated a holiday inn expressed last night, and we
learned a new term, and we all get to learn
how how important the basis trade is. This is what
they did in fucking during the tariff tantrum. They seated

(56:50):
zero hedge and all these places, and everybody's reading all
this stuff, but the basis trade is blowing up. I
saw half I got. I got sent from my people
half a dozen, not a dozen, different fucking YouTube videos
from channels they'd never heard of that all of a
sudden out of in the last six months, got one
hundred thousand new subscribers, all explaining and great, great terms,
why sofa versus io RB are blowing out, Why this

(57:13):
is happening, Why that's happening. All this shit's going on.
And I'm like, and during the tariff tantrum, I almost
fell for this. I started going down that rabbit hole.
And then I had a guy like me, like you,
like you, who was selling who? None of who? Who who? Who?

Speaker 3 (57:29):
Pinged me?

Speaker 1 (57:30):
And you know, I think it was either a Twitter
DM or he's a or he was a patron with
a Patreon DM A long freaking pay. He said, Tom,
they're not attacking the basis trade is not doing this.
They're attacking the sofa strip, the three months, the six month,
the three six months out so for futures contract, that's
what they're attacking. But they're making you look. They're making

(57:52):
you look for the basis trade. But that's not what
the basis trade is blowing out because they're attacking the
sofa strip. I know, I trade the sofa.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
Strip right right.

Speaker 1 (58:01):
And then I went I looked, and of course, because
I charted the sofa futures contract all the time. Every
day when I do my market reports for my people,
I look at the sofa futures curve and I and
I and I update all the internal yield spreads within
the US yield curve because I'm constantly in that. I know,
I mean, I have a bookmark that I have a

(58:21):
permanent opening, like the permanent have opened for the three
months sover futures contract quote on the SIMAX. So what
did I do. I went in and I started looking
at the charts, and during that five day period, the
fucking sofa market, the futures market were moving ten fifteen
to twenty five basis points an hour.

Speaker 2 (58:40):
Yeah, I know, I know, I know.

Speaker 1 (58:43):
So there's the there was theirs, there were the physics
there there there it all was. And then the minutes
that and then Trump. Then you know what Trump does.
He lets them shoot their fucking wide and then four
days later he goes, yeah, I'll back off on the tariffs.
And then they had to create. And then after they
got hot and they got fucked, then they had to
create the next month, the next Monday, then they created

(59:04):
the taco trade. Did you notice that one that I
came into our frier came into our language all of
a sudden, the taco trade. Trump will you know, reverse
himself onto.

Speaker 2 (59:14):
A chickens out? Yea, that that acronym is stuck. It's
still out there.

Speaker 1 (59:18):
I know it's still out there, and it's bullshit.

Speaker 2 (59:21):
Oh it's not you. You and I I don't fucking
think Trump is that fucking sharp, you know, Like.

Speaker 1 (59:27):
I think that Trump is I think that trumpet Puss,
Besson plus Powell, Puss, all of these people together, like, yeah, yeah, the.

Speaker 2 (59:34):
Tact dolls that smart in my opinion, right, So.

Speaker 1 (59:37):
Yeah, yeah, No, I think I think Trump is pre
I think Trump is instinctually smart. Trump is a very
intuitive guy. He reads intention really well. Besson's the one
that's plotting all this ship, like Powell's thinking three moves
ahead on these people.

Speaker 2 (59:52):
Yeah, I think I think I think Pal's actually I
think Pal's willing be a good job of letting the
market bring itself out, like everybody, like just speak about
it from a macro point of view. The last like,
right now, we're in a situation where if you're talking
to a macro person. This is this is going to
be about how I think Pal's actually potentially doing it

(01:00:13):
right here. I mean, so when Powell announced that he
was going to uh stop QT, which I don't agree with,
but he's going to stop QT December first, uh the first,
the market initially took it as bullish because it was dubbish,
and then the market started to sell off. And it
seems like, uh that if you want to give the

(01:00:34):
market a personality, the market participants are testing the fed's
ability to keep their deadline at December first, like they
maybe maybe we can get them to stop QT in
the middle of November, and and doing so that would
show that the fed's credibility is weaker. It would also
show that the FED is a little bit nervous. And

(01:00:56):
and this is also that's behavingly what I'm seeing, and
it's tying in with the bad press that's coming out
now true and by one more sense and and and
I think people that are talking Palace going to cave,
Palace going to cave. As a person who will say
that once in a while, uh, I don't think Pal

(01:01:18):
caves anymore. And I don't think Pal cave's to anyone
anymore because he's letting the market wring itself out. So
mind you, mind you, He'll he'll still cave if he
has to, but it won't be as obvious like BTFP
was a cave. Uh uh yield careve control, which will
come in directly as a cave. But he's not going
to just do what they want. He's going to do

(01:01:38):
something else. I don't know what it is. But if
we come in like what did he do today? What
did they do on Friday? The stock market tested him
and the plunge protection team, the Exchange Stabilization Fund came
in and bought it. That's what I think among other people.
But they said, we're not going to give you the
policy decision you want. We're just going to stabilize the
market until December. First, go fuck yourself, and then we'll

(01:01:59):
do stop.

Speaker 1 (01:02:01):
And then there's another angle on the whole. And this
is an interesting angle that I'm just starting to explore.
And I don't have a mechanism in my head for this,
but right with the shutdown ending, yeah, now I want
to bring in the mortgage backed securities that are on
the Fed's balance sheet. Okay, and I think this is
going to feel like a digression, but it's not, because

(01:02:21):
the shutdown is all about the the the taking Fanning
and Freddy out of conservatorship, re establishing the traditional thirty
year mortgage and now potentially the fifty year mortgage that
Trump is now talking about. Now let let me let me,
let me cook here for just a second. Sure, the
Fed's got a ton of mortgage backed security is still
on their balance sheet. You take Fanning and Freddy out

(01:02:44):
of conservatorship, you change the the the basis of how
the market, the mortgage market in the United States, is
going to operate. We're gonna, We're gonna, you know, and
when this happens, most of the Dodd Frank responsibility, the
changes to the god Frank capitals are going to go
way because Fanning Freddy will no longer be constrained by
that stuffs as in that respect, this is what's being

(01:03:07):
fought with fucking hard. I fir firmly believe that the
that's stopping the Clarity Act, that stopping Fanning and Freddie
I po are two of the subplots to the Democrats
disaster shutdown, because at that point, then all those mortgage
backed securities that are un the Fed's balance sheet. There
may be a market for them again, right, and if so,

(01:03:29):
then the FED can naturally allow them to roll They're
not going to just roll them off the balance sheet.
They may be able to actually sell them into the market, right,
And if so, the FED can start the process of
actually de leveraging the size of its balance sheet that way.
And that's why he's ending quote unquote QT because the
market may wind up being kids the next phase of QT.

(01:03:52):
And by doing that, Okay, and again this is Nasson,
So I may have some of this wrong. I'm now
throwing this stuff out there for people to chew on,
including yourself and the people listening. Then the next phase
of this is as follows, which is what did Powell
do at the last meeting? He did exactly what I
hoped he would do, which is to throw a little

(01:04:13):
bit of ambiguity into the market by saying, you know,
I may be done cutting rates when everybody was assuming
that he was done, that he wasn't done cut that
he wasn't. What I wanted him to do was I
don't believe for a second he's not going to cut
twenty five basis points in December. That's not the point.
The point is to now stop holding the market's hand. Yeah,

(01:04:34):
that's what he has to do on his way out
the door, because he has to set the table for
the next bedchair to be able to find their decision
space and define and started to find the market, start
to define the communications space as well. So he's starting
the process of doing exactly the thing that Powell doesn't do,
which is holding market's hand, which she's done since COVID.

Speaker 2 (01:04:53):
Right, right, right, right.

Speaker 1 (01:04:54):
Even though he even though he almost always at Jackson Hole,
makes a major policy decision which is a turn right
that the market wasn't expecting, like getting rid of the
two two percent inflation target rule.

Speaker 2 (01:05:07):
Okay, let me let me say.

Speaker 1 (01:05:09):
It's a terrible thing, and I'm glad he did. The
two percent inflation was terrible. It was always a bad
it was always that's because of f.

Speaker 3 (01:05:16):
A I T.

Speaker 2 (01:05:16):
They had a rule that they changed. I'm not excusing him,
but they had this f for Financial average inflation target,
and so you could say the idea was was we're
going to average two percent. It's okay to be at
three percent because we'll be at one percent and average
will be A two and so that what that does
is immediately gives you more latitude on the field curve,

(01:05:38):
not field curve, on your on your on your time frame.
And so what they abandoned the two percent target this
year when they abandoned F A I T. They didn't
say that. But I want to ask you a question
about a phrase that youse, so I can understand what
you're talking about a little better.

Speaker 3 (01:05:53):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:05:54):
One of the first things you said in that little
that little this new idea that you're talking about is
uh defed ends QT and you implied that it would
be replaced by something else. There is a market for
these securities. Yeah, okay, So are you saying that there's

(01:06:15):
going to be I don't understand that. So he's gonna
end QT because he recognizes there'll be another Uh, there'll
be another buyer.

Speaker 1 (01:06:22):
He doesn't have the right workers one is QT q
T is just allowing these things to mature and then
and then not rebuying them and I shrinking the balance
you that way?

Speaker 2 (01:06:30):
Right?

Speaker 1 (01:06:30):
What if he shrinks the balance you by actually having
marketable securities? Again, that's not that's not QT. No.

Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
Where the Fanny and Freddy come from is what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (01:06:40):
Yeah, and when Fanny and Freddy come back onto the market,
and we and and I don't understand, I don't necessarily
know the mechanism for this or whatnot. But I was
as I was doing some work yesterday and I was
I was starting to it was starting to pop it.
And then something really started to to shake out of
this that there's there's gonna be there's a potential here,
or that you're going to unfunck the market, the mortgage

(01:07:02):
market that was seized during the two thousand financial.

Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
Right, okay, hold on, hold on, so so so during
the Great Financial Crisis and COVID, but during the Great
Final actually a great financial crisis, because this is about
this about the mortgage backs. Right, we essentially commandeered the
mortgage market. We captured it, We prevented it from having
free market price discovery, and that has been under lock

(01:07:29):
and key for a decade now, essentially almost two right,
almost too right, exactly right, wow, right, right, because he
hasn't really, he didn't sell any mortgage backs. He's just
waiting for him.

Speaker 1 (01:07:38):
Yes, yes, hashle some by the way, No, No, I'm with you,
I'm with you.

Speaker 2 (01:07:43):
I'm not going to Battrack. So so essentially what you're
potentially contending, what you're thinking about now is is he
can afford to stop QT, and he may have to
stop QT anyway, but he can afford to stop QT
because the mortgage back market will be marketized again and

(01:08:05):
the market will set the price and that will take
care of the QT for him, is what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (01:08:10):
Yes, that's kind of what I'm saying. And if he
sells these things into the marketplace out and then then
we finally actually get to marked the market on some
of these ones, we get something, we got to mark
the market on some of these mornings backed securities and
some of these and some of these things. And here's
the thing that that I think everybody's missing. Who gets
fucked in that.

Speaker 2 (01:08:30):
I don't know. You're gonna tell me the UK, I'm
gonna say yes, but I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:08:33):
No. I think it's private equity UK private and private
equity is like they're they're the ones that we're actually
had to we had to protect here.

Speaker 2 (01:08:46):
I'm not challenging, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:08:47):
I'm just saying, I'm.

Speaker 2 (01:08:49):
All the fucking bonds underwater right right right right, They're
the ones who've been bailed out because their bonds, right exactly, exactly, Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:08:56):
And remember this is the you know, so when you
start to when you start to like put all this together,
you're like, why are they fighting so fucking hard to
stop Banning and Friday from coming out of conservatorship. Why
are they fighting this? Because here's what here's what I
think is coming. And this is to wrap this up

(01:09:17):
and why the exciting incident for this podcast with our
conversation the other day, right were the the the Dane
a month for this is where I'm going, which is
Trump in the fifty year mortgage and the great in
this quote unquote great American mortgage company. When I'm when
I'm postulating now is that they're fighting the real the

(01:09:40):
recapitalization of the middle class, because the cool ox need
to be destroyed as opposed to recapitalize so fricking hard.
And I think that what Trump is targeting and why
he's started the process of yelling at Powell about lower
and raising lower goddamn ra get that why, Because he
wants to say mortgages to starter homes that are getting

(01:10:02):
built in these in these places where they are in factories,
to that they're putting in place in all this reindustrialization. Right,
he wants to put people like my daughter into two
hundred thousand dollars starter homes at three percent for fifty years, right, right, right,
That is how two kids making sixteen to seventeen bucks
an hour in average freaking jobs for five years they

(01:10:26):
can afford that house. He can. Then he'll you know,
become an electric He'll go from an electricians apprentice to
you know, the journeyman. He'll be able to start charging
thirty thirty five bucks an hour. She can go stay
at home, raise a couple of rug rats. They can
start the American.

Speaker 2 (01:10:40):
Degree, proper reindustrialization of America. It's not the fucking rat, Ai.

Speaker 1 (01:10:45):
Boyd, Right, it's the end that is going to be
a blow market rate mortgage. While private equity gets fucked
and has to pay a higher cost of capital to
recapitalize the fucking kids. He's going to steal the money
that they stole back from them, which is exactly has
been planned for every one of these fucking trade deals,
where he said, not only are you gonna eat eat

(01:11:05):
the fucking tariff, but you're gonna pay me a market
access charge to get my fucking money back that you
stole from my fucking people. And so you're gonna put
that money into a fucking economy, You Saudi goddamn sons
of bitches, or you fucking career, are you Korean bassadors
or you fucking you fucking French motherfuckers, And you're gonna
pay us back the money you stole from us. And

(01:11:28):
he's gonna do the same thing the private equity.

Speaker 2 (01:11:31):
Wait, wait, I want to hold on.

Speaker 1 (01:11:33):
And that's and that's the thing that everybody is missing.

Speaker 2 (01:11:37):
All Right, I'm not derailing you on this, but I wanna.
I just want to you're saying, first of all, I
wanted the focal point is the fifty years.

Speaker 1 (01:11:46):
My point is about private equity. If they have to
be a higher cost of capital for their rental properties
and their and their commercial real estate space and everything else,
they're gonna pay a higher freaking tax rate, which is
gonna put more money in the freaking conference of the
federal company. He's gonna use the tax money to subsidize
the freaking mortgages to the kids and all the ice
ages that we're signing up with seventy thousand dollars seventy

(01:12:06):
thousand a month to kick out all the H one
b's and all the and all the cartel guys, right,
and they're all going to get houses as a subsidized rate.
And then I know where it's planning. I know where
it's planning goes from there, and it's even more, it's
even more, it's even more obnoxious, and and it's it's
literally making every banker in the square mile wreak the

(01:12:28):
fuck right out.

Speaker 2 (01:12:30):
What's that?

Speaker 1 (01:12:31):
What's no, It's simple that GMAC or the MAGA or
whatever you call it, goes global and starts writing mortgages
in fucking Alberta, in fucking the Midlands, in fucking in
fucking Ireland and fucking Australia.

Speaker 2 (01:12:43):
That's stable coins, ringo, that's stable coins.

Speaker 1 (01:12:47):
All right.

Speaker 2 (01:12:48):
So so wait, I'm not I'm just trying to. I
want to. I want to put this in English to
make sure I got it right again. All right. So,
so first of all, I have ship all over the
fifty year mortgage because it's easy to do, and I
understand there are major problems with you know, the joke
basically is like you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna take
a fifteen year mortgage on my car. And these are

(01:13:09):
all good things. And it's the antithesis of a country.
And I want to say this before I before I
come on your side of the table. It's the antithesis
of a country that's de leveraging. They're basically kicking down
the road things more. Now. Now that's we all know that,
and that's the meme, and that's the joke. And I'm
with you, but that that is I mean, I'm with
them people who say that, I'm and I'm there. But

(01:13:30):
you know, if you're trying to I'm just like trying.
I'm doing an ai synopsis of what you said without
the emotion. If you're trying to rebuild your middle class,
you have to give them a fair chance. And that
would be not unlike what Roosevelt did by inventing a
thirty year mortgage. So you know, during the Great Depression

(01:13:53):
there were no mortgages. And there were I mean, I'm
not saying we didn't go crazy with home ownership, but
during the Great Depression, there were no mortgages. Nobody could
afford a home. You were poor, and so they started
the mortgage program with a one year or two year
and then they went out to five year, and then
they went out to thirty year quickly thereafter, and they
developed This is to your point about the mortgage backed

(01:14:14):
securities market being refurbished. This is not a new idea.
I mean, as cool as it is, and I'm saying
this to give you confirmation, it's not a brand new idea.
This is what Roosevelt. This is what they did. They
created a mortgage market to help there become a middle class,
to give them jobs. So back then they can afford

(01:14:38):
a Sears catalog home or in Chicago or whatever it is.
And so over time the market worked its way out
on the curve, and by the way, it worked out
pretty quickly. So during this time, during this timeframe, what happened.
Money was taken from oligarchs to support the potentially growing
middle class, and so you created home ownership, and that

(01:14:59):
was the ende of the economy. Now fast forward to today,
and believe me, I'm just thinking out loud here along
your lines. I'm being your analyst for this part of
the conversation. So today, okay, it sucks to go from
a thirty year to a fifty year. It really only
says three hundred dollars. YadA, YadA, YadA. Macro is going
to drive the price of homes up. I get that,
I get that, But if you do it in a

(01:15:20):
way where you let you simultaneously seat to the private
equity people. And by the way, this is what the
government does. We bailed you out in the great financial crisis.
Now it's your time to pay us back a little bit.
Right now, you can get into the geopolitics of it.
And so you're going to take a haircut on the
money that we've been giving you. And that haircut will
come in the fact that mortgage backed securities are going

(01:15:41):
to float publicly at at the press level. However, we
have a new generation of people that need to have
a little help your daughter, gen z and so we're
going to subsidize mortgages so they can buy fucking starter homes.
Everyone's gonna build, everyone's gonna work, everyone's going to have
a place to live in obstability.

Speaker 1 (01:16:00):
That's why here and the end here, and and here's
the thing, right there's anybody really not on a fifty
year mortgage?

Speaker 2 (01:16:08):
Oh yeah, who fucking pays off their mortgage exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:16:12):
Like you take your starter home mortgage for you have
it for ten years where you're built. This is here's
the thing. We our entire tax system that was designed
by the British to destroy our fucking country. This design
to take a maximum amount of money out of the
hands of young people as early as possible, so that
they cannot generate wealth social security. Social Security is a

(01:16:35):
fucking page. You go death tax right, twelve percent of
your income goes into a fucking thing, goes into the
worst investment of all fucking time. I did this math
the other day.

Speaker 2 (01:16:44):
You're going to do this, mathe. This is our conversation.
Wait before you do that, because that's the way to
end this. That's the way to end this, the whole
like that.

Speaker 1 (01:16:51):
Okay, wait, I'm just I know. But social Security plus
the insurance BLUs, the and plus now Obamacare raising the
car of insurance, plus education plus this, plus that, all
of this, and you and you made it such that
I had to put twenty percent down in order to
get a thirty year mortgage that wasn't a five year

(01:17:12):
balloon because that's what the banks that, that's what the
British actually want. They won us all thirty year amateurizations
with a five year adjustable rate balloon so that they
can then turn around every four years and engineer a
goddamn financial crisis where you have to refi and higher
goddamn rate. You sell me the loan at one percent
and then four years later you kick it up to
eight percent. That's what they're doing to the freaking people

(01:17:33):
in in in the UK right now. These fucking people,
they've done it one hundred times every fi the downturn
of a major city. You go back over the entire
Euro dollar system going back to nineteen seventy one, four
point seven years there is some kind of major market seizure,

(01:17:55):
long term capital management nine to eleven, this, that, this, that,
all of them. It's every four and a half fucking
and guess what they want. The banks don't want to
really lend you and unsecured. And I get why the
banks don't want to do a more than a five
year note on house. I get it. Their their term
risk sucks. I get it. But here's the thing. That's

(01:18:16):
why the government sponsored thirty year mortgage works. You pay
a little bit extra upfront, you put you pull the capital,
you pull the risk, You sell the risk off from
the mortgage backed security market to everybody who wants stable
cash flow, and everybody gets a bit a piece of
that risk over time, and you spread the risk around
and you go from three six, you go from three

(01:18:38):
nine to three banking, and in the mortgage in a
thirty year mortgage market to three six three banking, you're
three five three banking. That's the way that works. Now.
The fifty year is the signal how fucked we are
and how far out of balance wages and how and
asset prices are. We can either let asset prices and

(01:19:01):
then everybody's and then and then I'm not I'm not
you know, we're not doing gold goats and guns here,
Well we are, but I'm substituting. I'm saying substitutent gold
for gold fish because people need to fucking eat right
right where I go. If I could come up with
a G for toilet paper, like what, you know, what
would I actually be? You know what we you know, like,
at the end of the day, what's your savings? It's

(01:19:22):
not gold. Gold in that scenario is it doesn't do
any good you need but you can take bullets and cancardines.
So we don't want that. We don't want any more
societal implosion. What we want is a stabilization of society
and civilization and then build on whatever's elect And yes,
the pricing level sucks, but we can work that out.

(01:19:42):
So it's for the wealth back from the oligar class,
back to the kulos who have been fucking destroyed, and
start the process and start the recapitalization process. That's what
Trump is doing. And it's very obvious and every day
that that fucking graper motherfucker Nick Bowentes goes out there
and screams, maga is. He's full of shit and he's
a British fucking asset. Bite me, bro, fuck off. That's

(01:20:05):
what's going on. That's what we're dealing with. Hell, I'm
at the point where I want to I want to
accuse Tucker Carlson of this. That's how angry I am.
And I say all of this because this the reason
I get so fucking angry about this with the reason why,
the why I drip with vitriol with these fucking people,
especially known as TFP, is because right I don't want

(01:20:26):
my daughter to live in their fucking world anymore. I
lived through their world. You lived through the world thence
before we even were started recording this podcast today, we
stopped and had had a long conversation.

Speaker 2 (01:20:36):
About it for an hour before we started.

Speaker 3 (01:20:38):
Yeah, before we.

Speaker 1 (01:20:39):
Even started, about our freaking family histories and all the
ship that we both we both went through and basically
outlining each other's childhood PTSD to each other. News for you,
that's that's gen X's ethos. And they know goddamn well
that if you put those hard bitten motherfuckers in charge
of fixing this system, they all fucking hang from lamp
posts because we know what they did to us.

Speaker 2 (01:21:01):
This is fucking fascinating, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:21:02):
So that's my psychology, folks. I want to say, you
want to know what I've been yelling at. What I
yelled at my therapist for for four years.

Speaker 2 (01:21:09):
There you go, you're ex therapist, the one that hasn't
retrained AX therapist. You're here, your training order up there,
there's wait, wait, wait, I want to go back to
the beginning, before you know, before you took it.

Speaker 1 (01:21:21):
Yeah, I'm sorry, I just want to talk.

Speaker 2 (01:21:23):
I just want to address people from a macroeconomic point
of view. Sure, I'm going to give you the the
fifty year mortgage is the extended pretend negativity. But the
positive sign of it macroeconomically is this. Fifteen years ago,
give or take the average homeowner, the average time frame

(01:21:44):
that someone stayed in a home with seven years. Now
the average time frame of a homeowner is twelve years,
and it's going up. And that's because people, because of
their house poor or house richever you look at it,
they can't afford to move. They're staying there. And you
know what, you can mathematically justify longer term mortgages if

(01:22:08):
people are scared to move to begin with. So I
think that's really it's mathematically it's I mean, look, I
understand the extended pretend thing, but I'm I'm a I'm
a zealot on that. But by the if it's done wrong,
it becomes extended pretend. But if it's done right, if
the things that Tom thinks is gonna happen happen, then

(01:22:29):
all you're really doing is you're saying, all right, we're
doing another we're doing another post. We're in a depression
for in areas that we're not discussing publicly, And this
is a way to not extend and pretend, but to
add time because people need more time and people are
living longer, and retirement ages you will go up. But

(01:22:49):
you know what, we actually, if it's done right, it
does help the next generation, which will help our country.
One of the things that China is done right, I'm
gonna finish. One of the things that has done right
is it has nurtured a middle class. And having done that,
eventually they'll fucking kill their middle class with taxes, but

(01:23:10):
right now they're nurturing it. We've killed our middle class
at the gen X level with taxes, at the older
millennial with taxes. Now we have to grow a new crop.
And I think this is where you might be right
and and I'm gonna.

Speaker 1 (01:23:22):
I'm gonna take it one step further. Oh god, I
oh shit, Yes, No, you're you're You're right about that.
The other thing is I need people to understand and
this and it really bothers me. But you know, we're all,
we're all the people who are making these arguments about well,
it's only two hundred bucks a month. It's only this,
it's only this, it's only that. So I said to

(01:23:43):
you the other day on Twitter, as I as I
pinged you and like needled you a little bit. Right,
stop thinking about a guy who's you know, comfortable, and
has got assets and is in the is in the
high income portion of his earnings curve. You have to
think like somebody making two thousand dollars a month, right,
take home pay? Okay, two hundred dollars is everything? Right?

(01:24:06):
Two hundred dollars is an enormous amount of money. Okay.
It is the difference between eating and not eating. It's
the difference between being able to afford your health insurance
your employer offered health insurance premium, and not being able
to afford it. Now, I don't think health insurance for
twenty year olds is a smart idea. I don't think
you should pay. I think it's bad. I can, and

(01:24:29):
I can take this from experience, because I did exactly that.
It's overpaying for health insurance for my wife, who has
really bad allergies, and I spent all that time with
my dad's eth those of having the safety nets in
place for her right and to prove to her that
I care. That was a mistake. It was bad. Fiscal
management should have taken that money and stuffed it in

(01:24:50):
a fucking you know, stuffed it in an ira and
let it grow. And I would have, and I wouldn't
have that problem today. I won't have short today. But
what I'm getting at is that money you have to
get as much cash flow off the table as possible.
And think about what Polty just put out this week.
We can explore portable mortgages that you can take the

(01:25:11):
terms of your mortgage. If it's an FAHA mortgage and
you're going from one FAHA mortgage to another FAJA mortgage,
it's a different a different fucking property. You can take
your term with you. So when you start, when you
trade up from the starter home to the to the higher,
the bigger home, because you've got three, mortgage goes with you, right,
and your mortgage goes with you. And we readjust the

(01:25:31):
terms based on the selling price of the house and
everything else, but the terms go with you, right if
it's there to your advantage. And that you think about, well,
think this is two things. And then again, we don't
want people moving. We want people in stable jobs, building
stable communities. We're all deracinated. Okay, So who what is

(01:25:53):
the British Empires or the remnant of the British Empires.
Real fucking superpower the ability to manipulate the cost of
money through currency arbitrage and and bond market manipulation. If
you put people on a fifty year fixed note that's portable,
you can't fuck.

Speaker 2 (01:26:10):
Them, right, Well, that's your define it right, And you're
using a fifty year mortgage that's locked in. There's no
financialization other.

Speaker 1 (01:26:17):
You have now, you have now given people stable cash flow.
You've given the insurance companies stable cash flow. And this
is why they don't need they don't need the credit
agency model to decide on how they're going to fuck
you on the rate they're going to asset ties. You're
gonna be able to bring your proper assets to the
table when the day they turn around and say you,

(01:26:38):
I have never been able to use my gold and
silver assets as a as a negotiating to one a
leverage point with a with a debt with a debt
issue ever, And I've had and I've and I've been
gold rich and cash poor since two thousand and fucking seven, folks.

Speaker 2 (01:26:55):
And if able to do that now, and if you
were Chinese, you'll be able to do that now, same idea.

Speaker 1 (01:27:00):
Right, yeah, same thing. So Besson's talking about bitcoin because
he wants to use bitcoin as the collateral by which
he wants to unlock all that collateral that he wants
to unlock that and give that and use You can
use that as I mean, and the same thing is,
God Frank has destroyed our ability as small business owners
to use our cash flow and our profit margins as

(01:27:21):
a basis by which to get a fucking loan. I've
just literally signed the closing papers yesterday with Well's goddamn Fargo,
who fucking treated me like a goddamned criminal for four
months in underwriting because I did a little tax I
Did you know? I I have a structure's design to
avoid paying seventy thousand dollars a year in fucking taxes.

(01:27:45):
And that was designed by the fucking British in God Frank,
after the goddamn great great financial crisis that they fucking
engineered to nationalize the mortgage market. Fuck it up, put
it in the goddamn conservatorship, walk it away, and pay
for Obamacare. Fuck these people. It's bullshit. All this needs
to end, every goddamn bit of it. And that's why

(01:28:05):
they shut the government down for no reason for forty days.
They got exactly what they wanted. They extended and pretended
they're bullshit system for another forty days to try and
get Trump into the new year so that they can
steal the freaking country during the mid terms, Impeacham and
put us all in fucking jail and continue liquidating the
Coulox like they're doing right now in Ireland, the UK,

(01:28:28):
Canada and Australia. The rest of the Commonwealth is getting liquidated, folks.
It's right in front of your eyes. And I'm like, no,
absolutely not, no, we beat these people here, or we
all go gently into that good night. And everybody who's
telling me that it's not the goddamn British, fuck you,

(01:28:49):
you're wrong, gone over it. I don't care. I don't
even care if I'm right wholly about this, and then
it's bigger than that great fine. I don't give a shit.
No one wants to believe that I'm right about this,
So therefore I'm gonna keep pounding it through your fucking
goddamn stupid pie holes until you get it through your
freaking head, and then we can start talking nuanced. Then

(01:29:09):
we can start talking about you know, how much of
it is the gut or how much of it is
the French, or how much is the Jews or how
much is the Venetians? Or then we get out of
that conversation. But until you, like deal with the eight
hundred pound gorilla in the room and in the square mile,
you're not having a conversation about this stuff. Sorry, Vince,
I had to like that, let that out, because this
is necessary. This is our messaging for twenty twenty six.

(01:29:33):
We have to have you have to be on point
about the messaging because this is the only way we
get out of this. It's so very important. It starts
you talked about on Thursday on the other day with
again the inciting incident, how to create a bond market
that's collateralized with gold that cuts these people out. And
then but this is the end game of that. This

(01:29:55):
is how we create a stable system that recapitalizes the kulaps,
which were you and me or kid?

Speaker 2 (01:30:04):
No, no, no, no, you know it's funny you said
the only thing, the only thing original that I wanted
to pop into my head was when you said him,
When you said, uh, oh fuck if we It made
me think of something. If the right hand side of
the aisle, call it conservative, call it republican, does what

(01:30:25):
needs to be done, whether it be leftist or rightist,
meaning what uh an fdr did uh to to stabilize
the middle class, to grow the middle class, and you
help these people meeting the kids economically, you really undermine
the whole progressive comedy left that is uh that captures

(01:30:46):
the imagination of kids and makes him think mom dom
Me's a hero when all he really is is to
cry baby. He doesn't want to do anything about it,
and he's kind of like the modern Al Sharpton, you know,
and monetizes it. And if we were to do something
like economically for these kids, gen Z would grow up
to be fucking normal economically.

Speaker 1 (01:31:05):
Yes, they're being asked to choose between the false divide
of Dommi's style communism or for when they style fascism.
That's what they're talking, that's what they're accelerationism. That is
the fault, that's the if not. If you're not for
mom Domi, then you have to be for this guy
and everybody in the middle. No, we can't have that.

(01:31:25):
They shot the guy in the middle. They killed him
alive on national Television's name is Charlie Kirk right, I
don't care who who Tyler Robinson was working for or
this or that, anything else they set that. It doesn't
matter if it was stochastic or directed. But Charlie Kirk
getting shot was the was was the the incident that was,

(01:31:47):
That was the image system that they needed to let
us know that we're not supposed to have any hope.

Speaker 2 (01:31:52):
Whoever, right for whatever, right even backing off that, but
agreed with it, even if they didn't literally plan to
kill him. Uh, they didn't sell and they didn't sell
the murder up the river, but they handed him the
gun to do it exactly. They handed him the ore.

(01:32:13):
They they gave him the boat for free, something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:32:15):
You know, absolutely absolutely, it's you create the you create
the zety and then you just wait and then you
just wait for the thing to happen.

Speaker 2 (01:32:24):
Well, the show you don't have.

Speaker 1 (01:32:25):
It doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be
you know, it doesn't have to be a movie script, folks.
It can just be chaos, right, and then you capitalize
on the chaos when the chaos happens next. Wright will
be very very glad to hear me actually make this argument,
even though I'm not even sure I believe it, but
I'm willing to make the argument, well, no, because that's
what that's that's because that's he's like, because he tells

(01:32:49):
me that I spent too much time doing direct correlation
and making a good storyteller. So therefore I can graft
grab story beats. And sometimes it's not it's sorry. Sometimes
it's the ship just happened. So history still is just
a bunch.

Speaker 2 (01:33:03):
Of shit that happen. So I'm with Dexter on this.

Speaker 1 (01:33:05):
And here here's that's funny, and and that's that's fun
I'm willing to I'm willing to go. But that's why
that's why we talk like, well, the other thing is
I'm willing to entertain both sides of it. And and
you know, we'll let we'll let it play out and
then we'll see where we wind up. And and at
the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. What
matters is once you understand the actual framework of what's happening,

(01:33:29):
now you can start mapping who works for who by
how they act when these things occur. That's why Marjorie
Taylor Green is crashing out. That's why Canvas Owns is
crashing out. That's why this one's crashing out. That's why
that's happening. That's why they're attacking this.

Speaker 2 (01:33:42):
Who the next flavor will be after that? You know
what I mean?

Speaker 1 (01:33:45):
Like and you know, and I'm watching it all play out,
and it's like, okay, folks, you're you're, you're, you're you're
not because you don't get it. And and it's why
it's important, Vince that you and I are two halves
of the same brain in this respect.

Speaker 2 (01:33:59):
Right right, No, No, no, it's it's you know, the
the you know, the opportunity in chaos thing is why
I focused on what you said because the Chinese character
for mistake, I'm gonna say this mistakenly, the Chinese character
for chaos is the Chinese character for opportunity. Now, the
truth of it is it's the same character. So so

(01:34:22):
what that character really means is from chaos comes opportunity.
That's what that character means. And so I guess I'm
taking the Dexter side on this, and that is I
don't think and you know, I'm gonna be I'm gonna
be the dialectic synthesis between you and Dexter on this.
I don't think that they have a plan from A
to B, from A from A to Z. But they

(01:34:44):
have a path, but they have they know what they
want to do if there's ever a crisis and ever
at any juncture.

Speaker 1 (01:34:52):
You know, and off the shelf and execute exactly exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:34:56):
So so like for example, economically in the US, is like, well,
we need to have people stop treasuries. How are we
going to do that? Well, that's cut bilateral deals. Let's
plan A. Let's plan B. Let's let's add stable coins.
We can always nuke him if we have to plan c's,
well throw a little gold in there, like these are
all the bands. Oh and and if and if the
president or some important political figure dies, what do we do, Well,

(01:35:17):
that'll be a chaotic moment. We can insert this. Yeah,
it's it's cash from I.

Speaker 1 (01:35:23):
Know, I agree. I think a lot of it is that.
But I do fundamentally believe this is part of the
reason why, one of the reasons why I was so
very good in my former life as a chemist and
as a researcher and as a as a thing. I'm
a root cause analysis kind of guy, right, meaning I
can look at all the confounding variables and I go,
that's the one that's the that's the biggest problem. We

(01:35:44):
need to fix that. We fix that, we fix these things.

Speaker 2 (01:35:46):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:35:47):
I'm getting at is that my superpower, if I have one,
is to go where there is direction, is by taking
all of the chaos and distilling it down to in
this system, because when you deal with you know, with
real chemistry, there's I I've told the story a thousand times.

(01:36:08):
At one point when I was when I was working
on the Nickel Boron project, I literally mapped out every
potential reaction and side reaction on an eight y four
whiteboard with the Gibbs Free Energy equipt with the Gibbs
Free Energy numbers for every one of these reactions, and
like forty of them. And I had a board and
I and I got done with it. My boss walked
in that day and he just loved shit like this,

(01:36:30):
and he was like pulled out his phone and took
a picture of it and like, because you're gonna He's like,
because you're gonna wipe that, You're gonna you know, you're
gonna get rid of that one day. I'm like, but
at the end of the day, being able to look
at all that chaos and go But that is the
thing that's driving all of this and why because this, this,
and this and so it it's both simplification of chaos

(01:36:54):
of a chaotic dynamic system and an acknowledgment that a
lot of this is still so beyond their control. That's
why I like to call it a gant chart on
Microsoft project file, because you can move ship around in
the gap chart, but the basic, the basic events.

Speaker 2 (01:37:10):
Can still be And that's funny. It's funny because your
your I as see you're talking you talking about the
what what's what's the good? Uh? Not proximate cause? Would
you call it? The word cause was in your title?

Speaker 1 (01:37:22):
Uh, the the causality or causation, correlation and causes like.

Speaker 2 (01:37:26):
Anti No, it was like antecedent cause or core cause
or something like that. The yeah, but but I get it,
like when it comes to you can boil it down
to the this is where the heat is applied. That's
your endothermic reaction, you know, like this is where it
goes right here. For me, it's a conditional probability. So
for example, we talk about we talk about it's basing

(01:37:48):
in probabilities, right, we talk about uh, like you'll say,
I not You'll say, but I'll just say what I said.
I say that there are multiple paths, infinite paths from
here to there, and they all want to get to there,
and that's their intention. That's the quiboo part that you
talk about. And then at every node there's going to

(01:38:08):
be a decision, and there's always the chaotic node. But
here's the thing, here's here's why it becomes easier if
you get it right in the beginning. Eventually the conditional
probabilities narrow and you have coming out the other end,
you have less paths. So it's the end game. In chess,
you can really only do two things. You can either
move left or move right, or lose. If it's like

(01:38:29):
a king versus another kick and queen.

Speaker 1 (01:38:31):
So and what they what they really love is permanent
mid game.

Speaker 2 (01:38:36):
Yeah, perfect mid game.

Speaker 1 (01:38:37):
They like permanent mid game. Where and and Trump in
his way is it keeps going out there and going no, no, no,
we're moving an endgame. No no, no, we're getting I've
been saying this for a long time now. I used to.
I used to. Chess is a great example of permanent
mid game, where you tie the board up like this,
you wait to go.

Speaker 2 (01:38:54):
Hold on, let me just throw us in there. Do
you know what the English opening is called why it's
called the English opening? No, the English opening is it
looks like the Sicilian.

Speaker 1 (01:39:03):
You've got the I don't know anything about chess too,
so okay, so.

Speaker 2 (01:39:07):
I think let me just describe what the English opening does,
because then you can go back into what you're saying.
The English opening is a version of a chess opening
that has an incredibly slow opening, an incredibly cluttered board
that has a chaotic that's the word, A chaotic mid
game that never ends. I'm serious.

Speaker 1 (01:39:31):
Yea, no, that is literally the British mindset.

Speaker 2 (01:39:33):
I want to know chess. That's the English opening.

Speaker 1 (01:39:35):
Yeah, no, it's funny. I never played chess, but I
used to play a game to play, a collectible card
game called Chatterfist. And what we were and when we
played Chatti Fist, we had five people at the table
and you had to know you had all these basing
and probability fields and what his decision space was with
his and your goal was to win on your turn.
And if you couldn't win, and if you did your
you did your math looking at your cards and looking
at the the board, say you're like, okay, I can't

(01:39:57):
win this turn, but I have to now prevent everybody
else and winning so they can get back to my turn,
so they can get draw a new hand to cards,
and I can try and win again. And if you played,
if everybody played with that impulse, you wound up with
this game that pushed right the mid game and then
stayed there in this beautiful kind of temporary five player

(01:40:19):
millange of of tension. And you know, I just I
described that. I loved that. I absolutely adore the puzzle
that that represented. And I would explain that and would
say that to some of my other gaming friends who
were much more linear, and they're like, oh my god,
that sounds like torture. I'm like, no, it was gorgeous
because you you could step back and go, damn, that

(01:40:42):
was a great play. Yeah, that was a really great play.
And then I'm observing the system. I'm observing the system.
He wanted all he wanted to do was win, and
he just wanted it over and done with it. He
couldn't win that game, then let's move on to the
next one.

Speaker 2 (01:40:54):
It was a sociological experiment for you.

Speaker 1 (01:40:56):
Oh yeah, no, absolutely yeah. And that's why I had
a That's why at a five player level, I had
a sixty percent win Ray when I should have had
a twenty percent of win Ray right, right. But I
knew my I knew my I knew my opponents, I
knew what they were playing, I knew the I knew everything.
And then I knew how to twist the knife and

(01:41:16):
I could. I could literally like.

Speaker 2 (01:41:18):
Once you fed up their motivations with the quiboto thing, right.

Speaker 1 (01:41:21):
And once I and in that game because you get
attack anywhere you wanted. Really you're like, I'm going to
do that, and I knew I made the right move.
When everybody around the table went damn it. It hurt
everything because everybody.

Speaker 3 (01:41:37):
Was like, now what do we do?

Speaker 1 (01:41:39):
And he's like you, how did you do? How did
you know? Of course I knew what to do, As
some of it is, you learn through repetition. You make mistakes,
you try things, they don't work, You bluff, you do this,
you do that.

Speaker 2 (01:41:50):
But it's the approach of boiling it down. You look,
it's like a ven diagram, the what you call it again,
I keep coming back to that phrase.

Speaker 1 (01:41:56):
That basic probability feels it really is no.

Speaker 2 (01:41:59):
But I mean that's that's my words. Your words were.

Speaker 1 (01:42:01):
Decisions orient it's and it's also activation energy and and
it was like you have to think about what, you know,
what there, what's their path the victory, what's their path
the victory? What are they used to do? What assets
do they have in play? And this is how we
analyze geopolitics and this is how we add and honestly,

(01:42:22):
you can do the same thing with markets. But you
know you do that because you understand. You do a
lot of that because you're but you do it from
the plumbing perspective. You do it from the traders perspective.
I don't. I don't.

Speaker 2 (01:42:32):
I do it from the plumbing of geopolitics. That's what
it is. It's the plumbing of geopolitics.

Speaker 1 (01:42:38):
Yeah, so I mean I when I'm you know, what
we've gotten to in this in this podcast is that
you can understand. I think that the point of this
is that the table is set to pull us out
of this messy mid game, and we are. And what
you're seeing is that Trump is trying to push absolutely
towards endgame, and the British and the old Anglo Dutch

(01:42:58):
British whatever you want to call, are trying to push us,
to keep pushing us back into a mid game that
they have already lost because it's not a two player game, right,
no matter what happens here, if you look at this
as a four player game, right, the way I look
at it is three of the players at the table
have decided they can't win, right, and it doesn't matter

(01:43:21):
who actually wins this the game. But if we take
them out, it's now a three player game, and.

Speaker 2 (01:43:27):
We've engage even engagement ship. It just works that way
because everyone's going to shoot on the guy. York's got
to play defensive game, which means to make sure the
war never ends.

Speaker 1 (01:43:37):
Yes, yes, so this is like risk and you're you know,
you've got you know, they've got you know, they've got
a beachhead into.

Speaker 2 (01:43:45):
Maybe people, let's keep playing the game?

Speaker 1 (01:43:47):
Yeah, how can we how how can we keep doing?
How can we keep playing? And and you know we're
saying that's enough. And here's the thing about here's the
thing they could have. And I do firmly believe that
Trump went and accepted the second state visit to the King,

(01:44:09):
which was a big, big deal. But then that fucking
tracksuit midget Zelenski's met with the game three times, right, right,
that Trump went there and said, look, these are the
terms of surrender, and we can live happily ever after. Right,
and either the king, my friend and burling Game would

(01:44:29):
say the King accepted, but he's in no position to
actually enforce it. That may be his you know, generous
read as a as a royalist. That's fine. My other
the non generous read was Trump was rejected. Nope, We're
gonna fight it all the way out to the end.
And now it's like a game of go between a
master and an apprentice. The master has offered the apprentice

(01:44:51):
the face saving move of saying, we've put twenty sons
on the board. You're gonna take this. I'm gonna take this.
You're gonna take this. I'm gonna win by seven. Shall
we play again? And then said no. And then the
apprentice winds up fighting it all the way out and
losing by thirty. Right, you're gonna get a better deal
today if you if you keep fighting, it's gonna be
a worse deal tomorrow. It's gonna be a worse deal tomorrow.

(01:45:11):
It's gonna be a worst deal tomorrow. That's what I
think is happening. And your insight into the structure of
the bond of the bond or what we started with.
What we started with is the is the lynch pin
to understanding how that deal keeps getting worse for Europe.
That is why, that's why I was so hot to
do this podcast today, I.

Speaker 2 (01:45:33):
Know, I mean, we had a lot of fun doing
the economic net. I mean, I'm gonna sit inside the
king's point of view for a second here. The economic
net is closing around him with all the reasons we're discussing.
So all he can do is buide for time and
hope that Trump's popularity drops enough that he becomes less potent,

(01:45:54):
and hope for the next president.

Speaker 1 (01:45:57):
And yeah, that's that's that's their main that's their extended
to pretend game and then at the same time burn
down all the rest of the Commonwealth so it's not
worth taking over. It's literally they're like literally burning Canada
to the ground. They're burning England to the ground, They're
burning Ireland to the ground, They're burning Australia to the ground.
And they're saying where you we you cannot. If you

(01:46:19):
you want to win this war, fine you will get
nothing in the like.

Speaker 2 (01:46:23):
Scorched earth is what you say, or scorched or negligent
earth scorched negligence.

Speaker 1 (01:46:29):
Think about think about the the British Columbian Court ruling
that gives aboriginal title over the simple title in Canada,
Like they're going to steal the land of all these
British cort.

Speaker 2 (01:46:39):
They're tripling down on on wocism right now. Yes, yeah, ideology,
they're ideologically trip tripling down.

Speaker 1 (01:46:45):
Yep, absolutely, yep, Nope, that's you are you are exactly correct.

Speaker 2 (01:46:53):
It's true, right all right.

Speaker 1 (01:46:55):
I think we I think we've probably covered it all
because I've had I've had cathartic rant that like.

Speaker 2 (01:47:01):
You know, I don't think these rants are cathartic, tub.
I don't think when we when we get done them,
you and I go to our neutral quarters and say, oh,
was it good for you? No, it's more like I
go to my neutral corner and say and say it's
someone I need to punch in the face now, you know. Yeah,
where you called Wells Fargo and say, listen, you fuckers,

(01:47:22):
get my fucking paperwork in order. Anyway, they should be
your sponsored to Wells Fargo. After this this was fun.
Thank you for having me on.

Speaker 1 (01:47:30):
Absolutely, man, this has been a blast, and we will
do it again of course as always. Thank you man.
All right, So he's he's soaring the k on Twitter
and vbl's goalticks on substack as well as on TfL
seventeen twenty eight on Twitter, and gold Goats and Guns
on Patreon. You guys know the Drill be Well talks.

Speaker 2 (01:47:48):
In you're supposed to say something about the pockey puck thing, right.

Speaker 3 (01:47:51):
Get your stick on the ice, Compia

Speaker 2 (01:48:12):
Time

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

.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 #238 -- Vince Lanci and the New Triange Trade in Gold

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Episode #238 -- Vince Lanci and the New Triange Trade in Gold

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang